Which portion of the results do you contest, specifically?
Which portion of the results do you contest, specifically?
So many reviews and analysis later, its quite clear that his wasn't what some (or even many) where expecting, perhaps not AMDs fault, but people around the internet thinking it would be anything close to DLSS which it aint. Its a substitute for TAAU where that tech isnt implemented into engines.
DegustatoR
Veteran
The one where they manage to not see any difference between FSR and native in Godfall and Riftbreaker for example.
the purpose is to show image quality differences - you lock the framerate so that the frame sample is the exact same time step.
I can't know what you are exactly referring to without exact timestamps, so that there are no misunderstandings.
Will there be a performance oriented analysis from DF?
Image quality acceptance depends on the gains and in which hardware those gains are being gained. No one really cares that a 6900XT or an RTX3090 jumps from 50 to 70fps on 4K with ultra quality, but a jump from 25 to 60fps in performance mode matters more than the image quality for an iGPU.
What do you mean?
Of all I've seen, DF is alone in their conclusions. They're the odd ones out, not HUB.
DegustatoR
Veteran
It was Anno not Riftbreaker, sorry. But the difference in Anno is even more apparent than in Riftbreaker so that's an even weirder take.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2277-amd-fsr-analysis-benchmark/
All reviews but HUB have managed to see and say something about the difference between native and FSR.
Timestamp?
Nowhere does it say you can't spot the difference. But I'll be damned if the difference is great enough to not warrant the "similar" adjective they used.
This review should satisfy you as they use an ASUS ROG Strix G15 Advantage Edition, which features an AMD Radeon RX 6800M graphics card.
I know where the performance is. My question was to know if DF had plans in investigating the other side of the coin.
DegustatoR
Veteran
Similar means that you can't spot the difference. And they've even zoomed in apparently. Feel free to argue semantics without me.
Well Digital Foundry tend to focus on the image quality and technical aspects of gaming rather than performance. Which is fine, there are many different outlets for reviews that vary a lot in their focus.
The first quote you brought literally says "if you don't zoom in".
IF
Not that they didn't.
There is no arguing semantics here, it doesn't get clearer unless you're being intentionally obtuse.
I'm not sure I understand this, the only side of the coin you should be measuring is the image quality.
1660p vs 4K Ultra FSR; 1660p will have a better frame time. You only now need to compare the image quality.
540p vs 1080p FSR Performance: once again, 540p will have better frame times, you now only need to compare the image quality.
You only need to compare the base resolution that FSR uses to upscale from vs FSR. The frame time will be impacted by FSR, the user will need to decide based on the image quality if it's worth it.
Vs a bilinear upscale, it appears to make sense. But there are other upsampling methods FSR will compete against and they may produce better image quality and have fairly identical performance metrics.
DegustatoR
Veteran
I see the differences clearly without zooming in. Zooming in highlights them making them impossible to miss. If or not.
Those who write such things are being intentionally obtuse. Which is exactly why I don't consider HUB a reliable source anymore.
FSR doesn't exist to downgrade quality. It exists to increase performance at the cost of quality.
...I'm not sure what is going on with the interpretation of my question.
GamersNexus: "Ultra quality looks close enough to native 4K that the difference might not be immediately obvious"
LTT: "Compared to native, Ultra looks nearly indistinguishable"
TPU: "I'd say FSR Ultra Quality is "almost native", even FSR Quality is good enough not to notice much of a difference during actual gameplay."
Hothardware: "Without blowing the image up to 2x to find all the hard edges, or swapping back and forth between images, we're actually quite hard-pressed to find glaring differences. The stairs are a little more blurry, and perhaps there's not quite as much detail in the character's hair, but in motion it's basically indistinguishable."
You've made your mind about HUB before even reading their piece.
You're looking at it backwards I think. FSR takes an image from a base resolution and scales it upwards to a target resolution. It is not doing this in the reverse. So there is no performance gain at the cost of quality. The algorithms eat performance to increase quality, in this case, the quality is to sample the lower resolution and extract detail for a higher resolution.
The base resolution for 4K ultra is 1660p. You if you want to look at performance numbers, you compare 1660p vs 4K FSR Ultra in terms of it's image quality. ie what image quality is gained by losing some performance and to use FSR to bring the image to 4K
If you compare 4K Native vs 4K FSR and ignore image quality, then you are missing the point of what FSR is trying to achieve.
