People think machine learning is panacea for everything I guess.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
DF: AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution FSR Review: Big FPS Boosts, But Image Quality Takes A Hit
- Thread starter Equanimity
- Start date
Image detail is extraordinarily contextual, which is precisely why ML is by far the best approach for generating it.
You say super resolution can be achieved by a concrete mathematical model, but to me that sounds like trying to program artificial intelligence using a bunch of if/else statements.
DLSS doesn't "introduce" them, they are there with TAA already. DLSS just makes them more apparent since the native res becomes lower. And DLSS fights some of them rather well too so in the end you can't say that it introduces more than what TAA has already.
Yeah. When you compare static scenes these aren't present and TAA can accumulate data pretty accurately. Once you move the camera the whole image is being blurred by a number of factors - and that makes it closer to an upscaled one. It's true for all upscaling techniques really.
To me they are.
Well, that's on them then. But I do wonder if that's more about AA than upscaling. DLSS is both.
DLSS 2x is supersampling on native res. You can have it by running into DSR resolution with DLSS reconstructing from native res of your monitor. And it obviously will be "better than native" but that's not about upscaling from lower res really.
Yes, it is. I don't know why you think that it isn't when the ending goal is clearly the same. Method doesn't matter.
The expectations are set by the market.
You can't say that the expectations for some product should be different just because.
This product comes to market which already have expectations.
If it's not able to reach them then it's a bad product.
This is the point where everyone comparing FSR to DLSS1 and things like bilinear upscaling is doing it completely wrong.
The market doesn't care about these old technologies, it has long moved on since then.
TAAU, CBR, DLSS - this is what FSR must be compared to now if you want to get a clear picture on where it lands among other alternatives.
The point is that they've been using the 64x supersampling references since the beginning (this is not possible to do on real-time hardware without machine learning). It has always been the goal and continues to be the goal, or as they call it, "the gold standard." The DNNs are trained using the 64x supersampled references, and then are weighted based on how close they get to those references. From there, they determine the quality modes that you currently see in games. And no, DLSS on native does not currently compare in quality to the 64x supersampled references they're using to train the DNNs. And a supersampled image at native still works on the same basic principle using machine learning for detail at higher resolutions, except in the case of native res input, you're getting the downsampled quality you would normally get from rendering at a higher resolution before downsampling.
The point is that this is about AI training for NVIDIA. DLSS is just a use case.
I don't know how else to explain to you that NVIDIA is focused on machine learning and AMD is not. The method does matter because one has the ability to offer value that the other does not.
It's not just because. If different companies are providing technologies that do different things, the expectations for each technology should be different. I don't know how else to make that clear.
I didn't say that, but what I will say is that machine learning makes the most sense for situations where brute force is not feasible and you need algorithms that can perform sophisticated analyses of inputs in order to produce outputs comparable to brute force results. It is quite literally a perfect fit for something like learning how to add pixel detail, especially when we are talking about quality that will eventually rival pre-rendered CG image quality. There is no hope in achieving that solely with a spatial (or even temporal) solution.
Yes, you get it. Thank you.
Last edited:
FSR @ Ultra Quality 4K it's objectively and noticeably better than DLSS 1.0 and doesn't suffer of typical TAAU ghosting in motion, therefore could be a preferable solution especially on consoles where a consistent 30-40% of performance increase when using it could mean a lot there, especially with RT added to the equation.
Methinks most devs skipped over spatial upscaling for a reason and moved onto temporal. Probably more to gain there
And comparisons to DLSS 1.0 doesn't make any sense to me. Shit's dead. Yea it was bad, but that's not FSR's competition
Does Sony at least share it with their internal teams or is it proprietary to Insomniac for the time being? Also could be the case other 1st party devs using their own engine and can't use it?
FSR is not an anti-aliasing or an image reconstruction technique. It requires the game to have anti-aliasing to look right enough - and most games will have TAA. an Image with FSR can and will ghost in a game with TAA.
Sure, but wouldn't a base resolution of 1662p upscaled to 4K (via FSR in Ultra Quality) be enough sharp without AA?
That's what I've seen in many FSR footage in 4K out there at least: a really crisp and "close-to-native" 4K IQ with no ghosting at all and still a 30-40% performance increase on average, without exactly knowing what's happening in the background tho.
Ultimately FSR in Ultra Quality (1662p->4K) looks and sounds good to me for now, but probably won't be good enough for 1080p to 4K upscale for future next-gen / resource heavy titles?
In motion it's bad IMO. I can't stand dealing with ghosting and other artefacts of this scale.
The whole draw to DLSS is being able to render at a lower resolution but reconstruct with often superior IQ to native resolution render, far superior performance, and minimal artefacts.
FSR is not achieving that, or seemingly attempting to either. To me, FSR is a thing I'd be happier to use on a small screen like a portable device where the IQ loss is not as significant... but the ghosting and artefacts..
For the same performance hit, TAA is the better option. So I have no idea where FSR fits as a solution beyond the example DF mention, which seems very specific
You'd think so, but for some reason Naughty Dog used a native 1440p resolution for both Uncharted 4 and The Last of Us 2 without checkerboarding or the Insomniac tech. It kinda shows, cause their games on PS4 look great but kinda soft compared to other Sony 1st party titles.
Sharp enough without AA? What exactly do you think TAA does specifically? I feel like the only way you can avoid using TAA is if you downsample from very high resolutions, which is of course the opposite of upscaling.
So like TAAU? From the comparison I've seen TAAU looks better than FSR so I'm not really sure why you'd want FSR over TAAU? If you can't notice any ghosting/temporal artifacts with just regular TAA then you wouldn't notice it on TAAU either.
Most AAA console devs are probably going to stick with TAAU, CBR or their own solution. On PC we'll have to wait and see.
Do you think the tech is promising for something like the Series S?
I don't believe so, after PS4 Pro it seems like most first party studios were using checkerboard which makes sense because it was Mark Cerny's vision of a reconstruction technique. It seems like Temporal injection is mostly proprietary to Insomniac, idk if they've made efforts to share it though. I think in the same way AMD is trying to spread FSR, Sony should just work with Insomniac to make temporal injection available to all PS5 developers, would really give them a leg up vs Microsoft who seems to be settling with AMD's solution.
FSR is AMD's marketing solution to DLSS. Way better to point people to a trademarked phrase than to tell them to mess with their TAA settings.
I guarantee that from now on FSR will be invoked every time someone brings up DLSS during an Nvidia vs AMD argument. TAA reconstruction has been here the entire time, but it's harder to use in technology list wars.
I guarantee that from now on FSR will be invoked every time someone brings up DLSS during an Nvidia vs AMD argument. TAA reconstruction has been here the entire time, but it's harder to use in technology list wars.
FSR happens after the image is anti-aliased. for some bigger games, you might not be able to turn AA completely off, especially if it relies on temporal components to resolve shader effects
Yikes, yeah not really impressed with what we're seeing here with FSR. It seems similar to the scaling features you get in higher-end televisions that do some edge detection to reduce blurring along sharp edges. TAA seems like a better general-purpose solution, and I agree with the video - I don't think FSR is really even comparable to DLSS.
It needs edge gradients created by AA to detect edges properly.
Bit like MLAA/FXAA needs image without AA, to fit edge and then create AA gradient.
This was never used for upscaling, that training was for spatial ML based AA.
You're confusing different things here (and Nv didn't do a good enough job at explaining them really) and forgetting that DLSS is both an image reconstruction tech and an antialiasing tech. FSR is just reconstruction.
Thus what Nv claimed for DLSS may not be applicable to FSR at all - and AMD should know better when claiming "near native" quality for a spatial upscaler really.
1. It doesn't matter at all what it is for Nvidia.
2. It doesn't matter to the users that it's AI training or something sent from Proxima Centauri.
3. DLSS is a product which exists for very specific purpose and is not "a use case".
That purpose is the same between DLSS and FSR.
It doesn't matter which method you are using. CBR and TAAU are two completely different methods both of which are aimed at solving the same problem. DLSS and FSR are also two completely different methods which solve the same problem.
Consumers don't care about technologies and base their expectations on experiences.
DLSS1 was ripped to shreds and nobody cared that it was an AI based reconstruction tech.
And there are zero reasons why anyone should care that FSR isn't an AI based tech.
Comparing it to what is in general use right now is a proper way of reviewing it, without any points given to differences in methods.
That's also my point and, as stated, FSR Ultra Quality in 4K looks good both in still and in-motion comparisons to me, therefore having 30-40% boost in performance compared to Native with that IQ is a pretty good start for AMD as a baseline to improve upon in future FSR iterations.
This FSR/DLSS thing has got to be a low point in GPU fanboy relations. Fanboy statements are often understandable on some level i.e "who cares if the GTX 970 is a 3.5GB + 0.5GB card if it still has good performance" or "10GB of VRAM has me feeling anxious about late-gen games compared to the 16GB 6800XT", but with the FRS launch I'm hearing nothing but garbage.
Mind boggling takes like "Nvidia shouldn't have designed DLSS to use hardware accelerated machine learning if it meant AMD couldn't use it". Do they even know what DLSS stands for? The tensor core AI work is the reason it currently works as well as it does. Why wouldn't Nvidia use the stuff they've invented to gain an advantage?
Or that DF are shills because they actually did a relevant critical analysis instead of toggling it on and going "wow look at the FPS". Other review outlets are like automotive journalists who praise a fully loaded press car without mentioning what else is available in the price range. Sure this product works, but what about my other options? I'm eagerly anticipating the first FRS vs DLSS head to head.
Mind boggling takes like "Nvidia shouldn't have designed DLSS to use hardware accelerated machine learning if it meant AMD couldn't use it". Do they even know what DLSS stands for? The tensor core AI work is the reason it currently works as well as it does. Why wouldn't Nvidia use the stuff they've invented to gain an advantage?
Or that DF are shills because they actually did a relevant critical analysis instead of toggling it on and going "wow look at the FPS". Other review outlets are like automotive journalists who praise a fully loaded press car without mentioning what else is available in the price range. Sure this product works, but what about my other options? I'm eagerly anticipating the first FRS vs DLSS head to head.
dgrdsv
If you are going to continue to deny or obfuscate facts after evidence has already been presented to you (and even go as far as to suggest that a technology company is mistaken about how their own technology works) I don't think there can be any meaningful progress made in this conversation.
I won't bother wasting anymore of my time on it.
EDIT:
And to be clear, based on our conversation, you don't seem to understand how back propagation works. While it is true that DLSS 2.0 added temporal accumulation to improve results, the reference targets are still 64xSS images (they're just not game-specific anymore). The point of using the reference targets is not just about AA, it's about providing an ideal result for AI to work towards resolving. It has a long way to go still in getting there when the input isn't native 4k, but it allows the researchers to adjust weights based on how well it did. This is called back propagation and applies regardless of whether or not temporally accumulated data is being used or not.
And when we're talking about high quality super sampling, the AA comes from rendering at a higher resolution and then downsampling. The goal of DLSS 2X is to mimic that quality. You can't call it only an AA solution when it has to use a higher resolution to get to that AA solution.
And finally, when one technology adds pixel detail and another upscales pixel detail, they're not solving the same problem with different solutions, they're solving different problems.
With all of that out of the way, I'm done with the conversation.
If you are going to continue to deny or obfuscate facts after evidence has already been presented to you (and even go as far as to suggest that a technology company is mistaken about how their own technology works) I don't think there can be any meaningful progress made in this conversation.
I won't bother wasting anymore of my time on it.
EDIT:
And to be clear, based on our conversation, you don't seem to understand how back propagation works. While it is true that DLSS 2.0 added temporal accumulation to improve results, the reference targets are still 64xSS images (they're just not game-specific anymore). The point of using the reference targets is not just about AA, it's about providing an ideal result for AI to work towards resolving. It has a long way to go still in getting there when the input isn't native 4k, but it allows the researchers to adjust weights based on how well it did. This is called back propagation and applies regardless of whether or not temporally accumulated data is being used or not.
And when we're talking about high quality super sampling, the AA comes from rendering at a higher resolution and then downsampling. The goal of DLSS 2X is to mimic that quality. You can't call it only an AA solution when it has to use a higher resolution to get to that AA solution.
And finally, when one technology adds pixel detail and another upscales pixel detail, they're not solving the same problem with different solutions, they're solving different problems.
With all of that out of the way, I'm done with the conversation.
Last edited:
TAAU ghosting being worse than the inferior detail of FSR is debatable but what's not is UE5's TSR (the TAA successor) being far superior to both. Same as custom solutions like Insomniac's Temporal Upscaling and, arguably, Checkerboard Rendering.
In my opinion, FSR is good for old games (with only traditional upscaling) and games that would otherwise have no upscaling solution at all — an increasingly rare prospect, especially in the console space.
It's his thing in the forum, wouldn't think about it too much.
Yeah, hopefully when the source is available, a more generalized version can be adapted to deal with older games. Because they're probably not getting dev time to have it be added by amd
That said, I'd take a sharper image with artifacts like ghosting over a blurrier one without them almost every time
r/hardware - Digital Foundry made a critical mistake with their Kingshunt FSR Testing - TAAU apparently disables Depth of Field. Depth of Field causes the character model to look blurry even at Native settings (no upscaling)
1,169 votes and 362 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com
Basically they did not disable DoF when comparing TAAU vs FSR, causing FSR to look blurrier.
Yep.
Nemestice Falls and New Powers Rise
New Event Mode & Battle Pass In the wake of the Mad Moon's destruction, willful fragments of Radiant Ore and Direstone crashed upon our world. But a third type of stone—Nemestice—was left drifting behind. Now, a prophesied Nemestice Storm strikes the heart of the battlefield, and the clash of...
www.dota2.com
I can see them making it part of the PS5 feature set tbh, would be a great asset.
Why don't mods do something about it if it's a known issue? Seems bad to leave it unchecked.
Just tried it, at 50% of 4K and its miles better than without.
But Dota 2 AA solution isn't great, so as a result FSR generates not so perfect output.
Dota 2, 4K @ 50% render (GTX 1060, i5 4440)
Last edited:
I mean while not a major gamechanger, still better than traditional upscale. If this can be enabled from the radeon control panel or with reshade it could be a really nice tool to have.
But as long as devs have to enabled it for each game, I remain unimpressed.
But as long as devs have to enabled it for each game, I remain unimpressed.
I pointed this out in the other FSR thread, and since then they confirmed the mistake. After that, posted new comparisons, using Godfall, and I see a similar issue in the first image. The DoF effect is noticeably different in the TAAU image, causing it to look much sharper in certain areas than even the simple upscale, and very different from the intended image output. Just look at the left side of the head, the shoulder area, and even part of the helmet around the F in Godfall. I'm not sure if they are just rushing things out or what...r/hardware - Digital Foundry made a critical mistake with their Kingshunt FSR Testing - TAAU apparently disables Depth of Field. Depth of Field causes the character model to look blurry even at Native settings (no upscaling)
1,169 votes and 362 comments so far on Reddit
Basically they did not disable DoF when comparing TAAU vs FSR, causing FSR to look blurrier.
Sure, even if you ignore the DoF issues, the FSR image is still not as sharp or detailed, but it's MUCH less of a difference than comparing areas on an image with DoF on and off.
FSR still seems better than TAA in Ultra Quality and maybe even Quality to me (therefore with an higher internal resolution to start with), so having a final 4K image with that IQ but with the performance of 1662p or 1440p is still a step ahead to any other software solutions right now (maybe only Insomniac with their proprietary software upscaling algorithm did better).
We should probably wait for more games for better comparisons. TAAU modes here are not officially supported so these oddities make comparisons difficult. Its understandable that this DoF issue didn't get picked up.
Yeah, this may be good if its applicable by something like Reshade. Will make it comfortable for those with older GPUs and don't mind running games at lower rendering resolutions for good performance.
DSR will not allow you to downsample from beyond 4K to 4K, unfortunately. DSR doesn't even show up in the Nvidia Control Panel if your monitor is set to 4K.
I believe that is false, I have seen resolutions higher than 4K while my display is not even 4K.
Edit: I will check in a short while on my system and confirm (around an hour) on this same post.
Edit 2: Yepp, you can go above 4K resolution with a 4K display with DSR.
Last edited:
I've only used DSR on 1080p and 4K displays. It won't let you go past 4K on a 1080p screen because they limited it to doubling the number of pixels in each direction. 4K works the way I said it does. (or doesn't)
No idea what happens in between, but your results will be meaningless if you're not using a 4K display with the monitor resolution set to 4K.
I'm impressed especially after watching GamersNexus and HardwareUnboxed reviews. 4K Quality and Ultra Quality are good enough for me and for developers it will be just a small insertion at some point of the rendering pipeline.
I agree with most of you here that TAA or DLSS 2 can yield subjectively better quality, but they also (VERY RARELY) lead to visual inconsistencies. I don't expect this and didn't see this from the reviews of FSR. It's just a fire and forget solution, which is good enough for me. If I was a game developer, I would simply plop it into my rendering pipeline and be done with upscaling.
I agree with most of you here that TAA or DLSS 2 can yield subjectively better quality, but they also (VERY RARELY) lead to visual inconsistencies. I don't expect this and didn't see this from the reviews of FSR. It's just a fire and forget solution, which is good enough for me. If I was a game developer, I would simply plop it into my rendering pipeline and be done with upscaling.
Was already the same at the old place.
Because it´s GPU warring disguised in tech mumbo jumbo lol.