-
Necromunda Hired Gun AMD FSR VS NVIDIA DLSS 4K | RTX 3090 | Ryzen 9 5950X (Bang4BuckPC Gamer)
-
Note: while there is indeed a real battle at 4K Quality DLSS vs UQ FSR, at lower resolutions, DLSS should start winning more and more.
Still, its a cool video.
ID: h5g6tjrID: h5g9otjI don't know about that. When the Edge of Eternity developers said they preferred FSR at 4K and DLSS at 1080p a lot of people were surprised. I don't think most people know much about the mathematics of sampling or signal reconstruction or how it works under the hood.
ID: h5g7p1lSomething everyone expected even before direct comparisons were made after watching the tech tubers give their impressions.
Some people expected DLSS to be better than native or FSR to be useless.
😛
ID: h5gpd24But why even use non native on lower than 4k?
ID: h5h761mactually on 1440p they are quit needed for a proper refresh rate, and from what ive seen they are still quit good at that Res
90fps is worlds apart vs 60 fps so unless you have a 3080 / 6800xt anyone w/ anything else beyond those will gladly use it
ID: h5gdr3aI do agree with you at 1080p, FSR is not as good as DLSS2.
But the lack of added motion blur or ghosting while having great image quality at 4K makes FSR the winner here.
ID: h5hiferDo you even use DLLs or fsr at 1080p you probably have plenty of fps at this resolution. Why bother?
ID: h5gqv5pUpscaling at lower resolutions...? You should just buy something else at that point if 1080p is starved for frames.
ID: h5hgkb9Upscaling at lower resolutions...? You should just buy something else at that point if 1080p is starved for frames.
I agree.
ID: h5hv0t9Every GPU now is ridiculously overpriced.
ID: h5jsn5wget a CRT and game at glorious 1024x768 😉
ID: h5h9kkvWhat I can’t get over though: DLSS requires additional die area. FSR doesn’t. So AMD can just add more CUs. In that sense, FSR is ridiculously more efficient.
-
Hard to tell with video compression, but they look about the same. Maybe even FSR looked a little cleane
, hard to say for sure, but not a huge difference. -
can't tell the difference between those two.
ID: h5giczaSame here.
ID: h5hl3vkI can see a slight difference with the DLSS image looking a bit softer and a bit of ghosting/blur. But it's not that bad.
ID: h5hzehbThat's the point. They are almost just as good, but when it starts moving that breaks when DLSS clearly is winner on reducing artifacts and shimmering basing from this scene, if look at the lit up table on the far left.
On that particular scene it's noticeable that FSR is having more issues with shimmers. jaggies, artifacts.
-
4k is the best case scenario for both implementations, since both will have a lot of information to work with (internal resolution still is high). Would like to see how image quality holds up on 1440p and 1080p.
-
To bad only like 5% of us can actually tell because most of us are using a 1080p or 1440p monitor.
ID: h5i65hoyep thats one of my gripes on reading comparison comments. There is one dude here that noticed 360p after inspection of the video(he ran 360p formed an opinion and only after that he noticed that he is running 360p lmao), i mean if he is using anything modern he would notice the second video started lol. I will form my opinion when i test it myself for now im treading lightly, what is correct and what is not.
-
Nvidia fanboys wont accept fsr 1.0 is as good as dlss 2.?... amd and nvidia gamers should benefit from this
ID: h5ga6a6BuT My TeNsOr CoOrEs....
ID: h5gh92yDLSS 1.9 ran on shaders only...
ID: h5himf0But it's deep learning. AI lol.
ID: h5h4gw9Because in every setting not 4kUQ it isnt as good. It falls apart way faster.
ID: h5i0a181440p mode at Ultra Quality already does IMO. Basing from my own testing, DLSS is clearly better at lower resolution than FSR, it's 4K where FSR shines at. Which is the main reason why i recommend anyone to aim for 4K FSR at Ultra Quality mode at least as the minimum.
ID: h5i019fIt really isn't though,
And i think on this video that proves that still pretty much, FSR is still not as good as DLSS and it becomes clearer when you go down at 1440p or under, because FSR is suffering with more artifacts, shimmering as shown on this particular scene test itself.
but that's not the point of FSR in the first place IMO, To me the point of it is to provide a similar upscaling tech that just comes close but not entirely beat it or matches it, with advantage of being implemented easier on most games.
But just like what i said, that doesn't mean FSR is useless. It's a option for people who doesn't have powerful enough GPU to run the particular game, and i think at that scenario compromises like we have seen here, are acceptable. That's what FSR is for.
It's not a entirely DLSS competitor that most AMD fanboys are championing them for that it will outrival it on image quality comparisons. Not yet at least with this first iteration.
-
Hard to watch on youtube. I see too many blurry.
-
Unless I pixel peep, I don't see a difference except maybe DLSS being a tad on the softer side or iows FSR being a tad on the sharper side.
Soft VS sharp being a matter of taste, it's a toss up.
Wish native had been included in the comparison...
-
Now the only thing AMD lacks is RT performance for gaming. With these cards people are surely on 1440p and higher, so it won't matter if DLSS performs better at lower resolutions.
ID: h5gmne1You’d be surprised how many people are running new gen cards at 1080p because they think the higher frame rates are gonna make them beat the next guy.
ID: h5hgpc6You’d be surprised how many people are running new gen cards at 1080p because they think the higher frame rates are gonna make them beat the next guy.
Its ironic cause if you are CPU limited, enabling DLSS wont improve performance at all. Same for FSR.
-
I'm a bit confused about the performance comparison.
He used DLSS Quality and FSR Ultra Quality, so 66% vs 77% render resolution, but FSR had the same or even slightly higher FPS than DLSS.
For FSR we know that the upscaling itself has a performance impact of ~6% and I don't think DLSS has as high of an impact, if any.
And from the render resolution alone, DLSS should've been at least 15% ahead in performance.
-
im pretty sure he used a new dlss 2.2 dll file. necromunda officially ships with 2.1
2.2 gets rid of more ghosting/is sharper i think. so maybe thats why the performance is lower? i think the internal resolution is still 1440p at 4k though. but maybe the way dlss 2.2 reduces 2.1 ghosting makes it more taxing?
-
He used DLSS Quality and FSR Ultra Quality, so 66% vs 77% render resolution, but FSR had the same or even slightly higher FPS than DLSS.
Yes, because DLSS has a pipeline cost.
It has a performance impact. So that is why they end up being about equal here. FSR is technically lighter in the pipeline itself.
-
I mean I could search for DLSS tests where they used DLSS Quality at 4K and also tested 1440p native. In that case 4K DLSS would have to be more than 20% slower than 1440p native for these performance numbers to make sense.
This one her for example
4K RT Medium + DLSS Quality, the 3080 gets 44.2FPS
1440p RT Medium native, the 3080 gets 42.4FPS
-
DLSS does have a pretty noticeable impact on fps because it's not just a compute shader unlike FSR. Even the tensor cores only help a little because using them blocks off the SM from issuing other work.
-
All tests I've read so far, 1440p native and 4K DLSS Quality have about the same performance, so there is no cost for DLSS compared to FSR.
-
Going top 66% from 77% render scale doesn't give 15% performance unless you are using Ray Tracing which does scale linear.
The 2080 lost 20% performance going from 1080p to 1440p in battlefield V
The 6900xt lost 7% going to 1440p from 1080p (CPU bottleneck at 1080p though)
-
DLSS at Quality Mode renders at lower resolution at 1440p than FSR at Ultra Quality mode at 1662p in general, it's not the tester's fault.
Ask Nvidia for Ultra Quality Mode for 1 to 1 native res comparison.
-
The tester could’ve just used FSR Quality to use the same resolution as DLSS.
-
You don't really have to make a determination based on visuals.
The owner of the video and the 3090 card spoke the words proclaiming that AMD's FSR took this one over DLSS for this round.
It is his preference, and does not mean that FSR is scientifically better - just subjectively better to this person. Isn't that how we'll all decide?
-
If you go 3 minutes in in the area's with high lighting DLSS falls off hard.
The area's with normal global lighting look slightly better on DLSS when standing still but directional lighting seems to suck on DLSS.
DLSS also looks much softer.
Ghosting only seems an issue when aiming down sights on DLSS or sprinting.
Comparison pics
FSR seems way better when sprinting on the people not ghosting and up close detail is far better and image is far less soft.
DLSS preserves details in the far distance much better but even far objects are soft
Any directional lighting looks way better on FSR
As said above FSR sharpens better in this title much more accurate but maybe could be fixed with reshade.
For 1440P & above while using presets of quality & above FSR destroys.
DLSS wins on the big scaling.
-
The images are so blurry I can't make out shit.
-
Yeah. No clue what he's talking about.
-
You can look at the video at 3 minutes in any volumetric lighting and any non global lighting looks shit on DLSS.
-
Ghosting only seems an issue when aiming down sights on DLSS or sprinting.
Ofc, when motion is quicker ie sprinting, ghosting is an issue. It has always been related to motion and I've been saying this thing since trying DLSS2 out in a bunch of games, and got flak for it on the hardware sub. Until it was proven to be a problem, even for NV to release 2.2 to reduce the ghosting.
It's like an echo chamber there where u can't say anything negative about DLSS, like best thing ever.
-
There's no such blurryness when watching at 4k, it's just Youtube artifacts.
-
I think FSR did pair pretty well against the DLSS IMO. Although i noticed that it suffers more with shimmering and artifacts when moving and if you look at on table on the far left and the gun and it's reticle sight, other than that i think the game's lack of texture quality and it's dark scenery does a great job of almost masking the difference between them.
But still FSR at 4K against DLSS 2.2 not bad at all for FSR, unfortunately can't say the same thing with 1440p or under.
Hopefully there is more comparison to come in future hopefully in games like RDR2, Cyberpunk etc..
-
How amd killed dlss
-
I wouldn't say they killed it. They beat it at 4K. But DLSS is still better at lower resolution. Its a shame Nvidia doesn't make APUs with tenso cores lol.
-
DLSS is better at 1080p yet the cards that support DLSS can run 1080p no problem anyway.
-
Awesome, AMD is Godsent for non rtx owners.
-
Amaaaazing -
Source?
-
Amaaaazing
Lower resolutions are where DLSS will for sure win. 4K Quality is where FSR has a chance. We know this.
-
Something is wrong FSR in this comparison. Looks like you posted one of the comparisons from this thread:
/comments/olqab2/dlss_vs_fsr_image_quality_comparison_in/" class="reddit-press-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.reddit.com//comments/olqab2/dlss_vs_fsr_image_quality_comparison_in/In the thread, OP says that he is using a 4K monitor and lowering the resolution to test FSR at 1440p. I am not sure why, but this is causing FSR to show extreme fuzziness, which is not normal.
I tested FSR Ultra Quality vs DLSS Quality on my own with a native 1080p monitor at MAX Settings:
As you can see, there is no sign of extreme fuzziness you are seeing in that comparison.
Someone turned film grain to 100 lol.
Should have compared FSR Ultra Quality vs DLSS Quality since they are the best modes from each side.
Depends on what you want to compare, If you choose DLSS Quality and fSR Ultra Quality, DLSS will give you more performance.
I'd say test both with the same internal resolution to see what they can get out of the same source material.
But that's the point you don't play games in still pictures for pixel-peeping pleasure!
Games are in motion. Did you see any difference in that video.
I did not.
the video only shows fsr ultra quality at 4k
i did notice the usual thing, FSR is oversharpened to try and make up for that lost image detail, and i do like to take in the enviroment and designs in games, i like to appreciate the effort that the devs put in to create enviroments and textures and models, to have something look like that takes away from that pleasure, now that is only my personal opinion. let´s hope they can improve upon FSR in a significant way because i would love for everybody to be able to enjoy the benefits that comes with DLSS and similar techniques.
my preference is DLSS, you can also add a tad of sharpening on the DLSS side and that would look even better if you like sharp images.
let´s not forget that what really matters here are lower resolutions because people with old cards also want to be able to have an image not look like shit.
Source?
You put DLSS and FSR labels swapped here lol.
aggressive taa destroys everything, i hope one day no one will use it. If fsr could be applied before the taa, you could see more details with fsr compared to current comparisons... Dlss don't use taa in game, it disable the default taa... Yes Nvidia is, a sort of, cheating..
Btw this comparison have no sense because fsr quality have more fps than dlss quality...set ultra quality and make another screenshot
what if we turn on both fsr and dlss?
Can't see much difference. I guess that's a good thing for FSR?
Tried real hard to see a difference but couldn't really. If anything DLSS might have looked a bit lighte
out in some places, but I don't know if that's my imagination, or if that's what the game is supposed to look like at native.In terms of blur there isn't much difference. The real thing DLSS wins at is thin lines even versus native.
Look at the places where the thin strands of hair meet another surfaces like the forehead or neck. Even at native the hair isn't properly rendered whereas DLSS does resolve it correctly.
Most people would probably pick DLSS as native 4K if the text wasn't there because of the hair.
For those who want a comparison between DLSS and FSR, DLSS is way better here. And the reason for this is, even though nobody mentioned it yet, DLSS is a full package solution, whereas FSR is a modular one that is meant to be run on any hardware as well as alongside with any software.
DLSS is basically a smart checkerboard renderer. It "builds" a high resolution image from previous images, while machine learning part dynamically adjusts pixel weights on the fly for each frame. So, an 8K image created with DLSS is an 8K image. DLSS may have built it from the last 8 frames, and combined them intelligently, doesn't change the fact that it is 8K.
An 8K image created with FSR from a single 1440p frame is.. essentially an 1440p image. Only thing different is that it is upscaled with a clever filter which treats corners and discontinuities with post processing reconstruction and then some 8K sharpener applied after. Think it like SMAA on steroids.
What would make FSR a real competition against DLSS? Well, using it's modular approach with supportive software. Imagine this:
There is a 1440p screen. AMD VSR makes it 5K (2880p), that's 200% resolution scaling.
A good temporal checkerboard rendering (basically TAAU) renders an 1440p image which is constructrd from an internal 1080p data.
This 1440p frame is upscaled to 2880p (5K) with FSR.
VSR makes that 5K image properly displayed on our 1440p screen.
What happened here? The display is 1440p. The rendered original image is at 1080p. Final result is 2880p.
The GPU created an 1080p image but clever techniques upscaled it to 1440p first temporally and to 2880p spatially. We spend horsepower for 1080p but got a 5K image on our 1440p display. That's a DLSS contender. Considering TAA, checkerboarding and FSR are all open source, there is no reason for any game engine to not use them together.
Very impressive stuff for 1.0!
引用元:https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/olq2vo/necromunda_hired_gun_amd_fsr_vs_nvidia_dlss_4k/
Something everyone expected even before direct comparisons were made after watching the tech tubers give their impressions.