Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
AMD already confirmed that FSR 3 is coming but not sure when.
https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/fidelityfx-super-resolution
Unfortunately, it also doesn't work with variable refresh like G-sync/FreeSync, HDR, and requires you to have your FPS hit certain target points or it completely fails. Plus, while DLSS 3.0 is meant to help lower FPS you must hit a minimum of 55+ FPS with FSR 3.0 per their document to properly function but you cannot go over 120 FPS on a 120Hz display or it causes issues (this is where people recommend the 1-FPS offset trick to make it less severe). Further, if your FPS fluctuates at all it has issues.
It... just shouldn't exist in its current state. I recommend sticking to FSR 2.0 for now if you aren't tech familiar, or at least compare the two every time you try it in a new game so you don't go in thinking its better but not knowing you might actually be hurting your experience.
If you've never tried it you could also try XeSS in this and other games that support it and see what gives you the best results. XeSS is Intel's version of upscaling if you aren't by chance already familiar with it and it has the widest GPU support of all three atm, but it is hit or miss kind of like FSR 2.0 at times so it is best to compare and see which you prefer.
Alas, Cyberpunk 2077 is an extremely Nvidia sponsored game so FSR 3.0 just seems awfully unlikely. While Nvidia doesn't bribe devs to not implement other competitors upscaling the way AMD actively does, I think CP2077 is kind of off limits considering its their technical showcase for Nvidia tech atm. At least, speaking in terms of likelihood and not certainties.
AMD needs to enable V-Sync, but Nvidia doesn't.
And to have fewer artifacts, you need about 60 fps.
But this does not negate the merit that this technology will give x2 to frames and will work on almost all current cards, of course, to the detriment of responsiveness.
Nvidia created this technology as cheap marketing to sell the 40 series. (on the 30th series this technology can work no worse)
And AMD makes this technology publicly available. For which we have great respect.
In general, FSR (DLSS) 3.0 is not exactly FSR (DLSS), but more of a marketing name. (FSR (DLSS) 2 + frame generation)
I would like to compare these technologies in one game.
Amd confirmed that the future FSR 3 will be Cyberpunk.
It is a fact. I don't know why you're disputing this.
Just because developers collaborate with Nividia doesn't mean they sell out to them or report to them.
"While Nvidia doesn't bribe devs to not implement other competitors upscaling the way AMD actively does"
I think you got everything mixed up.
In any case, it is better for the developer to choose what is closer to him: the proprietary Nvidia, or the open AMD.
In addition, consoles also run on AMD.
If you do not it will cause stuttering issues, input lag, artifacts, etc. because it is not able to handle variable framerates properly atm, including G-Sync, FreeSync, and uncapped FPS.
Unfortunately, you must also set in AMD's control panel a -1 FPS from max because the moment it hits the max FPS it will actually cause major issues as well. This is a hidden detail not automatically peformed which screws over less tech competent gamers just like many other aspects of FSR 3. One of FSR 3's biggest issues is unless you understand the tech, the nuances and caveats a less tech familiar gamer would basically be screwing themselves trying to use it which, statistically, is most gamers... This is a huge No No committed by AMD who doesn't want to fix it because they're actually okay with promoting to look good at the expense of gamers, one of their worst aspects of the past several years.
Fewer as in severe to slightly less severe... is still severe as seen in Forspoken, Immortal, etc. The biggest issue is FSR 2, itself, is already inherently prone to artifacts and has issues with various effects not working at all like in Forspoken it does not handle particle effects and some other transparencies whatsoever. It also lacks a temporal element and under FSR 3's frame generation essentially collapses on itself due to its own faults. This isn't to say FSR 2 is so horrible it is unusable but varies depending on the game whether it runs into severe issues or not. In some instances it can be quite acceptable, at high enough resolution and framerate at least.
Unfortunately, this is actually not true and one of the bigger issues of AMD's misleading campaign about FSR 3.0 running up to release and something they've been less interested in clarifying appropriately to consumers because of the negative truth.
In short, FSR 3 actually only works on the three most recent hardware generations of both AMD & Nvidia and any other older GPU runs FSR 2 (aka no FG, even if it is confusingly labeled FSR 3 because it isn't as FSR 3 only adds frame generation on top of FSR 2).
However, it gets murkier... You MUST maintain 60 FPS or greater otherwise it will not work properly. This means you can't use it to actually boost performance of cards not making it which FSR 2 is intended to do and is self-contradictory of its own tech. DLSS 3 works fine at lower framerates to get you to acceptable performance levels.
This means that FSR 3 will usually fail on everything but the newest AMD 7000 & Nvidia 4000 series unless you significantly lower settings, aka the literal opposite of what upscaling technologies are intended for, in order to hit high enough framerate to function properly.
Even then, the AMD 7000 card cannot use FSR 3's frame generation in many games without cutting settings, if it was actually implemented in many games... For example, if FSR 3 is added to Cyberpunk 2077 it will not work with Path Tracing or higher tier RT at 4K and will have issues even at 1440p because it cannot get high enough framerate to properly hit FSR 3's required target. Then if you do want to use it you got to lower settings until you reach a stable enough FPS to use it and this is on AMD's premium most top tier GPU at the moment... This problem would exist for any and every game, once they actually implement FSR 3, that is demanding even for modern GPUs. Honestly, this isn't a good sign.
Also note back to the "supported" they have less ideal results than "recommended" and use of frame generation on them is an even more mixed bag, thus the reality is FSR 3 is supported on three generations of GPU for AMD & Nvidia... but has dramatically decreasing levels of actual practicability every generation you go back, and technically very much an issue even for the most current gen GPUs. Even then, there are major visual issues with FSR 2 and now 3 when performance isn't the problem. Further, there are all sorts of technical limitations and hiccups and it is not at all consumer transparent like I mentioned before, particularly for less tech savvy users. This is why DigitalFoundry, GamersNexus, HardwareUnboxed, and many others said it should never have been released in this state as it is simply not ready.
It turns out that AMD's FSR 3 blog also falsifies their latency issues and makes it look better than it is. Some review outlets also fell for this until Nvidia pointed out that they were investigating it wrong with unsupported tech and told them how to do it properly and... well the results were not good for FSR 3's latency, which can explain so much hate about how it feels laggier with input from players. It can be seen in AMD's own charts where AMD, themselves, didn't even test it properly (yikes). Now, to be fair they're not "horrible" either as long as you don't run into any of the variable framerate or hit the max FPS of your display which guts input latency. They come out fairly similar to DLSS 3 results to a degree and to native results if you aren't using Anti-Lag+ without FG and most games wont need the extra latency of non-frame gen + Anti-Lag+ while the few that do... have um.. *cough* banned FSR 3 (and players) because of .dll injection anti-cheating issues (AMD investigating to find a way to fix this issue, such as Counterstrike). Honestly, at least latency wise bar the issues it is competent, but those issues are so easy to run into for most gamers and especially because AMD isn't transparent enough about the tech's limitations most will actually suffer from it all because AMD wants to avoid negative PR so they'll let consumers suffer making a tech that is supposed to do good things do worse.
This is incorrect. Nvidia uses Optical Flow accelerators (specialized dedicated hardware on GPU) to assist in completing the task in a timely manner and actually functions at low framerates to help boost performance so you can crank up settings and still get better performance, contrary to FSR 3.
RTX 3000 GPUs do not have this hardware. Nvidia stated it could run on the RTX 3000 series, in theory, but they would have to do additional investigations to see if it can reach acceptable performance (or basically end up like FSR 3 has).
AMD's solution is one with many compromises and fundamentally doesn't do what its upscaling tech was designed to do. Instead of making cards run better settings faster, or at acceptable framerate, it lets cards already running well run better or lets you sacrifice graphic settings in order to run faster with really bizarre scaling.
The technology of frame generation isn't new, either. TVs and consoles have similar technology for over 20 years now, but this was the first time a GPU based solution is being implemented via DLSS 3.
In contrast, DLSS 3.5's RT/PT tech works on older cards even several generations back due to not needing the specialized hardware unlike 3.0's FG (yup, Nvidia's naming scheme is just as confusing trash as AMD's... 3.0 is FG + DLSS 2 while 3.5 is AI denoiser for PT/RT + FG + DLSS 2 but they can be individually utilized).
I have respect for Nvidia's open source Streamline that wants to have DLSS & FSR & XeSS available in every game anytime any of them are implemented but AMD refuses. FSR... only wants to be a crutch for AMD's own success at the expense of consumers. They market it as pro consumers but it is not pro solution as seen by their bribing anti-competitive practices, threats at developers, and refusal to allow it via Streamline.
Because I was not aware CD Projekt already confirmed it until you pointed this out and I just looked it up. This is precisely why I stated it is a matter of likelihood but that I wasn't denying with certainty it could happen.
Looking into it further after filtering Google's garbage search results I found they recently gave an update about FSR 3.0 and basically said it isn't ready now... and they were afraid of giving an ETA considering its situation but that they do want to continue working on getting it implemented. This means it could be literal years before its implemented considering the current busted state of FSR 3.0. However, it could also mean a few months if they end up going ahead and implementing the messed up state. Hard to say and their wording was vague but not favorable of the situation.
No, I'm not. AMD recently got into a huge controversy over the issue and initially denied it but later admitted they actively paid develoeprs to deter them to focus on FSR implementation with a hinted threat to discourage implementing DLSS/XeSS without outright saying it. When developers like Starfield Bethesda responded on it they basically said the way AMD spoke.
Further, AMD refuses to allow FSR, which is supposed to be open source tech made easily implementable to a wide audience and hardware, to be added to Nvidia's Streamline which is an open source SDK for various upscaling technologies and already has both DLSS & XeSS making them easy to implement which is why when you see one now in newer games you also see the other usually. If AMD let FSR be added then you would see all three in basically every game but AMD is struggling with poor FSR adoption and reception so they create this artificially imposed wall to separate the two and not let DLSS directly compete as much as possible in AMD sponsored titles so AMD's FSR has a harder time being directly compared and dismantled against DLSS which is already known to have much better quality. Honestly, it is a very messy and unnecessary situation.
Consoles do but it isn't a 1:1 issue and, for some unknown reason, many console exclusive titles keep getting FSR1 like Final Fantasy XVI which has left the gaming industry and tech outlets utterly baffled. No one is able to figure out why this is happening and if or if not AMD is the issue causing this (seems unlikely but extremely bizarre).
I'm certain at some point it will be improved. Maybe not for AMD's 7000 and prior series or as wide support as they heralded... but Frame Gen is a huge performance boost and feature of GPUs that can't really be ignored as the tech matures so at some point I'm sure AMD will have a working solution down the road, if not earlier.
No, it is confirmed not to be in 2.1 unfortunately. You can find the patch notes already.
All RTX GPu's have OFA units, each updated with each generation, though according to NV only Ada's will handle FrameGen without significant frametime cost. (which I do believe them about that, being that it was one of their actual engineers that stated that, and not someone in marketing or such - and IIRC typically the OFA in Turing is mostly used primarily with video playback, though my understanding of that may be off from misreading the OFA white-sheet).
Solid post though.
Yes, *some* Ryzen CPU's do.
Some Ryzen CPU's don't support integrated graphics at all, such as mine.
https://youtu.be/sab0TsJHZzs?si=q-2CPvYBNPoxBtTo
It boosts FPS about 80% in most games that support it, you get the quality upsclaing from DLSS as well as the frame generation from FSR.
In terms of visual artefacting there is the usual ghosting and smearing in some instances, you may feel some increased latency and inconsistent frametimes however the results are well worth it.
Basically the you get the same results as DLSS frame-gen, you get some noticeable latency and some minor visual artefacting however you get it for free instead of having to pay premium for an overpriced 40 series card.
Or you can wait a while since AMD and CDPR have confirmed that they will be rolling out FSR for Cyberpunk 2077 in some of the upcoming updates as there is a high demand and the technology provides very solid results.
If you don't want to wait for the updates you can always try the mod from this link: http://store.steampowered.com