DLSS 2 VS FSR3

[Citizen Cook]

I’m gaming on a 3080 (12GB) GPU.
Everyone knows that DLSS 2 is superior to FSR2 and that DLSS 3 is superior to FRS3.
But since my GPU can’t do DLSS 3 I was wondering if FSR3 is/will be superior to DLSS 2.

What have you heard, what has been your experience? (granted FSR3 games are light on the ground at the moment but they are out there)

[Citizen Cook]

I genuinely can’t tell the difference from DLSS 1440p upscaled to 4K than native 4K.
My PC is connected to a very large OLED television so I need 4K. I play exclusively with a controller. I come from a console gaming background so for me upscaling is essential.

[Guydodge]

Publicado originalmente por Wichtelman:

may i ask why you care about dlss or fsr if you have highend gpus?
people with a gtx 750 ti are happy with fsr...

simple answer high end gaming and im not talking just graphics.so many have wasted great
gameplay in the name of 4k and they end up turning settings completely off or down essentially
defeating special effects and ray tracing just so they can say "i use 4k".most have forgotten what
true gaming is,super smooth game play with all the goodies ultra'd out.instead they use dlss
to fight for 60fps all effects disabled and visuals diminished on almost all AAA games.
my rig is built for just that even then(@1440) i will still have to use dlss3 to keep a high
fps of 120-144fps.i refuse to diminish my gameplay or graphs just to say i have 4k.
and 1440 ultra'd out with all effects in tack and high fps blows away 4k everytime.

need proof all you with 4k fire up dead space ulta it out see where your at
and try to see the graphs you can get with it.heres 1440 and high fps a pic
of what i see at 120fps locked.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2935019814

[xSOSxHawkens]

Publicado originalmente por Citizen Cook:

Publicado originalmente por Wichtelman:

may i ask why you care about dlss or fsr if you have highend gpus?
people with a gtx 750 ti are happy with fsr...

I play on a TV at 4K resolution. I can only do tgat with Cyberpunk with ray tracing and all settings at ultra with DLSS. And even then i can only hit 35fps

FSR3 will be your ticket then. The frame gen is basically 2:1, so you will be seeing close to 70fps with good game-play feel on the FSR3 with similar settings and similar scaling, though you might be able to keep it a step higher on the scaling depending on overall performance.

I get similar FPS (35-50) in Starfield on my 6900xt @ 4k, and using the driver level frame generation in the AMD drivers brings me up to a fairly solid 60-90 with little if any noticeable degradation in visuals. Only thing I personally have picked up on is the mouth-animations are a bit wonky in low base-fps areas. Not sure if thats the frame gen or the game just not liking the low tick rates though.

[Malygos]

Publicado originalmente por Wichtelman:

may i ask why you care about dlss or fsr if you have highend gpus?
people with a gtx 750 ti are happy with fsr...

I have to use fsr in any game made after like 2019 on a 7900xt to keep acceptable framerates. Unless it's just not something pushing at all I absolutely hate upscaling and frame gen but you can forget 1440p or uktrawide without it.

[Citizen Cook]

Publicado originalmente por xSOSxHawkens:

Publicado originalmente por Citizen Cook:

I play on a TV at 4K resolution. I can only do tgat with Cyberpunk with ray tracing and all settings at ultra with DLSS. And even then i can only hit 35fps

FSR3 will be your ticket then. The frame gen is basically 2:1, so you will be seeing close to 70fps with good game-play feel on the FSR3 with similar settings and similar scaling, though you might be able to keep it a step higher on the scaling depending on overall performance.

I get similar FPS (35-50) in Starfield on my 6900xt @ 4k, and using the driver level frame generation in the AMD drivers brings me up to a fairly solid 60-90 with little if any noticeable degradation in visuals. Only thing I personally have picked up on is the mouth-animations are a bit wonky in low base-fps areas. Not sure if thats the frame gen or the game just not liking the low tick rates though.

Oh wow, that sounds amazing. Any idea when FS3 will he added to Cyberpunk? (My favourite game atm)

[The_Abortionator]

Publicado originalmente por C1REX:

FSR3 is just a silly name. It uses the same FSR2 for upscaling plus it comes with optional frame generation.
AMD made it recently open source so there is a good chance for improvement but in the new Avatar game the FSR upscaling and frame generation is about as good as DLSS in my personal opinion.

So the naming s just like DLSS 3 then?

[C1REX]

Publicado originalmente por The_Abortionator:

So the naming s just like DLSS 3 then?

DLSS is more confusing in my opinion.
DLSS upscaler is in version 3.something now and you have DLSS 3.5 that is a de-noiser.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Publicado originalmente por A&A ✠:

Motion interpolation is not a new feature.

Even if you have a GTX750Ti without FSR, let's say you get 15-20 FPS, and with frame generation, you might get 60, but it still feels like a crap. So, it depends on the games you are going to play it may be useful.

And it generally feels like crap because if your generally have a lower end GPU, you usually have a lower end CPU. Much of the smoothness can be due to having a good CPU. Also yes that 50-60 FPS from frame generation would still feel clunky due to still having poor frame-times.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Publicado originalmente por C1REX:

Publicado originalmente por The_Abortionator:

So the naming s just like DLSS 3 then?

DLSS is more confusing in my opinion.
DLSS upscaler is in version 3.something now and you have DLSS 3.5 that is a de-noiser.

Saying DLSS 3.5 or any X after (such as v2.3.9 or 3.5) is just the "OK what's the real version of the DLL file"

It's still just DLSS 2 or 3, which is for 3.xx is only on RTX 40 series at the moment.

There is also DLAA which even MANY MORE people seemed confused about.

[C1REX]

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

You're right. Even discussing this on a forum can be confusing.

The latest version of DLSS upscaling is 3.5.10. It can be confusing to tell whether it's an upscaler, denoiser, or frame generator, and which GPUs it supports.

In this case, it’s an upscaler ( DLSS2?) in version 3.5.10, compatible with RTX 2000, 3000, 4000 series GPUs. It does not include DLSS3 frame generation or the DLSS3.5 denoiser. (or does it?)

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-dll/?amp

[A&A]

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

And it generally feels like crap because if your generally have a lower end GPU, you usually have a lower end CPU. Much of the smoothness can be due to having a good CPU. Also yes that 50-60 FPS from frame generation would still feel clunky due to still having poor frame-times.

FSR frame generation should not affect the CPU usage.

[Hahaman]

Publicado originalmente por C1REX:

FSR3 is just a silly name. It uses the same FSR2 for upscaling plus it comes with optional frame generation.
AMD made it recently open source so there is a good chance for improvement but in the new Avatar game the FSR upscaling and frame generation is about as good as DLSS in my personal opinion.

This is a load of bs

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Publicado originalmente por A&A:

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

And it generally feels like crap because if your generally have a lower end GPU, you usually have a lower end CPU. Much of the smoothness can be due to having a good CPU. Also yes that 50-60 FPS from frame generation would still feel clunky due to still having poor frame-times.

FSR frame generation should not affect the CPU usage.

I never said it did.
It's just that with a game like RDR2, even 100 FPS can feel sluggish and experience jitters and input lagg if your CPU is lacking. Minimum I could recommend for RDR2 would be 4770K or 8350 + 16GB RAM + GTX 1080 or better. In order to really have a combo of good visuals & FPS, along with overall smoothness, not running into RAM or VRAM issues @ 1080p or 1440p; etc.

FSR anything is the absolute worst. FSR on Quality looks worse then DLSS on Performance. However, if you really feel the need to, go ahead and try it. At least those stuck on GTX GPUs can still use FSR.

[C1REX]

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

FSR anything is the absolute worst. FSR on Quality looks worse then DLSS on Performance. However, if you really feel the need to, go ahead and try it. At least those stuck on GTX GPUs can still use FSR.

Depends on the game. In some games FSR looks decent, but I agree, FSR is rather trash and the worst possible option. Even FSR1 can look better in some games. Fun fact - Tekken 8 has probably all possible upscaling techniques but is using FSR1 by default. FSR2 is probably the worst one. Surprisingly, some people prefer TSR (UE5 upscaler) over DLSS in this particular game.

This means you don’t need hardware acceleration, and AMD has no excuses for why FSR2 is so bad.

[Andrius227]

Publicado originalmente por C1REX:

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

FSR anything is the absolute worst. FSR on Quality looks worse then DLSS on Performance. However, if you really feel the need to, go ahead and try it. At least those stuck on GTX GPUs can still use FSR.

Depends on the game. In some games FSR looks decent, but I agree, FSR is rather trash and the worst possible option. Even FSR1 can look better in some games. Fun fact - Tekken 8 has probably all possible upscaling techniques but is using FSR1 by default. FSR2 is probably the worst one. Surprisingly, some people prefer TSR (UE5 upscaler) over DLSS in this particular game.

This means you don’t need hardware acceleration, and AMD has no excuses for why FSR2 is so bad.

Yeah, depends on the game. I always use dlss, but i played Starfield with fsr because it didnt have dlss at the time and it looked fine.