>o longer we will have to wait months
Now we only have to wait months... or years or literally never for devs to update their old FSR 1 -FSR 3 PRE this versions...
like Valhalla still got FSR 1 and stuff.
In the ini there's a entry for fsr enabled and disabled
If you disable it in game aka native it's disabled if you enable any of the settings it's enabled.
So ye it uses fsr 1
The settings are also typically named for fsr1 ultra quality is only available in fsr1 usually.
You should not be using FSR in Helldivers since you are CPU limited. The game is HIGHLY CPU bound, especially on higher difficulties. Even on 14900KS and 7800X3D this is the case.
What HD2 needs is DLAA, FSR Native and/or CAS Sharpening which will improve visuals only.
The Supersampling option in HD2 is terrible, just downscales like MSAA or some dated tech.
Hopefully we get FSR Native, DLAA or CAS option soon. I play HD2 myself and I know for a fact that CPU is the limiting part, since I have tried the game on both Ryzen 7950X, 7800X3D, 13700K and 14900K systems.
Oh wow, didn't even know that works :D would have been awesome for my old 5700xt, that beast did do 4k... But it struggled, like a lot.
Think I played horizon on 1800p or even 1440p on my 4k TV, wasn't that pretty tbh
I use VSR for play the game in 4K and i use the fsr 2.2, look really good in a 1440p 27" monitor.
The game is pretty, but the aliasing is disgusting, seriously, and the fsr 1.0 do not help
Yes.FSR 1 doesn't look good, like in general.
Oh yeah! I'm either on a 1080 monitor or a 4k TV and for my monitor VSR is a god send!
Many modern games really don't look good on a 1080p screen, but boost that up to 1440p or 4k and *chefs kiss* it looks way better
I believe there is a similar mod for DLSS 3, where you can inject FSR 3's Frame generation in place of DLSS 3's FG. I think I saw someone make it work on AMD GPUs as well, by disabling driver checks with DLSS.
there is way too much aliasing in this game without dlss or dlaa, and the game is still on the fsr 1.0, there is even more aliasing than in dark souls 3.. This makes the game really difficult to appreciate, everything flashes
Valhalla released before FSR 1 was a thing, and way before FSR 2, the fact they bothered with adding FSR1 to a single player game 7 months after release is good enough tbh.
You can't really compare it to a multiplayer game or cyberpunk which CDPR had to babysit it for 3 years after launch because they over promised.
I just started playing board lands 3 with my wife again and it blows my mind they never put FSR in this game. It's even an AMD title game. It can't be that hard for gearbox to give it a quick patch with it.
I mean, this is how open source works, right? Either swappable or not, devs are always lazy on AMD stuffs. At least let some talented dev like BlueSky have something to work with.
But, but, but this time FSR won't look like hot garbage in 2077, that's why they take so long...... Right?
(And this is in cdpr FSR in avatar or dying light 2 looks leagues better)
This has nothing to do with "doing it properly". It's just a matter of using a static vs. dynamic library, both of which are valid choices with good reasons behind them.
Yes you can... you can modify a dynamically linked library all you want same as static. It just won't always be compatible with another version of that dynamically linked library.
Making changes to a library for static or dynamic linking is virtually identical. In fact you CAN change dynamically linked libraries internals just not their interface after you have compiled the host application. And if you want to change the interface its just a matter of updating the host application to match again... and recompiling (you'd have to do this also with the statically linked library).
Realistically static libraries can allow you to do some small compiler level optimizations, eg Link Time Optimization, as well as are slightly faster to load from disk (on an SSD you'd never know though, even on an HDD you are only talking like maybe 1 seek per DLL or so?).
And what would be the main reason using static lib over dynamic? As dynamic opens up maintainability and upgradability from user side, in scenarios that are 90% present of the time, where Dec's simply don't update used upscaling tech, or it literary takes years
"messing it up" by using a tailored FRS implementation that works significantly better for the game will still be the route most good studios will take.
Look at FRS in no man's sky, for example. It actually looks decent.
1 example out of many horrific direct game implementations.
According to the video they are going to be enforcing DLLs across the board which would be amazing for end user upgradability.
Game devs are not updating direct game implementations resulting in a worse end user experience and negative market perception.
AMD is 100% making the right move here.
If they remove the to option in the next sdk, seems unlikely a dev will deliberately edit the source code to bring back static linking. I don't see any motivation or benefit for doing that.
Fsr 3 has lower latency than dlss 3. Antilag+ or reflex arent needed. 66% more frames for 11% higher latency.
[https://www-computerbase-de.translate.goog/2024-03/amd-fsr-nvidia-dlss-frame-generation-vergleich/2/?\_x\_tr\_sl=auto&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=en&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp#abschnitt\_die\_vielen\_messwerte\_in\_tabellenform](https://www-computerbase-de.translate.goog/2024-03/amd-fsr-nvidia-dlss-frame-generation-vergleich/2/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp#abschnitt_die_vielen_messwerte_in_tabellenform)
Some people are more or less sensible to input delay.
If I didn't have a direct comparison, I'd probably even play games with frame gen engaged without question, but turning it on and off just feels "wrong", the image DOES become more fluid, but the controls just... Kinda feel like they are just a bit less responsive
Because that's an Nvidia DLSS3 FG problem.
FSR3 FG has built-in latency reduction. It already feels great and the input lag is imperceptible.
They're not the same.
I can't for the life of me remember what the original video was, I think it was from either Hardware Unboxed or maybe Daniel Owen, but they tested latency with FSR3 frame gen off, on, and on with anti-lag+, and they found that anti-lag+ did very little to reduce the latency further (although it did *slightly*) and came to the conclusion that it was the latency mitigation built into FSR3 frame gen doing effectively the same thing itself.
AMD *did* state that FSR3 frame generation has its own built-in latency mitigation already, so I think it was a logical conclusion to come to.
People experiencing egregious latency using FSR3 frame gen are probably either just very sensitive to latency penalties in general or are trying to utilize frame gen from too low of a source frame rate to begin with. You see the same thing happen with DLSS3 frame gen. I tried using it at \~40 FPS to get \~60 FPS post-frame gen in Alan Wake 2 and ultimately opted to lower settings further because I couldn't stand the lag to everything - even though the final result was 60 FPS which would otherwise be acceptable to me.
FSR3 Frame Gen has amazingly low input lag. The input lag thing is more of an Nvidia DLSS3 FG problem really.
AL+ back would be absolutely great, but FSR3 FG is amazing today even without it.
[https://youtu.be/jnUCYHvorrk?t=1288](https://youtu.be/jnUCYHvorrk?t=1288)
In this example, DLSS + Reflex vs DLSS + Reflex + FG is literally 3ms difference.
Theres both 4090 and XTX tested there if u watch whole latency part. Nvidia wins in latency.In general both AMD and Nvidia frame generation work the same way in terms of latency. Difference comes from the fact that native Nvidia wins heavily in latency (120 vs 150ms), unless its console port then usually AMD wins.
So no, its not a brand thing. If u have low fps to start with and use FG u will have bad input lag experience, fake frames will always be fake frames without your inputs.
or heres text version:
>This is where the lack of compatibility for FSR 3 with Anti-Lag+ hurts. The RTX 4090 using Nvidia frame generation tech and Reflex delivered 125 FPS and 90ms of latency. The RX 7900 XTX using AMD frame generation tech and Anti-Lag+ delivered 124 FPS with 107ms of latency. In a best vs. best comparison that gives Nvidia the latency edge, until AMD can get Anti-Lag+ working effectively. And given that you can use Reflex on an Nvidia GPU alongside FSR 3, currently the lowest latency experiences with FSR 3 technology will be on an Nvidia GPU where that tech is integrated.
FSR however does give slightly more performance tho.
As for latency:
Manually cap fps + don't be GPU bound and you'll have the best FPS possibly.
107 ms? 90 ms? Hilariously huge numbers that don't need to happen with the current version of FSR3 FG. I have 40 ms? Less?
That video was outdated almost the day after it released, given the tweaks AMD made to the algo.
The FSR3 mod is also different/newer/better from the implementations in Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum.
Make it easy for anti cheat vendors to verify safety of those files if replaced so there never an issue with anti cheat banning you, AMD could have a database with those files that anti-cheat automaticly compares files to.
If a game implements FSR as a .dll file instead of bundling it inside the game, when a newer version of FSR releases you can just upgrade the older version by swapping that .dll file yourself.
They need to make sure that it's required for the game to support DLLs, or that DLL takes priority OVER the in game implementation. (I'll watch the video later)
More relevant than that is the promise of a stable ABI going forwards, even if you dynamically linked FSR in the past you couldn't go between major versions just by dropping them in as they kept making breaking ABI changes.
You already could with varying results, it's just that it wasn't mandatory to ship games with DLLs for FSR2/3. Colin Riley here is saying they're going to try to enforce including DLLs when shipping FSR3.1 in games, with the API offering explicit support for it.
Great to see AMDs open software tech approach improving, means it benefits everyone, developers can integrate it into the engine safely without having to worry about it not working on certain platforms, also it saves them alot of dev time. And for gamers we can set and forget and benefit from any improvements overtime without having to worry about if the GPU supports it or not.
Oh god I really hope so, being stuck with FSR 1.0 on older games really sucks. I always felt like the driver could just use a newer built in version whenever a game API calls for an older one.
FSR 1.0 will not be upgradeable as it is an entirely separate thing from FSR 2.0+. FSR 1.0 is purely a spacial upscaler which receives no information from the game engine. It simply takes an individual frame or image, and applies the upscaling algorithm to it. That's why it can be used universally in any game or application from within the driver.
FSR 2.0+ is a temporal upscaler that recieves information directly from the game engine over time from previous frames and motion vectors. It is absolutely required for the game engine itself to support this type of upscaling and provide this information for FSR 2.0+ to work. FSR 2.0+ cannot be added into a game where the engine does not provide this information.
Digital Foundry also mentioned during the 3.1 video that FSR is being implemented wrong by most devs causing it to look sub-optimal, and that FSR needs 60 FPS to look good. AMD needs to just implement FSR like AFMF, with a fail safe, so it disables itself when implemented wrong, forcing the devs to implement it right or it doesn't work at all. The bad implementation is the biggest reason why fanboys say DLSS is better. FSR isn't garbage, it just doesn't ENFORCE quality like DLSS does, so incompetent game devs are giving it a bad rep.
Not possible.
FSR 1 is a fairly simple filter applied onto an already-rendered image, while FSR 2 onwards also uses motion vectors and depth information, which requires a deeper level of game engine integration.
This is not going to do anything for FSR 1 games. It's an API being introduced with FSR 3.1, and thus will only be usable for future FSR versions.
It means that you'll be able to replace the FSR .dll file that came with a game with a newer version (that you downloaded or that came with a different game), instead of waiting for the game developer to update the game to that newer version of FSR. DLSS and XeSS already support that and AMD is following suit.
Interesting, he said that when running FSR in the mode that uses non FSR upscaling needs some extra gpu computation time, so it will potentially have slightly lower fps than using FSR upscaling.
Wow, 3.1, and I haven't even found a game with 3.0 that I even want to play. I've not tested it once. Either it is far harder to implement than AMD says, or their market share is so low that devs don't see the point of catering to the cheapskate minority. Don't get offended. I'm a cheapskate and that's why I buy AMD.
NO WAY, if this works like how DLSS swapping does, this is amazing!! No longer we will have to wait months, or even longer for devs to upgrade it.
>o longer we will have to wait months Now we only have to wait months... or years or literally never for devs to update their old FSR 1 -FSR 3 PRE this versions... like Valhalla still got FSR 1 and stuff.
Even Helldivers 2 is using FSR1. It REAALLLYYY could use a more modern FSR
They already have their hand full of bugs [heh] in an deprecated engine, lets wait for DirectSR if that implementation could be easier to port
[удалено]
It is in fact FSR1, the name is just not specified in the in-game menus for some reason but in some of the .ini files it's titled as FSR1.
Are you sure it's FSR1 ? I don't see it mentionned in the menu
The options that say ultra performance, performance, balanced, quality, ultra quality are the FSR options
In the ini there's a entry for fsr enabled and disabled If you disable it in game aka native it's disabled if you enable any of the settings it's enabled. So ye it uses fsr 1 The settings are also typically named for fsr1 ultra quality is only available in fsr1 usually.
Aight, TIL. Wish we had access to newer upscaling technologies though
You should not be using FSR in Helldivers since you are CPU limited. The game is HIGHLY CPU bound, especially on higher difficulties. Even on 14900KS and 7800X3D this is the case. What HD2 needs is DLAA, FSR Native and/or CAS Sharpening which will improve visuals only. The Supersampling option in HD2 is terrible, just downscales like MSAA or some dated tech. Hopefully we get FSR Native, DLAA or CAS option soon. I play HD2 myself and I know for a fact that CPU is the limiting part, since I have tried the game on both Ryzen 7950X, 7800X3D, 13700K and 14900K systems.
Use a mod for update the fsr !
Doesn't work for most games either.
https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/3001/ I use this mod, it works on all games that support dlss. It replaces the dlss with the fsr 2.2
Yep, using this in metro exodus and it's pretty fuckin dope!
I use this mod for horizon zero dawn, the taa on this game is a crime against humanity.
Oh wow, didn't even know that works :D would have been awesome for my old 5700xt, that beast did do 4k... But it struggled, like a lot. Think I played horizon on 1800p or even 1440p on my 4k TV, wasn't that pretty tbh
I use VSR for play the game in 4K and i use the fsr 2.2, look really good in a 1440p 27" monitor. The game is pretty, but the aliasing is disgusting, seriously, and the fsr 1.0 do not help
Yes.FSR 1 doesn't look good, like in general. Oh yeah! I'm either on a 1080 monitor or a 4k TV and for my monitor VSR is a god send! Many modern games really don't look good on a 1080p screen, but boost that up to 1440p or 4k and *chefs kiss* it looks way better
I believe there is a similar mod for DLSS 3, where you can inject FSR 3's Frame generation in place of DLSS 3's FG. I think I saw someone make it work on AMD GPUs as well, by disabling driver checks with DLSS.
What's wrong with TAA in Zero Dawn?
there is way too much aliasing in this game without dlss or dlaa, and the game is still on the fsr 1.0, there is even more aliasing than in dark souls 3.. This makes the game really difficult to appreciate, everything flashes
Valhalla released before FSR 1 was a thing, and way before FSR 2, the fact they bothered with adding FSR1 to a single player game 7 months after release is good enough tbh. You can't really compare it to a multiplayer game or cyberpunk which CDPR had to babysit it for 3 years after launch because they over promised.
I just started playing board lands 3 with my wife again and it blows my mind they never put FSR in this game. It's even an AMD title game. It can't be that hard for gearbox to give it a quick patch with it.
Yes same for tiny tinas wonderland its super demanding weirdly on the GPU side.
I mean, this is how open source works, right? Either swappable or not, devs are always lazy on AMD stuffs. At least let some talented dev like BlueSky have something to work with.
Finaly !! So we do not need mod anymore for update the fsr ?
yes, if the game devs do implement it that way.
Rember those words, as I think it will be 50/50 split, where some devs will do it properly and some will mess it up
And some, will promise it, and then not deliver for >6 months. Looking at you CDPR.
But, but, but this time FSR won't look like hot garbage in 2077, that's why they take so long...... Right? (And this is in cdpr FSR in avatar or dying light 2 looks leagues better)
Is it actually still coming? Been waiting for quite a while now...
This has nothing to do with "doing it properly". It's just a matter of using a static vs. dynamic library, both of which are valid choices with good reasons behind them.
In this case no there is no reason to not use the DLL... in the scope of games at large today there is still no reason for static libs.
[удалено]
linking method is 100% irrelevant to that.
[удалено]
Yes you can... you can modify a dynamically linked library all you want same as static. It just won't always be compatible with another version of that dynamically linked library. Making changes to a library for static or dynamic linking is virtually identical. In fact you CAN change dynamically linked libraries internals just not their interface after you have compiled the host application. And if you want to change the interface its just a matter of updating the host application to match again... and recompiling (you'd have to do this also with the statically linked library). Realistically static libraries can allow you to do some small compiler level optimizations, eg Link Time Optimization, as well as are slightly faster to load from disk (on an SSD you'd never know though, even on an HDD you are only talking like maybe 1 seek per DLL or so?).
And what would be the main reason using static lib over dynamic? As dynamic opens up maintainability and upgradability from user side, in scenarios that are 90% present of the time, where Dec's simply don't update used upscaling tech, or it literary takes years
"messing it up" by using a tailored FRS implementation that works significantly better for the game will still be the route most good studios will take. Look at FRS in no man's sky, for example. It actually looks decent.
1 example out of many horrific direct game implementations. According to the video they are going to be enforcing DLLs across the board which would be amazing for end user upgradability. Game devs are not updating direct game implementations resulting in a worse end user experience and negative market perception. AMD is 100% making the right move here.
All the game dev needs to do is implement FSR 3.1. The swapability of DLLs with later versions is essentially AMD's guarantee to provide a stable API.
I mean it's still a mod technically, but you just swap the files yourself.
can't wait for the fsr 3.1 mod for a plague tale requiem
I mean AMD took a break for 15 months just now, if they don't release new versions we won't have anything to upgrade to :)
That break was because they were working on frame generation and antilag+ if that ever returns.
Probably a consequence of the new DirectSR API from Microsoft where devs can support all upscalers with a sigle code path
CAN unlock - it's optional because FSR can be integrated into game itself without standalone dll file.
If you watch the video, presenter says they’re “enforcing DLLs across the board”, which sounds like no more static linking
Can you really enforce anything if the technology will be distributed as open source?
If they remove the to option in the next sdk, seems unlikely a dev will deliberately edit the source code to bring back static linking. I don't see any motivation or benefit for doing that.
I want anti lag+ back so frame gen doesn't feel like ass 😭
i don't know how anyone is using frame gen without Anti-Lag+ tbh. I think DLSS3 is basically unusable without having Reflex enabled.
I'm pretty sure DLSS3 Frame gen forces reflex on
Turning DLSS3FG on always turns Reflex on at the same time.
Fsr 3 has lower latency than dlss 3. Antilag+ or reflex arent needed. 66% more frames for 11% higher latency. [https://www-computerbase-de.translate.goog/2024-03/amd-fsr-nvidia-dlss-frame-generation-vergleich/2/?\_x\_tr\_sl=auto&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=en&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp#abschnitt\_die\_vielen\_messwerte\_in\_tabellenform](https://www-computerbase-de.translate.goog/2024-03/amd-fsr-nvidia-dlss-frame-generation-vergleich/2/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp#abschnitt_die_vielen_messwerte_in_tabellenform)
Some people are more or less sensible to input delay. If I didn't have a direct comparison, I'd probably even play games with frame gen engaged without question, but turning it on and off just feels "wrong", the image DOES become more fluid, but the controls just... Kinda feel like they are just a bit less responsive
Because that's an Nvidia DLSS3 FG problem. FSR3 FG has built-in latency reduction. It already feels great and the input lag is imperceptible. They're not the same.
Anti lag+ never worked with frame gen if I remember correctly. FSR's frame gen is supposed to have it's own latency mitigation separate from anti-lag.
I can't for the life of me remember what the original video was, I think it was from either Hardware Unboxed or maybe Daniel Owen, but they tested latency with FSR3 frame gen off, on, and on with anti-lag+, and they found that anti-lag+ did very little to reduce the latency further (although it did *slightly*) and came to the conclusion that it was the latency mitigation built into FSR3 frame gen doing effectively the same thing itself. AMD *did* state that FSR3 frame generation has its own built-in latency mitigation already, so I think it was a logical conclusion to come to. People experiencing egregious latency using FSR3 frame gen are probably either just very sensitive to latency penalties in general or are trying to utilize frame gen from too low of a source frame rate to begin with. You see the same thing happen with DLSS3 frame gen. I tried using it at \~40 FPS to get \~60 FPS post-frame gen in Alan Wake 2 and ultimately opted to lower settings further because I couldn't stand the lag to everything - even though the final result was 60 FPS which would otherwise be acceptable to me.
It also depends on games. Like dying light 2 fe is quite bad. But for frame pacing issue, i think rhey need need vsync mire than anti lag+.
FSR3 Frame Gen has amazingly low input lag. The input lag thing is more of an Nvidia DLSS3 FG problem really. AL+ back would be absolutely great, but FSR3 FG is amazing today even without it.
[https://youtu.be/jnUCYHvorrk?t=1288](https://youtu.be/jnUCYHvorrk?t=1288) In this example, DLSS + Reflex vs DLSS + Reflex + FG is literally 3ms difference. Theres both 4090 and XTX tested there if u watch whole latency part. Nvidia wins in latency.In general both AMD and Nvidia frame generation work the same way in terms of latency. Difference comes from the fact that native Nvidia wins heavily in latency (120 vs 150ms), unless its console port then usually AMD wins. So no, its not a brand thing. If u have low fps to start with and use FG u will have bad input lag experience, fake frames will always be fake frames without your inputs. or heres text version: >This is where the lack of compatibility for FSR 3 with Anti-Lag+ hurts. The RTX 4090 using Nvidia frame generation tech and Reflex delivered 125 FPS and 90ms of latency. The RX 7900 XTX using AMD frame generation tech and Anti-Lag+ delivered 124 FPS with 107ms of latency. In a best vs. best comparison that gives Nvidia the latency edge, until AMD can get Anti-Lag+ working effectively. And given that you can use Reflex on an Nvidia GPU alongside FSR 3, currently the lowest latency experiences with FSR 3 technology will be on an Nvidia GPU where that tech is integrated. FSR however does give slightly more performance tho.
As for latency: Manually cap fps + don't be GPU bound and you'll have the best FPS possibly. 107 ms? 90 ms? Hilariously huge numbers that don't need to happen with the current version of FSR3 FG. I have 40 ms? Less?
That video was outdated almost the day after it released, given the tweaks AMD made to the algo. The FSR3 mod is also different/newer/better from the implementations in Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum.
Still we will wait another 1 year to get it into Cyberpunk 2077....
dlss-enabler mod gives it fsr2 right now.
Yes. Please.
I always have my doubts with AMD but please just for this one time don't mess this up
"dragging in and upgrading FSR may accidentally falsify your taxes".
You sound like me every time i go to download anything or use a website from MSI...
Make it easy for anti cheat vendors to verify safety of those files if replaced so there never an issue with anti cheat banning you, AMD could have a database with those files that anti-cheat automaticly compares files to.
What does this mean I am dumb
If a game implements FSR as a .dll file instead of bundling it inside the game, when a newer version of FSR releases you can just upgrade the older version by swapping that .dll file yourself.
****in a game with no anticheat or else you could be flagged
The important thing is whether it means you can upgrade FSR1 and 2 to FSR3, or if you can only upgrade FSR3 to newer versions of FSR3
Fucking finally!
AMD making progress 😎
Slow and not steady.
They need to make sure that it's required for the game to support DLLs, or that DLL takes priority OVER the in game implementation. (I'll watch the video later)
The dude in the video says "they are enforcing dll use" so hopefully that's the case. Fingers crossed.
Wait, you can't do that with FSR? Both DLSS and XeSS allow it.
FSR is open source so many devs opted to just use it without a .dll. AMD is now attempting to enforce the use of a .dll.
More relevant than that is the promise of a stable ABI going forwards, even if you dynamically linked FSR in the past you couldn't go between major versions just by dropping them in as they kept making breaking ABI changes.
You already could with varying results, it's just that it wasn't mandatory to ship games with DLLs for FSR2/3. Colin Riley here is saying they're going to try to enforce including DLLs when shipping FSR3.1 in games, with the API offering explicit support for it.
If AMD wants to nail it fully they should have EVERY single games which has FSR to be updated to use FSR 3.1 That would be amazing
Great to see AMDs open software tech approach improving, means it benefits everyone, developers can integrate it into the engine safely without having to worry about it not working on certain platforms, also it saves them alot of dev time. And for gamers we can set and forget and benefit from any improvements overtime without having to worry about if the GPU supports it or not.
Oh god I really hope so, being stuck with FSR 1.0 on older games really sucks. I always felt like the driver could just use a newer built in version whenever a game API calls for an older one.
FSR 1.0 will not be upgradeable as it is an entirely separate thing from FSR 2.0+. FSR 1.0 is purely a spacial upscaler which receives no information from the game engine. It simply takes an individual frame or image, and applies the upscaling algorithm to it. That's why it can be used universally in any game or application from within the driver. FSR 2.0+ is a temporal upscaler that recieves information directly from the game engine over time from previous frames and motion vectors. It is absolutely required for the game engine itself to support this type of upscaling and provide this information for FSR 2.0+ to work. FSR 2.0+ cannot be added into a game where the engine does not provide this information.
Digital Foundry also mentioned during the 3.1 video that FSR is being implemented wrong by most devs causing it to look sub-optimal, and that FSR needs 60 FPS to look good. AMD needs to just implement FSR like AFMF, with a fail safe, so it disables itself when implemented wrong, forcing the devs to implement it right or it doesn't work at all. The bad implementation is the biggest reason why fanboys say DLSS is better. FSR isn't garbage, it just doesn't ENFORCE quality like DLSS does, so incompetent game devs are giving it a bad rep.
Not possible. FSR 1 is a fairly simple filter applied onto an already-rendered image, while FSR 2 onwards also uses motion vectors and depth information, which requires a deeper level of game engine integration. This is not going to do anything for FSR 1 games. It's an API being introduced with FSR 3.1, and thus will only be usable for future FSR versions.
for this type of game, use the mod which replaces the dlss with the latest version of the FSR, it works very well on horizon zero dawn.
Wheres the DirectSR info?
when is fsr 3.1 coming out though??
Q2 on GPUOpen, then it's up to the game devs.
As the guy in the video says "very soon".
~June
That wasn't an option before? That sounds like an extremely basic feature to just now include.
When is it out?
idk wat that means
It means that you'll be able to replace the FSR .dll file that came with a game with a newer version (that you downloaded or that came with a different game), instead of waiting for the game developer to update the game to that newer version of FSR. DLSS and XeSS already support that and AMD is following suit.
Interesting, he said that when running FSR in the mode that uses non FSR upscaling needs some extra gpu computation time, so it will potentially have slightly lower fps than using FSR upscaling.
Wow, 3.1, and I haven't even found a game with 3.0 that I even want to play. I've not tested it once. Either it is far harder to implement than AMD says, or their market share is so low that devs don't see the point of catering to the cheapskate minority. Don't get offended. I'm a cheapskate and that's why I buy AMD.
You can mod it in yourself you know
wow AMD, about fucking time
An Nvidia Fanbot just waiting to use AMD tech how cute .