Intel XeSS 1.3 improves performance with new presets, intros DLAA alternative

Daniel Sims

Posts: 1,377   +43
Staff
The big picture: Nvidia DLSS initially disappointed analysts upon its launch in 2019. However, over the past five years, significant updates and incremental improvements have substantially enhanced the technology, introducing new features and refining its performance. Intel's XeSS, in contrast, debuted in a more polished state than DLSS did in 2019. Intel has since started implementing similar enhancements to improve its impact on gaming performance and image quality.

Intel recently unveiled XeSS 1.3, the latest version of the company's answer to Nvidia DLSS and AMD FSR. The update adjusts the render scale of each preset and introduces new ones, including a native resolution mode similar to Nvidia's DLAA.

The new version aims to enhance performance, provide more detailed image reconstruction, improve anti-aliasing, and reduce ghosting for a more stable picture. Intel demonstrated these improvements using a brief but informative example scene from 'Like A Dragon: Ishin' (shown below), which features numerous fine details – a challenge for AI upscaling. Version 1.3 also addresses the visual glitches present in the earlier implementation.

The most significant and intricate change in XeSS 1.3 involves adjustments to the upscale factors, as Intel's technology no longer utilizes the same render scale as DLSS and FSR.

As illustrated in the chart below, the render factor previously used by the performance mode has been shifted to the balance mode, thereby increasing the levels of the other presets by one rank. Consequently, the internal resolution for each preset has decreased, reflecting Intel's confidence in the image quality enhancements of XeSS 1.3. For instance, while the 4K performance mode used to render at 1080p, it now operates closer to 900p, with 1080p transitioning to the balanced preset.

Preset Prior XeSS Resolution Scale XeSS 1.3 Resolution Scale
Native Anti-Aliasing

N/A

1.0 (Native Resolution)
Ultra Quality Plus N/A 1.3x
Ultra Quality 1.3x 1.5x
Quality 1.5x 1.7x
Balanced 1.7x 2.0x
Performance 2.0x 2.3x
Ultra Performance N/A 3.0x
Preset Prior XeSS Resolution For 4K XeSS 1.3 Resolution Scale For 4K
Native Anti-Aliasing N/A 3,840 x 2,160 (Native Resolution)
Ultra Quality Plus N/A ~2,953 x 1,661
Ultra Quality ~2,953 x 1,661 2.560 x 1,440
Quality 2,560 x 1,440 ~2,258 x 1,270
Balanced ~2,258 x 1,270 1,920 x 1,080
Performance 1,920 x 1,080 ~1,669 x 939
Ultra Performance N/A 1,280 x 720
Preset Prior XeSS Resolution Scale For 1440p XeSS 1.3 Resolution Scale For 1440p
Native Anti-Aliasing

N/A

2,560 x 1,440 (Native Resolution)
Ultra Quality Plus N/A ~1,969 x 1,107
Ultra Quality ~1,969 x 1,107 ~1,706 x 960
Quality ~1,706 x 960 ~1,505 x 847
Balanced ~1,505 x 847 1,280 x 720
Performance 1,280 x 720 ~1,113 x 626
Ultra Performance N/A ~853 x 480
Preset Prior XeSS Resolution Scale For 1080p XeSS 1.3 Resolution Scale For 1080p
Native Anti-Aliasing

N/A

1,920 x 1,080 (Native Resolution)
Ultra Quality Plus N/A ~1,476 x 830
Ultra Quality ~1,476 x 830 1,280 x 720
Quality 1,280 x 720 ~1,129 x 635
Balanced ~1,129 x 635 960 x 540
Performance 960 x 540 ~834 x 469
Ultra Performance N/A 640 x 360

The company has also introduced two new modes alongside native anti-aliasing: Ultra Quality Plus at the top and Ultra Performance at the bottom. The former reduces a small number of pixels to potentially enhance performance noticeably, while the latter upscales from one-third of the output resolution – ideal for visually demanding titles with ray tracing in 4K or even 8K (if one dares).

Moreover, Intel's performance data indicates moderate to significant framerate improvements for several titles. However, the company's chart lacks screenshot comparisons, which are crucial, especially since it displays games running in 1080p performance mode, which internally isn't far from 480p. Depending on the viewing distance, artifacts could become quite noticeable at that resolution. Additionally, performance disparities would likely be more pronounced in a 4K demonstration.

Another consideration is that none of the games tested by Intel officially support XeSS 1.3. The tests were conducted using custom-modified XeSS implementations. While the update is freely available on GitHub, it remains unclear whether users can manually integrate it into previously released titles, a feature available with DLSS (which has recently been updated to version 3.7).

Keeping this in mind, Intel reports an average 10 percent performance improvement with XeSS 1.3 compared to previous versions. However, Diablo IV sees a more significant enhancement of nearly 30 percent on the Intel Arc A750. Across all tested games, there is an approximate eight percent increase in performance on integrated graphics, which likely represents Intel's real advantage in the upscaling competition. With a medium graphics preset and an output resolution of 1080p, achieving 60 frames per second while playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 on an Intel Core Ultra notebook without dedicated graphics becomes feasible.

Permalink to story:

 
FSR needs to get it's **** together pronto.

AMD is legitimately at risk of being lapped on the upscaling front by Intel of all companies...
 
FSR needs to get it's **** together pronto.

AMD is legitimately at risk of being lapped on the upscaling front by Intel of all companies...

Ultimately we want a platform neutral solution so AMD going open is a good thing for some software.

I think Nvidia's new SDR to HDR solution for gaming ( and lesser movies ) is a bigger challenge in the short term.

Anyway AI in future should be able to "fix" game at source and negate the need for a lot of this - ie silly we waste energy individually when say Steam could have an option , use AI enhanced assets and presets
 
AMD needs to wake up, XeSS is beating FSR and have done for a long time and yet XeSS keeps improving while FSR don't

DLSS/DLAA beats both with ease
 
3.1 is coming but no game uses it yet.
It will change nothing without being revamped completely.

Marketing talk and "it might come" is pretty useless for gamers, when people with RTX GPUs can already use the newest DLSS/DLAA version in all 500+ games by simply replacing the .dll - That is how AMD should have made FSR too.
 
It will change nothing without being revamped completely.

Marketing talk and "it might come" is pretty useless for gamers, when people with RTX GPUs can already use the newest DLSS/DLAA version in all 500+ games by simply replacing the .dll - That is how AMD should have made FSR too.
Revamped how?

Also it's not
it might come
It IS coming. And you're dead wrong with your claim that RTX owners can already use the newest version (3.7 if im not mistaken) in all 500+ games. Firstly most people dont manually swap DLL's nor is it user friendly. Secondly most people dont even know that's an option. Thirdly not all games behave the same with the newest version (meaning newest might not be the best). Games that support DLAA or 3.5 Ray Reconstruction is far fewer than 500.

Also FSR also supports DLL swapping.
 
Revamped how?

Also it's not

It IS coming. And you're dead wrong with your claim that RTX owners can already use the newest version (3.7 if im not mistaken) in all 500+ games. Firstly most people dont manually swap DLL's nor is it user friendly. Secondly most people dont even know that's an option. Thirdly not all games behave the same with the newest version (meaning newest might not be the best). Games that support DLAA or 3.5 Ray Reconstruction is far fewer than 500.

Also FSR also supports DLL swapping.

Absolutely not LMAO.

FSR is even worse than XeSS at this point - https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-fsr-vs-xess/
 
Revamped how?

Also it's not

It IS coming. And you're dead wrong with your claim that RTX owners can already use the newest version (3.7 if im not mistaken) in all 500+ games. Firstly most people dont manually swap DLL's nor is it user friendly. Secondly most people dont even know that's an option. Thirdly not all games behave the same with the newest version (meaning newest might not be the best). Games that support DLAA or 3.5 Ray Reconstruction is far fewer than 500.

Also FSR also supports DLL swapping.

Swapping dll is very easy. Lmao, you are not very technical I suspect? Everyone can do it. And there's also tools like DLSS Swapper which makes it foolproof.

Revamped = Rebuilt ground up because their approach was doomed to begin with - https://www.techpowerup.com/319902/amd-working-on-an-ai-powered-fsr-upscaling-algorithm

FSR don't support dll swapping. You are grasping at straws. FSR don't work the same way as DLSS and its highly inferior with tons of artifacts, ghosting and judder.

FSR can look decent, sometimes, in still photos. But when you move, it looks much worse than DLSS.

Why do you think AMD is going to revamp it?

Why do you think Sony made their own upscaler for PS5 Pro, PSSR, instead of just using FSR? Because FSR was not good enough. Very simple. They wanted DLSS-like upscaling.
 
Absolutely not LMAO.

FSR is even worse than XeSS at this point - https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-fsr-vs-xess/
You mean XeSS that very few games use?
Swapping dll is very easy. Lmao, you are not very technical I suspect? Everyone can do it. And there's also tools like DLSS Swapper which makes it foolproof.

Revamped = Rebuilt ground up because their approach was doomed to begin with - https://www.techpowerup.com/319902/amd-working-on-an-ai-powered-fsr-upscaling-algorithm

FSR don't support dll swapping. You are grasping at straws. FSR don't work the same way as DLSS and its highly inferior with tons of artifacts, ghosting and judder.

FSR can look decent, sometimes, in still photos. But when you move, it looks much worse than DLSS.

Why do you think AMD is going to revamp it?

Why do you think Sony made their own upscaler for PS5 Pro, PSSR, instead of just using FSR? Because FSR was not good enough. Very simple. They wanted DLSS-like upscaling.
Swapping DLL's may be easy to you and me but that does not mean it's easy for everyone. You would surprised if I told you how many people with high refresh rate monitors run them at 60Hz because they never went into the settings to manually set them to proper value. Even fewer people know about tools to swap DLL's or what or where DLL's even are.
Newer generations are so clueless that they even have no concept of a file system. If search malfunctions then they are lost.

PSSR has nothing to do with FSR. It only has to work with fixed hardware so it made sense for Sony to develop their own. AMD has to develop FSR to run on various hardware configurations unlike Sony and Nvidia that can target very limited architectures.

As for FSR DLL swapping - yes it's possible now and easier with 3.1:
 
You mean XeSS that very few games use?

Swapping DLL's may be easy to you and me but that does not mean it's easy for everyone. You would surprised if I told you how many people with high refresh rate monitors run them at 60Hz because they never went into the settings to manually set them to proper value. Even fewer people know about tools to swap DLL's or what or where DLL's even are.
Newer generations are so clueless that they even have no concept of a file system. If search malfunctions then they are lost.

PSSR has nothing to do with FSR. It only has to work with fixed hardware so it made sense for Sony to develop their own. AMD has to develop FSR to run on various hardware configurations unlike Sony and Nvidia that can target very limited architectures.

As for FSR DLL swapping - yes it's possible now and easier with 3.1:
Which is why DLSS Swapper exist, so even my grandma can do it.

FSR is clearly worse than PSSR or Sony would have used FSR instead. Logic 101 really.

Good if FSR can finally swap DLL. In how many games is this possible tho? 0?

Sadly it does not change the fact that FSR is inferior still.
 
Back