AMD at Computex 2021: FSR vs. DLSS, Ryzen 5000 APUs, and Radeon RX 6000M GPUs

Scorpus

Posts: 2,011   +231
Staff member
Something to look forward to: AMD's Computex keynote just took place and we have all the details thanks to a pre-briefing which included three key announcements: FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR), new Ryzen 5000 desktop APUs and Radeon RX 6000M GPUs for laptops. Here are our preliminary thoughts on what's coming from Team Red.

FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR)

One thing that Radeon GPUs have lacked for quite some time now is a true competitor to Nvidia’s DLSS, but that's changing this month with the launch of FidelityFX Super Resolution or FSR. This is AMD’s long awaited alternative that will attempt to upscale games from a lower render resolution to a higher output resolution, allowing for higher levels of performance without a significant reduction to visuals – or ideally the same visual quality.

AMD is not providing a ton of details just yet, but we do have a release date of June 22, which is just around the corner. This is when we’ll see the first game get patched with FSR support.

FSR is part of AMD’s GPUOpen program, and as such it's supposed to work on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs, even those that don’t support DLSS, like the GeForce 10 series. AMD lists support for RX Vega, RX 500, RX 5000 and RX 6000 series GPUs, and all Ryzen APUs with Radeon Graphics. They won’t be providing technical support on GPUs from other vendors but we do know that FSR will work on Nvidia GPUs from at least Pascal and newer.

AMD teased FSR performance in two situations: the first is Godfall running on an RX 6800 XT using Epic settings and ray tracing at 4K resolution. Without FSR, the game was running at 49 FPS. With FSR using the Ultra Quality mode, performance increased to 78 FPS, a 59% increase. That margin jumped to 2X using the Quality mode, and exceeded 2X in both the Balanced and Performance modes.

AMD hasn’t shared what render resolutions each of these modes are running at, but the performance claims are impressive, and we can see there will be a range of FSR options to choose from. These performance uplifts are in line with what Nvidia claims with DLSS 2.0 in the latest titles, but of course, this is just one game and we have no idea how it was tested.

The second performance teaser we got was actually on Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1060 running Godfall again at 1440p Epic settings. FSR running in the Quality mode, so one step down from the highest mode, delivered a 41% higher frame rate and took the game above 30 FPS on average. AMD said they chose this demo because the GTX 1060 is the most popular GPU used today on Steam, and of course, they want to boast about how FSR works on this GPU while DLSS does not. This performance uplift is lower than what was seen previously at 4K using the 6800 XT, so that’s something to explore in the future as there is a chance that FSR won't perform the same on AMD as it does on Nvidia.

The big question mark remains visual quality. We only saw two still images with side-by-side comparison shots, no video comparisons, and certainly nothing in true detail. The first image looked quite good but the second showed clear differences and the FSR image was obviously inferior, showing less detail and more blur.

Update: AMD uploaded this 4K video to YouTube after the keynote...

That's all the information we have for now and we'll have to try it for ourselves soon to assess visual quality in depth. What we do know are two additional things: AMD is calling this a "spatial upscaling technology," with no mention of AI or temporal upscaling, although I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a temporal element that used information from multiple frames. No mention of "better than native" quality either, which most likely would just be marketing speak.

As for game support. Like DLSS, FSR requires integration on a per-game basis. AMD claims that 10 game studios and engines will integrate FSR in 2021, with an unspecified number of games. Godfall is one of those, and we might see a list of games as early as today on AMD’s website, but we weren’t provided one during the pre-briefing. In this sense, AMD is starting miles behind Nvidia which has been able to grow DLSS 2.0 support substantially in the 18 months since it was first deployed.

Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G

Next up we have news of two new APUs for the desktop market, the Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G had been previously announced for the OEM market, but will now be coming to the DIY market in essentially the same form.

The Ryzen 7 5700G is an 8-core, 16-thread processor using AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, clocked up to 4.6 GHz with 16 MB of L3 cache and a 65W TDP. There is also a Vega GPU inside with 8 compute units clocked up to 2 GHz. This is the same Cezanne die that AMD are using for Ryzen Mobile 5000 APUs like the Ryzen 9 5900HX, so it’s a monolithic design rather than chiplet based, and has half the L3 cache but still features a unified CCX.

Complementing this CPU is the Ryzen 5 5600G, which is a six-core processor clocked up to 4.4 GHz, also with 16 MB of L3 cache and with 7 Vega compute units clocked up to 1.9 GHz. The Ryzen 3 quad-core option announced for OEMs is not being brought across to the desktop market.

AMD is positioning these processors as lower cost Zen 3 alternatives to the current X-models with no integrated graphics that have been in the market for some time now. The company acknowledged that there has been a lot of demand for non-X CPUs and apparently these parts are set to fill that gap.

Unfortunately though, these aren’t really the low cost CPUs many have been looking for. The Ryzen 5 5600G is priced at $260, $40 less than the Ryzen 5 5600, but not the $200-220 that many people were hoping a Ryzen 5 5600 would slot into, so even after this announcement we still don’t have a $200 Zen 3 processor of any kind (your only option in this segment are previous generation AMD products, or Intel).

The Ryzen 7 5700G sits between the 5600X and 5800X with its $360 price tag, and both CPUs will be available on August 5th. AMD provided some performance slides comparing the Ryzen 7 5700G to the Intel Core i7-11700 which is Intel’s direct competitor at $370, and of course you can take these numbers with a grain of salt as they are directly from AMD. With that said, AMD do expect their integrated GPU to be much better than the iGPU Intel are offering in Rocket Lake parts like the 11700.

It will be quite interesting to see how these monolithic chips compare to the chiplet-based desktop processors already on the market in both productivity and gaming performance, to see which approach is superior. I don’t expect these new APUs to be as fast given the lower amount of cache and slightly lower clock speeds, but latencies will be interesting.

Radeon RX 6800M and more gaming laptop GPUs

AMD is making a new push into gaming laptops with much more capable RDNA 2 GPUs. We had seen some RX 5000M GPUs hit the market in the last few years, and AMD has made several attempts at laptop gaming in the past, but the big issue for them has been efficiency.

Nvidia simply has had the more efficient architecture for generations now, which has led them to dominate the laptop gaming landscape. AMD is attempting to shift that narrative with new GPUs that feature low idle power and real time power cycling, optimized for mobile form factors. We know already the RDNA2 architecture is a lot more efficient than RDNA1, allowing for higher performance and/or lower power draw depending on the circumstances.

The top laptop GPU that AMD is announcing is the Radeon RX 6800M, which is based on their Navi 22 GPU die, the same that powers the Radeon RX 6700 XT on the desktop. Thankfully though, AMD is being sensible with naming, calling this product the “6800M” which should clearly distinguish it from the desktop parts.

The RX 6800M features 40 compute units and 96 MB of infinity cache, plus game clock speeds up to 2300 MHz which is only slightly lower than the 2424 MHz game clock for the desktop RX 6700 XT. The memory subsystem includes 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit interface. Despite the RX 6700 XT being a 230W desktop GPU, AMD is listing the mobile 6800M with a very similar configuration at 145W with that 2300 MHz game clock expected to be achieved at 145W according to AMD’s specification table. We’ll have to see how that plays out, but it does point to the 6800M being efficient.

About those power ratings, AMD says there will be some wiggle room for OEMs to customize the power level depending on the cooling design and also whether technologies are enabled like SmartShift – AMD’s dynamic power allocation system that shifts power between the CPU and GPU as needed. However, AMD has not hinted at any sort of lower power variants, so it doesn’t sound like they will be going down the Max-Q route.

The RX 6800M will arrive first in the Asus ROG Strix G15, a laptop that we already have on hand and plan to test and benchmark for you later this week. For now, here are AMD’s provided benchmarks which you should take with a grain of salt. They believe the 6800M will be between 1.4 and 1.7x faster than the RTX 2070 for laptops, while delivering performance around the same mark as the RTX 3080 Laptop GPU, targeting 1440p gaming.

AMD is also suggesting that the RX 6800M will deliver much better performance on battery than the RTX 3080 depending on the game. We don’t normally test gaming on battery but AMD did make specific note on this, suggesting that RDNA2 is particularly efficient at lower power levels that can be sustained on battery power.

The Radeon RX 6700M was also announced. This is a cut down version of the Navi 22 die with 36 compute units at the same 2300 MHz game clock, along with 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus. 80 MB of infinity cache is included. AMD is listing this as a 135W GPU, which in comparison to Nvidia is similar to the upper end of the RTX 3070’s range and the middle of the RTX 3080.

Next is the Radeon RX 6600M, using a new Navi 23 die that we also expect to feature on the desktop at some point. This GPU features 28 compute units and a game clock of 2177 MHz, with AMD listing a 100W power limit. 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is included here along with 32 MB of infinity cache. The first system to use this GPU should be an HP Omen 16 model, and AMD is touting high levels of performance for 1080p gaming, comparable to the RTX 3060.

The Radeon 6800M and 6600M should be available right away, while the 6700M will be available soon – and that’s probably due to the 6700M relying on cut down silicon. We're excited to test all of these GPUs in the coming weeks to see just how well AMD can stack up to Nvidia for gaming performance in a laptop form factor and whether we finally have genuine competition in this space.

The final thing AMD talked about was their new laptop program called "AMD Advantage," which is essentially a laptop design and certification process to ensure the highest quality laptops using AMD hardware. The Advantage program combines Ryzen GPUs with Radeon GPUs, low latency 144Hz+ displays, fast SSDs, decent thermals and battery life, plus more. The Asus and HP laptops we just mentioned are the first that will launch as part of this program and the first to use RDNA2 graphics.

Permalink to story.

 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 494   +948
bd5e07eaaa1a69eaad755c08221a3c546f42e7519c62029f2f81d68c6187d007.jpg
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 515   +857
Very interesting how they decided that the APUs will be the lower cost version of the chips this time around: this is likely since they trust their more aggressive auto-overlocking a lot more that they don't really have many cut down regular CPUs.

And while I realize the APUs are fairly unpopular among these parts, the performance we've seen on the OEM versions it's really quite good for integrated graphics: it can easily compete with a 1030 in performance now and can play many games at 1080p medium to low. It only really struggles on things like 2077 but hey AMD is confirming they might be able to enable FSR on at least some of these higher end games. It has potential to be the best "Better than nothing" option out there unless of course Nvidia manages to get a steady supply of 3050s out there which they might still, but not without it's own set of disadvantages (If it's not attractive to miners, it's because of limited VRAM which is also not desirable to do stuff like DLSS 2.0 with it)
 

DonquixoteIII

Posts: 87   +50
"Expect the Radeon RX 6000M line, Zen 3 Threadripper, and future roadmaps"

Well, one out of three isn't too bad for your busted crystal ball. Shoulda listened when I told you that Chagall was an artist, and that they were having troubling performing at 7nm.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,430   +2,311
FSR being able to run on older CPU and APU including the competition‘s (am curious if Intel iGPU are also supported) is very welcome news.
Will it be as good as DLSS 2 ? Probably not, but it doesn‘t have to be as long as the quality is not bad. The difference to DLSS is that it is not technology that requires you to buy a new mid range and up graphics card but instead even helps older products stay relevant if enough games support it. For many, it will actually make a difference between being able to play and enjoy a game or not. Especially low budget gamers should be happy.

FSR really needs to succeed here, I am very eager to try it for myself and compare, and also see the Digital Foundry analysis and comparison that will invariably follow.

Same here. Will also try this on my Matebook with a 2500u and still have an upgraded office PC with a Trinity / Kaveri APU and a 4GB RX 550 collecting dust, so may plug it in to see how both do if any of the games I play support FSR.
 

maroon1

Posts: 35   +40
The article here already mention that fsr produce inferior image quality and blur compared to native resolution and that based on screen provided by AMD. It will be even worse when it is tested by 3rd party reviewer

So it safe to assumme that is worse than dlss2.0. Also, it works on both Nvidia and AMD

Nvidia is the only winner here
 

Tom Yum

Posts: 94   +220
The article here already mention that fsr produce inferior image quality and blur compared to native resolution and that based on screen provided by AMD. It will be even worse when it is tested by 3rd party reviewer

So it safe to assumme that is worse than dlss2.0. Also, it works on both Nvidia and AMD

Nvidia is the only winner here
I'm not seeing how NVIDIA is the only winner. Even assuming FSR has lower visual quality than DLSS 2, the end result would be a number of current GeForce 1x00 owners (noting the 1060 is the most popular card on steam) who now have an option for playing modern games without the need to upgrade to a modern NVIDIA GPU thanks to AMD tech. That still hurts NVIDIA because it reduces the demand for their current product, and gives AMD more time to improve availability of their competing product to tempt some of these 1060/1070 owners who have yet to make the jump to the latest generation.

With AMD market share so low in the GPU space, even 5-10% of 1060 owners switching to AMD in their next upgrade will make a meaningful difference for AMD.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 193   +172
The article here already mention that fsr produce inferior image quality and blur compared to native resolution and that based on screen provided by AMD. It will be even worse when it is tested by 3rd party reviewer

So it safe to assumme that is worse than dlss2.0. Also, it works on both Nvidia and AMD

Nvidia is the only winner here
In my opinion, the technology is not meant to outdo DLSS. The main selling points are, (1)hardware agnostic, and, (2) it is easier to implement than competition's solution while still offering decent image quality. Both are meant to dampen the adoption of DLSS even though DLSS offers the superior image quality. Game developers tend to favor solution where it is easier for them to implement and now they have the advantage of using FSR which will benefit AMD, Nvidia and even Intel GPUs going forward. In addition with FSR most certainly bound for consoles, it likely helps kill a few birds with 1 stone for game developers.

In the short run, Nvidia looks like the winner. But the reason why Nvidia introduced some technology with bespoke hardware requirement, I.e. Tensor core, is really to have a solid differentiator from competition. By nullifying/ dampening that advantage, Nvidia will need to work harder or find other ways to differentiate their product.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,430   +2,311
In my opinion, the technology is not meant to outdo DLSS. The main selling points are, (1)hardware agnostic, and, (2) it is easier to implement than competition's solution while still offering decent image quality. Both are meant to dampen the adoption of DLSS even though DLSS offers the superior image quality. Game developers tend to favor solution where it is easier for them to implement and now they have the advantage of using FSR which will benefit AMD, Nvidia and even Intel GPUs going forward. In addition with FSR most certainly bound for consoles, it likely helps kill a few birds with 1 stone for game developers.

In the short run, Nvidia looks like the winner. But the reason why Nvidia introduced some technology with bespoke hardware requirement, I.e. Tensor core, is really to have a solid differentiator from competition. By nullifying/ dampening that advantage, Nvidia will need to work harder or find other ways to differentiate their product.

To add that FSR is free and open source, so any game dev is free to implement it as is or modify it for their own game engine.

This means if devs want to (there will be no official support from AMD) they could implement this for other OS (even last gen consoles) and perhaps even older GPU types.
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 185   +282
Here is more food for thought, from Tom from MLiD. He points out some valid and interesting things and if the rumor turns out to be true about RDNA 3 having extra hardware acceleration for FSR, that makes it even better:
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 609   +747
AMD's strategy to use the GTX 1060 as an example for their own tech is genius. They are beating nVidia at their own game.

AMD has always been more supportive of older GPUs, while nVidia ditches their old GPUs as quickly as possible. Now that AMD has managed to have a tech that works on older nVidia cards as well, it might bring more people over to their own ecosystem. I'm impressed.

As for the ones saying that DLSS 2.0 is better... That's a premature conclusion. Even if it has better image quality, does it also offer better performance? We'll have to wait for a proper comparison. And even if DLSS 2.0 looks slightly better, the universal AMD solution will likely be the main tech adopted, because it can be used not only on modern graphics cards, but also on consoles, APUs and older graphics cards. That's quite a broad market.
It's the same way that FreeSync basically killed off G-Sync.

In case you haven't noticed, pretty much all proprietary nVidia tech ends up superseded or dead. DLSS is no different.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 96   +181
I'm meh to cautiously optimistic about FSR simply because it isn't possible for Radeon to be more disappointing to me as a product. Then again, I suspect that even the most ardent AMD supporters already have that sinking feeling that FSR is far more likely to end up on the side of the never made it far beyond Powerpoint presentation line of product launches that the company is so well known for.
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 185   +282
I'm meh to cautiously optimistic about FSR simply because it isn't possible for Radeon to be more disappointing to me as a product. Then again, I suspect that even the most ardent AMD supporters already have that sinking feeling that FSR is far more likely to end up on the side of the never made it far beyond Powerpoint presentation line of product launches that the company is so well known for.
So let's see:
- nvidia has a 2 year advantage with DLSS (and because of that with RT too, since it's absolutely needed to work with it together, to barely get 60fps with RTX ON), but you think now that AMD made their version, they will just throw it in the bin and lose this advantage they just got - SURE.

- AMD in the past few years has never failed to deliver on a single thing that they promised (with all the Ryzen generations and RDNA1 and 2, despite all the FUD towards them every time), so given this recent past history you think this is the one case where they will fail, being also one of the most important techs for them and the industry, because without this tech, nvidia really can't be stopped to take the crow forever, but AMD will fail - SURE.

- FSR is free, which the majority of haters and simps of nvidia conveniently try to overlook, since it works in everything that has a minimum of graphical acceleration: from GPUs of any kind to consoles, APUs and mobile phones too. DLSS on the other hand is not free, it's only available for top $$$ with the RTX GPUs only, so just 2 generations of over-hyped scalper priced over-expensive GPUs in a black box ecosystem, but AMD will fail - SURE.

- not only is FSR free, it's also easier to implement than DLSS, but somehow the devs that already said the easy factor is the most important one for this tech, will ignore this, so FSR will fail - SURE.

- sometime ago freesync came as a free alternative to gsync and lots of people said the same, it will fail, yet it ended up forcing nvidia to accept it too after everyone else did and even though this is exactly the same strategy, this time AMD will fail - SURE

Yeah, I totaly agree with you and your valid point based on facts, not ill intended wishful thinking./s

P.S. Not to mention that if indeed RDNA 3 will have hardware accelerated FSR, that too is not also an important factor, that will give AMD even more reasons to fight for FSR./s
 

Rdmetz

Posts: 212   +90
FSR being able to run on older CPU and APU including the competition‘s (am curious if Intel iGPU are also supported) is very welcome news.
Will it be as good as DLSS 2 ? Probably not, but it doesn‘t have to be as long as the quality is not bad. The difference to DLSS is that it is not technology that requires you to buy a new mid range and up graphics card but instead even helps older products stay relevant if enough games support it. For many, it will actually make a difference between being able to play and enjoy a game or not. Especially low budget gamers should be happy.



Same here. Will also try this on my Matebook with a 2500u and still have an upgraded office PC with a Trinity / Kaveri APU and a 4GB RX 550 collecting dust, so may plug it in to see how both do if any of the games I play support FSR.


Biggest issue for them is they still need per game support and it's not something as simple as turning it on.

With dlss years ahead of them in support it will likley only grow and with time more and more generations of gpu's from Nvidia will support it.

Sure I guess it's nice for those guys holding on to hardware from 5 - 10 years ago trying to milk everything they can out of it but for most it's going to be a pretty simple choice when upgrading.... Get the one with more support and more benefit.
 

Rdmetz

Posts: 212   +90
I'm not seeing how NVIDIA is the only winner. Even assuming FSR has lower visual quality than DLSS 2, the end result would be a number of current GeForce 1x00 owners (noting the 1060 is the most popular card on steam) who now have an option for playing modern games without the need to upgrade to a modern NVIDIA GPU thanks to AMD tech. That still hurts NVIDIA because it reduces the demand for their current product, and gives AMD more time to improve availability of their competing product to tempt some of these 1060/1070 owners who have yet to make the jump to the latest generation.

With AMD market share so low in the GPU space, even 5-10% of 1060 owners switching to AMD in their next upgrade will make a meaningful difference for AMD.
But..... Why? Why would you go with the brand that has the inferior tech for your next decade with a single card? (assuming as a 1060 user in 2021+ you're the type to keep cards for a very long time)

It may be a nice thing to have for now and they may be able to give something to anyone who CAN'T run dlss 2.0 but what would make someone upgrading later on when facing a situation where almost everything else being equal they have the choice between Nvidia superior DLSS 2.0 or AMD's inferior FSR?

Again I'm not saying it will be (though it seems likley) but IF it is why would you make that choice?
 

m3tavision

Posts: 620   +372
But..... Why? Why would you go with the brand that has the inferior tech for your next decade with a single card? (assuming as a 1060 user in 2021+ you're the type to keep cards for a very long time)

It may be a nice thing to have for now and they may be able to give something to anyone who CAN'T run dlss 2.0 but what would make someone upgrading later on when facing a situation where almost everything else being equal they have the choice between Nvidia superior DLSS 2.0 or AMD's inferior FSR?

Again I'm not saying it will be (though it seems likely) but IF it is why would you make that choice?

Remember, BETAmax was superior to VHS:

FSR = works on 200 million pieces of hardware..
DLSS = works on 350,000 RTX cards..