AMD's FSR 3 frame generation technology made a surprise debut earlier this month in two games, and we're ready to give you an early look, covering frame pacing, image quality and latency.
AMD FSR 3 Frame Generation Analyzed: DLSS 3 Contender? Not So Fast
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,699 +3,210
Immortals of Aveum is a horrendous looking game with the image quality of a PS3 title. This is not hyperbole. It is a 720p game which so much heavy upscaling using the rather inferior FSR it comes across as a real mess in motion. No fine detail, crawling edges, breaking up of moving elements, ghosting, blur over everything.
Dimitriid
Posts: 2,451 +4,924
This surely is disappointing but let's not forget primarily for whom: The people who stand the most to benefit from FSR 3 are ironically enough, Nvidia users: Let's not forget that the market share doesn't lies and that statistically, basically all gamers are likely to be both Nvidia owners and people without access to DLSS 3 anyway since they don't have the new GPUs.
Which is basically the story for me here: Yes it is quite evident that AMD is still playing catch up to Nvidia on this tech. However let's say they were able to get 75-80% of the way there, they did so without relying on ML which means Nvidia could probably enable at least a partial or not-as-efficient version of DLSS 3 for at least 20X0 and 30X0 users but well, what would be the predatory anti-consumer profit in just giving gamers a feature they could really use to extend the life of their GPUs? Gotta make sure they're disposable way before their actual useful life is cycled out by gimping the memory because they rely on proprietary ML frame generation instead and to just have people expect to put down another 700 bucks at least each other year.
So yeah, FSR 3 is worst from any kind of performance or visual standpoint: It's still 1000% better for PC gaming overall than DLSS 3 simply because there's nothing else to fight back about Nvidia dominating and closing an open platform.
Which is basically the story for me here: Yes it is quite evident that AMD is still playing catch up to Nvidia on this tech. However let's say they were able to get 75-80% of the way there, they did so without relying on ML which means Nvidia could probably enable at least a partial or not-as-efficient version of DLSS 3 for at least 20X0 and 30X0 users but well, what would be the predatory anti-consumer profit in just giving gamers a feature they could really use to extend the life of their GPUs? Gotta make sure they're disposable way before their actual useful life is cycled out by gimping the memory because they rely on proprietary ML frame generation instead and to just have people expect to put down another 700 bucks at least each other year.
So yeah, FSR 3 is worst from any kind of performance or visual standpoint: It's still 1000% better for PC gaming overall than DLSS 3 simply because there's nothing else to fight back about Nvidia dominating and closing an open platform.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,224 +3,076
Frame generation is a gimmick. It was a gimmick for Nvidia and it's just as much a gimmick for AMD.
If you're a gamer that doesn't have the GPU performance to hit 60+ base frame rate targets, then frame generation – DLSS 3 or FSR 3 – isn't going to deliver a very good experience.
If you're a gamer that is only playing at 60 FPS but wants to improve that to a true high refresh rate experience, frame generation isn't properly capable of that.
If you're a multiplayer gamer that specifically wants to increase frame rates to access lower latencies and increase responsiveness to make you more competitive, frame generation is useless for that.
Exactly why frame generation is useless. Doesn't help the people that needs it most (sub 60fps peasants) and useless for people with playing multiplayer games.
If you're a gamer that is only playing at 60 FPS but wants to improve that to a true high refresh rate experience, frame generation isn't properly capable of that.
If you're a multiplayer gamer that specifically wants to increase frame rates to access lower latencies and increase responsiveness to make you more competitive, frame generation is useless for that.
Exactly why frame generation is useless. Doesn't help the people that needs it most (sub 60fps peasants) and useless for people with playing multiplayer games.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,623 +3,055
Wow. I have to say is that I'm not impressed by either offering. I'll stick with the basics here and just go with normal rasterization.
If devs can't make a game play properly on the hardware provided without needing software to downscale and then upscale and then add extra frames and then use more software to reduce latency.....they're doing something wrong and I don't want their crap if that's the case.
But, maybe I feel this way because I'm not a graphics wh0re.
If devs can't make a game play properly on the hardware provided without needing software to downscale and then upscale and then add extra frames and then use more software to reduce latency.....they're doing something wrong and I don't want their crap if that's the case.
But, maybe I feel this way because I'm not a graphics wh0re.
yRaz
Posts: 6,415 +9,502
90% of the new games that implement either feature are just not fun to play. Most of the games I play are 1998 to 2010. After that games really started to go down hill. No private servers, microtransactions, battle passes. I don't care how good someone makes a game look, if it isn't fun to play then it isn't fun to play. BG3 is the most fun I've had in years and they said outright they modeled it after games from the mid 2000's.
I'm getting too old for these developer shenanigans. I'm happy FSR3 is here. The trade off is compatibility over quality.
I'm getting too old for these developer shenanigans. I'm happy FSR3 is here. The trade off is compatibility over quality.
Anti-lag never worked in the 1st place, it was confirmed by igor's lab so anti-lag+ "working" on non-frame gen games is already a big improvement ...
the whole thing is still in beta clearly, but at least they're trying, I think it'll get better with time or at least ... usefull even if it's only a little
the whole thing is still in beta clearly, but at least they're trying, I think it'll get better with time or at least ... usefull even if it's only a little
Threadcount
Posts: 73 +76
I for one miss those days when GPUs where all about power and not Gimmicks, and developers now build their games around them. This probably gives both card makers the excuse to not make decent cards anymore because everyone is buying into fake frames...10 years from now DLSS20 and FSR15 will be combined with AI to predict how you will play...in Slide show format, no need to lift a finger, well maybe the middle one...Enjoy the fake it till you make it show
Actually, FSR 3 AA is BETTER than native. It is like Supersampling.
IMO, the only choice will be FSR 3 AA + FG.
I can`t believe that no one is talking about it. AMD got a killer on their hands.
IMO, the only choice will be FSR 3 AA + FG.
I can`t believe that no one is talking about it. AMD got a killer on their hands.
FG is good for people playing AAA single players at above 60Hz while aiming for 120Hz.
But yeah, it is not going to save your GPU if your native experience is already bad.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,623 +3,055
I agree.
A lot of the games I play these days are not the "triple AAA" games that are released or the rehashes. I really enjoy BG3, but my playthrough on the game is slowly limited by my time and my brother's time to play coop. We've put maybe 30 hours into the game over the past 2 months and we've only just begun to dip our toes into the world. Single player games I've played recently have been Grim Dawn, Dishonored 2 and Death of the Outsider (games released 2016/2017).
Games in the past few years that I've played have been older games such as Crysis and Crysis: Warhead, D:OS2 and one of the more recent ones is Wasteland 3 that came out about 2-3 years back. None of them had RT or path tracing, or needed DLSS or FSR or whatever other stupid software option that Nvidia has out there these days. I had fun and still have fun playing these games.
When I tried a game that supported RT and DLSS (Metro Exodus) these options did not make the game more fun just because it maybe looked a little prettier. Honestly, I'm not standing around oohing and aahing at subtle reflections in a window or puddle on the ground or trying to compare images of how light passes through an open window with the options on and off. I'm busy playing the game and enjoying what it offers. I don't have time to try and do comparisons or stand around in a game trying to watch clouds drift by in the reflection of a pond.
These options, when they can be ran in a game without software gimmicks to downscale and then upscale and adding in fake frames to help try and boost the framerate, great. Do it. Until that point in time, I'll avoid them because I don't want my performance tanked and then using other software programs that add latency to try and bring the game back to a playable framerate.
yRaz
Posts: 6,415 +9,502
There are two games I feel that RT offers anything. Cyberpunk 2077 and Minecraft. Aside from those 2, I haven't since a single game where RT offers anything other than a performance hit. I don't know why I like Minecraft with RT but I will say that Raytracing in Cyberpunk really helps with the atmosphere of the game. Something about the cyberpunk genre really works well with Ray Tracing. I still think we're at least 2 generations out from having Ray Tracing being practical.
But I just haven't seen ray tracing offer anything that justifies the performance hit outside of those 2 titles.
Most of what I've been playing lately is Oblivion and EvE online so no ray tracing there for me.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,058 +1,903
Meanwhile my 6800XT is running the games I "want" to play as opposed to tripe, at native 1440p and near ultra settings in every case.
Don't want fake frames. I have no problem with upscaling as in DLSS2 but will never care about DLSS3 or FSR3.
Don't want fake frames. I have no problem with upscaling as in DLSS2 but will never care about DLSS3 or FSR3.
When I want to play Witcher 3 Next-Gen in 4k Ultra+ with RT on my 4070Ti, DLSS Performance gives me only 35-40 FPS. So I have to use DLSS frame generation to get over 60 fps. The game looks good even on a 135" projector screen and plays well. Maybe it's because projectors are not as sharp as monitors or because Witcher 3 is slow-enough game to hide all the problems, IDK.
And my GT 1030 plays teh game I want to play as opposed to tripe, at native 4k and ultra settings.
Rocky4040
Posts: 198 +258
"Unlike with DLSS, FSR 3 frame generation requires the use of FSR 3 upscaling, so you are tied to FSR if you want to access AMD's frame gen tech and it cannot be enabled with native rendering or DLSS upscaling."
How is this different than DLSS version of Frame Generation where it only works with DLSS and I will also note it only works on the 40 series cards where as FSR+FG works on both Nvidia and AMD cards.
"Right now, all VSync off configurations in Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum are fundamentally broken with FSR 3. Frames are not being paced correctly with VSync disabled, leading to either a blurry or juddery presentation (or some combination of both issues)."
This is stated right from AMD that Vsync does indeed need to be turned on for this to work as they intended it to work. They also stated this is a work in progress and is just a preview release and that things will be changing as they update the new tech. It's not like this was a full release of their final software they have been working on. For what it is and an early release preview it works quite nicely much better than when Nvidia first released their FG in Cyberpunk and everything was a blurry mess with objects appearing out of no where.
"Overall, we are not impressed with what we've seen from AMD's FSR 3 so far. The feature seems rushed, incomplete, and not fully ready for prime time. There are too many incompatibilities and configuration issues, which stand out badly compared to Nvidia's DLSS 3, itself a feature with issues. The resulting FSR 3 frame generation experience is difficult to recommend outside a few niche use cases."
I guess that is why AMD stated this is only a preview release and not a full ready for prime release. Do not get me wrong I hate both Nvidia's & AMD's fake FG frames idea equally. To be fair though AMD is just responding to Nvidia's FG that came out with DLSS 3 so yea maybe AMD's FG was rushed in that regard.
To me anything that adds fake frames into my game is trash and does not need to be there as I said I hate both forms of FG form either company and soon Intel will do it as well. It is cheating the FPS and making one think they are getting more FPS than they actually are. Idea if you want more FPS make faster cards that can do the work and as a consumer buy those faster cards to get those higher FPS counts.
How is this different than DLSS version of Frame Generation where it only works with DLSS and I will also note it only works on the 40 series cards where as FSR+FG works on both Nvidia and AMD cards.
"Right now, all VSync off configurations in Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum are fundamentally broken with FSR 3. Frames are not being paced correctly with VSync disabled, leading to either a blurry or juddery presentation (or some combination of both issues)."
This is stated right from AMD that Vsync does indeed need to be turned on for this to work as they intended it to work. They also stated this is a work in progress and is just a preview release and that things will be changing as they update the new tech. It's not like this was a full release of their final software they have been working on. For what it is and an early release preview it works quite nicely much better than when Nvidia first released their FG in Cyberpunk and everything was a blurry mess with objects appearing out of no where.
"Overall, we are not impressed with what we've seen from AMD's FSR 3 so far. The feature seems rushed, incomplete, and not fully ready for prime time. There are too many incompatibilities and configuration issues, which stand out badly compared to Nvidia's DLSS 3, itself a feature with issues. The resulting FSR 3 frame generation experience is difficult to recommend outside a few niche use cases."
I guess that is why AMD stated this is only a preview release and not a full ready for prime release. Do not get me wrong I hate both Nvidia's & AMD's fake FG frames idea equally. To be fair though AMD is just responding to Nvidia's FG that came out with DLSS 3 so yea maybe AMD's FG was rushed in that regard.
To me anything that adds fake frames into my game is trash and does not need to be there as I said I hate both forms of FG form either company and soon Intel will do it as well. It is cheating the FPS and making one think they are getting more FPS than they actually are. Idea if you want more FPS make faster cards that can do the work and as a consumer buy those faster cards to get those higher FPS counts.
b3rdm4n
Posts: 180 +130
Nvidia's Frame Generation does not necessitate using DLSS Super Resolution first, you can apply it to a native+TAA image, FSR, XeSS, DLAA etc. Yes, it necessitates having a 40 series card.
Similar threads
