AMD FSR Redstone Looks Sharp on Paper, Plays Rough, Launches Broken

I look at the side-by-side videos in slo-mo above and I can't see hardly any difference between all 3. So I guess that if AMD's solution doesn't work all that well, it doesn't matter to me because I can't tell the difference. Which is just as well, since I'm still using a 6700XT and 6800XT in my main systems, and have no plans to buy anything Nvidia ever again (at least not new).
 
Not, you're not basically playing at 960p, stop spreading misinformation.

He is clueless, and is 100% using some RDNA 3 or older / GTX GPU, that can't do upscaling well. FSR before version 4 is not worth using at all. Even FSR 3.1 looks far worse than DLSS 2 which is like 6 years old. This is what most AMD users can run and the reason they hate upscaling. They have never tried actually good upscaling, like DLSS 4 and FSR 4.

1440p with DLSS 4 Quality, looks absolutely great and the performance gain makes it a nobrainer for most people. Unless they have the headroom to run DLAA or DLDSR. Native 1440p with NoAA does not look better than 1440p with DLSS 4 Quality. 1440p DLAA looks vastly better than 1440p native, and DLAA is always an option in DLSS games.

1440p DLSS Quality = 960p internally rendered, upscaled to 1440p with best in class AA applied + sharpening on top, is the reason it looks far better than 1440p native in most cases and very easily destroys 1080p image quality, while delivering even higher performance than 1080p.

If you want native-destroying visuals, simply use DLAA instead. DLAA is for people who want best possible graphics, and no other AA even comes close. FSR Native can be decent but DLAA is just better allround.
Or use DLDSR and downsample instead. DLSS can even be used in conjunction with DLDSR in games that support DLSS. DLDSR don't require game support and is vastly better than AMD VSR, as performance hit is much smaller. Running 4K/UHD using DLDSR on a 1080p monitor, will transform that 1080p monitor into something that looks more like 1440p or even better.

RTX HDR, will transform SDR games on a HDR display.

The possibilities are many, when you have a GPU that does actually support all this new stuff.

FOMO hits hard and people who can't use features like this, will always be negative about them. They will rather do that, than accept their hardware is slow, old and dated.

AMD GPU users hated upscaling, until they got a Radeon 9000 and saw FSR 4. Sadly for most AMD GPU users, they can't use it, due to being RDNA 4 exclusive.

FSR 3.1 and older is so bad compared to even DLSS 2. DLSS 4 is the best upscaler today by far. FSR 4 is decent and worth using too. Around DLSS 3 level, sometimes better.

RTX owners had the option for good upscaling since DLSS 2 in 2020 and every single RTX GPU ever released, supports DLSS 4 + vastly higher game support.

FSR Redstone is all about improving game support as fast as possible.
 
Last edited:
If I could tell a difference, perhaps I'd invest in something that could RT better than what I have. But speaking only for myself, in every video I've ever seen designed to highlight the differences between the technologies, I see hardly any difference between FSR 3 vs 4 vs DLSS, etc... Oh well, my inability to notice such differences saves me money in this case, I guess, as I don't really care. :laughing: And besides, implementing the INT8 FSR 4 appears fairly easy if it does matter to you. If others feel it is worth $1K for a GPU to see these differences natively... it's their money.
 
Last edited:
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times

Even IF the hardware can take on nvidia, the software stack seems like ages behind.
 
I can see why AMD might limit the new stuff to their new desktop cards. They want to give people a reason to buy them. But RDNA 3.5 is their CURRENT generation in laptop APUs, and these features would be a welcome boost to the AI 300 series laptop graphics. By all reports, AI 400 retains the same GPU, so RDNA 3.5 will be their flagtop laptop offering for at least another year.
 
Back