"Better"? We need to stop pretending that in tech everything about something is better and everything about something else is worse. Like most things in life, everything has an advantage and a disadvantage. Let's not forget the "disclaimers" they mentioned;
even five year old GPUs can run and benefit from FSR 2.0, which you can't say for DLSS. We'll certainly take a 10 to 20 percent performance uplift from this temporal algorithm on those cards
Finally, it's worth repeating that this is a sample size of one game.
I'm not going to sugar-coat anything;
DLSS is better if you want bragging rights. That's it.
FSR2.0 is better for all practical purposes. Based on a simple cost/benefit analysis, any developer would choose FSR2 over DLSS due to its wide support. Sure, DLSS might have slightly better quality if you zoom in, and it might perform 10% better in certain cases. But those are very minor benefits compared to the huge benefit of supporting cards from all vendors, I.e. AMD but also Intel and nVidia, and of multiple older generations. The mere fact that FSR 2.0 can work on something like a GTX 1080 Ti immediately makes it a much more versatile implementation. Even to nVidia users, FSR 2.0 is a more viable alternative. Add in the consoles and it's an even bigger thing.
In short, the benefit of DLSS over FSR 2.0 for gamers is quite minor, while the benefit of FSR 2.0 over DLSS for developers is huge. And no one can deny this fact.
And honestly, if you really care about image quality, you wouldn't be using either of these technologies. At least not for lowering the native rendering resolution.