AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution and NVIDIA DLSS Compared in Necromunda: Hired Gun and Marvel’s Avengers

[Tsing]

Image: Streum On Studio



YouTuber Back4BuckPC Gamer has shared a video that demonstrates how AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution spatial upscaler fares against NVIDIA’s deep learning super sampling alternative in one of the first titles to include both performance-enhancing technologies, Necromunda: Hired Gun. The results in 4K appear to be quite similar in terms of visual quality, although FidelityFX Super Resolution seems to have a slight edge in regard to motion and performance. Another enthusiast, KanaSaber, has shared images of how AMD and NVIDIA’s upscaling implementations compare in Marvel’s Avengers at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions. NVIDIA DLSS appears to do a much better job with certain elements such as the cabling on the Golden Gate Bridge and strands of hair.









pic.twitter.com/SGdpwJFoS7— 4r7hur...

Continue reading...

 

[Snowy]

I think either one by themselves looks pretty good, but when comparing the two, I actually like the slightly more sharp version in FSR.

 

[Brian_B]

I think either one by themselves looks pretty good, but when comparing the two, I actually like the slightly more sharp version in FSR.

I'd have to say the difference is very slight - I wouldn't be able to say if it's video compression or not. I did see the FSR tended to run slightly faster frame rate.

But I agree with Snowy - where I can see any difference, the DLSS version looks a bit fuzzy in some spots compared to FSR. Almost like an overly-aggressive Anti-aliasing effect. Could also just be this particular game

 

[Denpepe]

Can't seen much difference in the vid, the screenshots though give a clear advantage to DLSS, might be the implementation.

 

[Stoly]

Youtube video is the absolute worst way of making an IQ comparison, simply because of compression.

You really have to see DLSS and FSR in action to really appreciate them.

IMO DLSS is better overall with finer details, specially at lower resolutions and IQ. But FSR is really close if only because it seems to add a sharpen filter.

At least we are seeing broader support for both, that can only be good for gamers.

 

[Brian_B]

Ok here's a good screen shot, which I stole from https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-fsr...ance-at-4k-resolution-in-necromunda-hired-gun

So here's my beef:

I hate it when people say that DLSS is better than native. But I'm being a purist in that regard.

If I look at this image - I admit, I like the way that DLSS looks better than native. It looks truer to what I would expect that image to look like in real life. However, that isn't what the native image shows. So in that regard, DLSS is making up stuff and is actually degrading image fidelity by moving away from the original image.

I hear the exact same argument with audio all the time. A lot of people think their music sounds better with Bass Boost. And maybe it does sound better to them. But it's not an accurate reproduction of the original recording, so it actually loses fidelity.

It would be correct to say you prefer the DLSS image over FSR or native. In that regard, there is "better" as in you prefer it, and "better" as in it's a superior algorithm. And I would argue that anything that degrades an image away from native is less desirable.

I do think DLSS looks better here. I also think FSR is the superior algorithm here because it more closely matches the native image. DLSS is making stuff up - it happens to be things that make the image look more lifelike in this case, but it's still pixels that were not present in the original native image.

 

[Denpepe]

If I look at this image - I admit, I like the way that DLSS looks better than native. It looks truer to what I would expect that image to look like in real life. However, that isn't what the native image shows. So in that regard, DLSS is making up stuff and is actually degrading image fidelity by moving away from the original image.

But FSR is degrading the image because it comes from a lesser quality one and can only have a worse result, you will always lose image quality with FSR, in the case of the above screenshot DLSS enhances some things that maybe for all intents and puposes were intended to be more obscured but the image while maybe not the developpers vision is better then the FSR one could ever be and imo is purely subjective to which one pne prefers.

FSR is purely a speedboost at the cost of quality.

 

[Brian_B]

But FSR is degrading the image because it comes from a lesser quality one and can only have a worse result, you will always lose image quality with FSR, in the case of the above screenshot DLSS enhances some things that maybe for all intents and puposes were intended to be more obscured but the image while maybe not the developpers vision is better then the FSR one could ever be and imo is purely subjective to which one pne prefers.

FSR is purely a speedboost at the cost of quality.

I agree that a copy will always be inferior to the original. And I agree about what you say about FSR.

But for DLSS being better - I still say that can only be personal opinion.. It deviates from the original - it doesn't matter in what manner, therefore it's lesser than the original.

 

[Auer]

I agree that a copy will always be inferior to the original. And I agree about what you say about FSR.

But for DLSS being better - I still say that can only be personal opinion.. It deviates from the original - it doesn't matter in what manner, therefore it's lesser than the original.

One mans "different from original" is another mans "better than original"

Originals can always be improved on.

I'll leave with a few words from AA:

“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” – Ansel Adams

“No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.” – Ansel Adams

 

[Brian_B]

So I came up with a counter to my own argument.

AA (anti-aliasing, not Ansel Adams) will not make the image look like native, non-AA image. I take it for granted that AA is "better" image quality - because it's a feature the developer has intentionally chose to expose and make available.

In that regard, DLSS is the same thing. If the Dev didn't want it in there, for either IQ or performance, they wouldn't make it available. And so, in the same vein as AA, if that alters the image quality from native - it does, and it is intentional.

So comparisons to native IQ and performance are legit. I have changed my mind. This isn't like lossless vs lossy compression.

 

[Denpepe]

But for DLSS being better - I still say that can only be personal opinion.. It deviates from the original - it doesn't matter in what manner, therefore it's lesser than the original.

Maybe so, look at it this way, see pic of painting before (original) and after restauration (DLSS)

 

[Stoly]

I agree that a copy will always be inferior to the original. And I agree about what you say about FSR.

But for DLSS being better - I still say that can only be personal opinion.. It deviates from the original - it doesn't matter in what manner, therefore it's lesser than the original.

The whole point of DLSS is adding "missing pixels " that are lost during upscaling, furthermore, the "base Image" is much higher resolution, ergo the final images tries to improve the IQ rivaling (and in some cases improving) the original.

BTW one thing people take for granted is how good AA looks in both in FSR and DLSS. I thought that would be the achiless heel for FSR, I feared it would be more prone to jaggies, but I was pleasently surprised.

I hope furter iterations of both DLSS and FSR improve IQ in performance mode, nvidia has the clear edge here, specially at 4k and above. AMD has a lot of work to bring it up to par.

One final note, I tried both FSR and DLSS with a RTX 2080 on a 50" 4k TV and I CAN see the difference between FSR and DLSS even in HQ modes, subtle, but its there. But under normal gaming I can't tell the difference.

 

[Brian_B]

Ok, so…

Slight issue with my example. Bear with me, I’m still struggling…

In that example, we have FSR and DLSS upscaling to 4K, and a 1440 native image. Shouldn’t we be trying to compare these to a 4K native image?

I’m not saying any of you lay at fault there - I was the one that found the image, but most of the news I’ve been reading has just been amplifying this same reporting… and I think it has a flaw in it.

 

[Stoly]

Ok, so…

Slight issue with my example. Bear with me, I’m still struggling…

In that example, we have FSR and DLSS upscaling to 4K, and a 1440 native image. Shouldn’t we be trying to compare these to a 4K native image?

I’m not saying any of you lay at fault there - I was the one that found the image, but most of the news I’ve been reading has just been amplifying this same reporting… and I think it has a flaw in it.

I was under the impression that the images were native 1440p and upsampled DLSS/FSR to 1440p respectively. Actually double checked and that's it.