FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0: AMD FSR 2.0 Takes DLSS in the Second Quarter

With Adrenalin 22.3.1 (beta), AMD announced an improved driver with new features today. A real highlight of the aspect, because the technology is not yet fully developed. We’re talking about FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0, FSR 2.0 for short, which will greatly increase image quality.

AMD initially ran into Nvidia’s DLSS 2.0 with FSR 1.0 (test) using a classic spatial scale, which at best can produce image quality similar to DLSS, but is usually inferior to Nvidia’s AI downsampling – the fewer pixels, the higher The bigger the differences will be. FSR 1.0, the first version of FidelityFX Super Resolution, wasn’t always called that for nothing, but was only meant as a temporary solution anyway, until the real opponent was ready. That limit has yet to be reached, but that should change during the second quarter.

Like DLSS 2.0, FSR 2.0 is temporary and no longer spatial

AMD is still hesitant to give details, but the most significant changes have already been officially announced. The main difference is that FSR 2.0, unlike the first iteration, will no longer be a spatially upgradeable, but will use a temporal component such as DLSS. Spatial Promoter analyzes each frame individually and then attempts to optimize the image based on its own database. On the other hand, temporal downsampling not only uses the current frame as data, but also accesses additional data from previous frames to improve image quality.

This is also the reason why Spatial Upscaler always performs worse than the original resolution in terms of image reconstruction and stabilization. Partially hidden pixel lines or partially blinking objects cannot be beautified because the necessary information is not available. Temporal downsampling, on the other hand, can do this because, for example, the pixel line is not displayed in the current frame but is in the previous frames. Accordingly, it is possible that temporal downsampling can also produce better image quality than the original resolution despite fewer pixels being displayed.

AMD FSR 2.0 (Photo: AMD)

Accordingly, according to AMD, the FSR should be 2.0Picture quality equal or better than the original resolution‘ – This is exactly the same syntax that Nvidia uses with DLSS 2.0. In addition, there must be a fileSmoothing Enhancer‘, so that FSR 2.0 completely replaces game anti-aliasing and DLSS 2.0 – but this is just speculation by editors. FSR 2.0 should provide better image quality than FSR 1.0 in all situations.

How good this image is will depend, among other things, on the number of previous frames included in the current image. If there are too many frames, errors in the image can occur quickly. The most advanced in this regard is currently Nvidia’s DLSS, a neural network that helps technology use as many images as possible as a source of information. According to Nvidia, this is the main reason why DLSS can calculate more frames than other time methods. And this is where DLSS and FSR 2.0 will fundamentally differ.

FSR 2.0 does not require AI acceleration without a neural network

Because FSR 2.0 will not only use AI-specific hardware in GPUs like Nvidia’s tensor cores or matrix cores in AMD’s professional MI200 GPUs, but also won’t use proprietary matrix instructions like DP4a, which Xe SS will use in most GPUs Graphics processing. . As emphasized by AMD ComputerBase when asked, FSR 2.0 completely does away with the neural network.

According to AMD, while a neural network is one way to tackle temporal downsampling issues, it’s not the only way to achieve good image quality. Instead, FSR 2.0″Using advanced algorithms that can detect the relationships between different frames and resolutionsAccording to AMD, this should also have advantages over machine learning, so the algorithm should better adapt to different scenarios and better optimize. It is not possible to judge whether this actually worked and could be competitive with DLSS 2.0 after several Detailed analyzes of different games.

Ultra HD - Original Resolution

Ultra HD – Original Resolution

Ultra HD - FSR 2.0 quality

Ultra HD – FSR 2.0 quality

Ultra HD - FSR 1.0 . quality

Ultra HD – FSR 1.0 . quality

In addition to Radeons, FSR 2.0 will also be available on GeForce and Arc

AMD will also not limit FSR 2.0 to its Radeon GPUs; Competing products, and therefore future Nvidia and Arc graphics cards from Intel, will also support the downsampling process. However, it is still not clear if there will be more hardware limitations compared to the first iteration of FSR.

AMD has yet to announce any other technical details of FSR 2.0, but that should change in the course of the March 23 Game Developers Conference with a presentation from AMD. Until then, there are still two important pieces of information that really allow a qualitative first impression of the FSR 2.0. This is what AMD calls the results of the Deathloop self-test, which appears to be one of the first games to receive an FSR 2.0. Reportedly “FSR Performance” at 3,840 x 2,160, which, like FSR 1.0 Performance, is expected to offer 1,920 x 1,080 as display resolution, is said to be a 98 percent increase with 101 fps compared to 53 fps with Ultra resolution HD original. This is probably much lower than the performance of FSR 1.0, but the temporal downsampling is also more computationally intensive than a simple spatial overlay.

Ultra HD - Original Resolution

Ultra HD – Original Resolution

Ultra HD - FSR 2.0 performance

Ultra HD – FSR 2.0 performance

Ultra HD - FSR 1.0 . performance

Ultra HD – FSR 1.0 . performance

Good first impression of the picture quality

There are also comparison screenshots intended to show the image quality of FSR 2.0 and compare it to the original resolution and FSR 1.0. These also come from AMD and are recorded in Ultra HD. The original files that can be downloaded from the notice are compressed, lossless PNG format.

In screenshots taken by AMD, FSR 2.0 shows the same basic characteristics as DLSS 2.0 (this does not mean that the image quality is the same) and offers better image quality than FSR 1.0, but also than the original resolution. For example, FSR 2.0 quality shows effective image reconstruction. While fine pixel lines are disappearing (top right with flying objects) or on the verge of disappearing (top left with balcony grid), even at original resolution, they display correctly with FSR 2.0 quality. In addition, the image stabilization also appears to be better than the original resolution. Although this is difficult to see from the screenshots, the dotted lines slightly lower right in the image in the lighting area indicate this. With FSR 2.0 quality there are no problems. Regarding image sharpness, there are small flaws in FSR 2.0 in some areas of the image compared to the original resolution, while others show advantages.

The fewer pixels, the better FSR 2.0 will be compared to FSR 1.0

Compared with FSR 1.0 Quality, FSR 2.0 Quality only has advantages in terms of image sharpness, image reconstruction and stability. The differences in FSR performance are greater, and the image quality is clearly better with version 2.0 than with version 1.0 and this is in many ways. Aside from the sharpness of the image, FSR 2.0 also seems to perform in line with the original resolution and also performs better on many objects.

Images cannot currently be used to judge whether FSR 2.0 can really keep up with DLSS 2.0. This requires screenshots and videos specifically recorded in the original resolution as well as more than one game – because quality can vary greatly from game to game. But it is already clear that FSR 2.0 is clearly superior to the current FSR 1.0 in terms of image quality and at least the visual impact is comparable to DLSS 2.0. When the first game – presumably Deathloop – receives FSR 2.0 in the course of the second quarter, ComputerBase will take a detailed look at AMD’s new shorthand, analyze it and compare it with Nvidia DLSS.

AMD FSR 2.0 at GDC
AMD FSR 2.0 at GDC (Photo: AMD)

Update 03/17/2022 2:26 PM

ComputerBase has previously received FSR 2.0 information from AMD. The information is provided under a non-disclosure agreement. The only requirement was the earliest possible publication date. The manufacturer exercised no influence on the report, and there was no obligation to publish it.

Leave a Comment