In the comparison made on the HardwareUnboxed channel, attention is paid to two quality profiles: “Performance” and “Quality” and two permissions: 4K and 1440p.
It is explained that, while both scaling methods provide almost the same performance, the video focuses on image quality rather than frame rate.
No DLL mods were used, and both FSR and DLSS are known for various methods of replacing DLLs, often interchangeable. However, this will complicate the conclusions and gamers are likely to see different results, which is not the purpose of this comparison.
The authors decided to use a 5-point scale. DLSS+++ or FSR+++ indicates the superiority of a technology over a competitor. One or two + signs indicate a slight or moderate advantage, while a tie means that gamers can use any technology depending on their preferences, since there is no difference in quality.
Surprisingly, not a single game out of 26 games even showed the advantages of FSR over DLSS. The technology managed to achieve equal results in only 8 out of 104 comparisons. In addition, NVIDIA DLSS has a clear advantage in “Performance” mode, which is displayed at a lower resolution (2x scaling) compared to “Quality” (1.5x scaling).
AMD FSR has lost this battle, there is a good reason why AMD technology may still be the only choice. It works with all modern GPUs, which cannot be said about NVIDIA DLSS. AMD FSR is supported by entry-level and even integrated GPUs, while NVIDIA DLSS is only supported by cards RTX.
In addition, the newer version of DLSS with frame generation is even more limited to only the series RTX 40. At the same time, AMD is promising to support at least two generations of Radeon GPUs in its new FSR3, which should have a similar frame rate boost technology.
Hopefully the next comparison will include Intel XeSS, which is still out of step with FSR and DLSS adoption rates, but it has definitely made its way into more games over the past few months.
