TechPowerUp marked right in the headline FSR 2.0 as a DLSS killer, which may be an expressive expression, but it is conceivable that under certain circumstances it may indeed become one. It has two closely related main trumps in its hands, namely that it does not need special hardware, so it also works on GeForce or other GPUs. The relationship between FSR and DLSS in general is so similar to that of FreeSync and G-Sync, where we can admit long ago that G-Sync was defeated. –
–
Technology FSR 2.0 has shown up before, so we could see that it promises much higher quality than the first version. AMD thus promised very similar progress as NVIDIA in DLSS 1.0 vs. 2.0 still without the use of AI, but with a temporal upscaling algorithm (Lanczos), which works on simple shaders (FP32). However, FSR 2.0 technology is close to DLSS 2.0, as evidenced by the fact that its implementation can be the fastest on games that already support DLSS 2.0. This is likely to be associated with the fact that FSR 2.0, like DLSS 2.0, needs motion vectors and pixel depth information in the scene (from the depth buffer) to better reduce the ghosting effect. –
–
In the server test TechPowerUp we can look at more technical details about how FSR 2.0 works, as well as information on scaling from different rendering resolutions to target resolutions. It is certainly worth mentioning that FSR 2.0 is available as open-source on the GPU Open, which allows you to not only use the original code, but also modify it for various purposes.-
And that is why DLSS could be rolled over, but it will certainly not be as simple as in the case of G-Sync, as the price of the respective HW module for monitors played and still plays an important role there, while in the case of DLSS there is no such additional cost from the user’s point of view. is not. But there is a hidden burden in the form of Tensor cores, which take up valuable space on gaming GPUs, and other uses than DLSS are hard to find in home PCs.
In the test we will find comparative images and video, which can be interpreted by everyone, but it is clear that FSR has really progressed in quality, but it would certainly be interesting performance tests, which we do not have here yet. The author only verbally evaluates that although FSR 2.0 is more demanding than FSR 1.0, it is more or less the same in terms of performance as DLSS.
The biggest problem for FSR 2.0 at the moment is the late start compared to DLSS 2.0 and a much more complex implementation compared to FSR 1.0, which is comparable to NVIDIE technology. And that’s where the simple fact that AMD no longer holds a fifth of the market in the gaming card begins to speak, but on the other hand it can pull another trump card, namely the modern Xbox and PlayStation, which FSR 2.0 is also aiming for.
–
