AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 with Temporary Upscaling
With a little less than a year behind it, the AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution meant the possibility of getting more FPS in games with a fairly low quality loss, without depending on a particular graphics brand, contrary to what happened with the NVIDIA exclusive DLSS. Now, AMD has officially released the second version, AMD FSR 2.0, with a much more refined system of algorithms and filtering that achieves a truly remarkable jump in quality, while still offering various levels of quality and performance so that players can adjust it to their liking and without the need for specific hardware, so Both AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics users will be able to use FSR 2.0.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 introduces the concept of Temporary Upscaling. Like FSR 1.0, this second version takes as a base an image rendered at a lower resolution and expands it up to the native resolution at which we are playing, however, now the frame before the one that has already been rendered is also taken into account processing and also movement vectors and depth data.
In this way, FSR 2.0 takes data from the lower resolution rendered image, including motion vectors, color data, and depth, to generate a higher resolution frame, and also takes advantage of the frame at which it was rendered. You have previously done this process. Naturally, different filters such as sharpening are added to improve the image and the result is that we can obtain frames with an even better quality than the frame at native resolution. No dedicated AI acceleration is required, so it works on graphics cards even from AMD’s RX 500 series or GeForce 1000.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 scaling and resolution
FSR 2.0 Scaling Resolution Rendering Resolution Output Quality 1.5x (67% of screen resolution) 1280 x 720 1706 x 960 2293 x 960 2560 x 144 1920 x 1080 2560 x 1440 3440 x 1440 3840 x 2160 Balanced 1.7x (59% of screen resolution) 1129 x 635 1506 x 847 2024 x 847 2259 x 1270 1920 x 1080 2560 x 1440 3440 x 1440 3840 x 2160 Performance 2.0x (50% screen resolution) 960 x 540 1280 x 720 7127 1920 x 108 1920 x 1080 2560 x 1440 3440 x 1440 3840 x 2160 The first game to support AMD FSR 2.0 is Deathloop, we have been able to access the beta with this technology and we have carried out different tests comparing AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 with the native resolution and also with the first version of AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution.
In summary, we already anticipate that the quality increase is more than noticeable between FSR 2.0 and FSR 1.0, and that even the highest performance modes offer equal or better quality than the highest quality modes.
AMD FSR 2.0: Performance and Quality Tests with DeathLoop
To carry out the tests we have used both an AMD graphic, such as the new AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT whose review we have published in the following link: Review MSI AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO, as well as an NVIDIA RTX 2080. Likewise, tests have been carried out with 4K resolution in 16:9 and also with 32:9 resolutions of 5,120 x 1440 pixels and in my and ultra high level details respectively.Comparative capture between the different FSR 2.0 modes. This image has been scaled down to display it in its entirety AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 offers 3 quality modes versus four offered by FSR 1.0. We lose the Ultra Quality mode, but really the FSR 2.0 modes offer more quality, so it is not something especially traumatic. In this way, FSR2 offers these modes:
FSR 2.0 Performance: Maximum performance, with a greater penalty in image quality.
FSR 2.0 Balanced: More balanced mode in performance and quality.
FSR 2.0 Quality: Higher quality mode with more limited performance boost
FSR 2.0 quality and performance benchmarks
For all the comparisons where fps are shown, the images have been taken at native resolution and are shown at 100% scaling, cutouts of about 1000 pixels wide have been taken to maintain that native resolution and be able to see the differences in details. You can enlarge the image by clicking on them. (You have to click on the images to see them in their real size). In the following image you can see the different modes and processes. In general, in large objects the difference is found, above all, in edges, but it is in the smallest elements where the difference can be seen. In this specific case, it is worth looking at the fan and also at the edges of the objects. In Performance, the difference is abysmal. FSR 2.0 offers much better image quality than FSR 1.0. It is true that we gain less FPS and we stay at 47 FPS vs 54 FPS, but if we lookthe image quality offered by AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 in Performance mode is even higher than the Balanced , Quality and Ultra Quality modes of FSR 1.0.
In fact, if we enlarge the image, we can see that even compared to the native image, the different filters that are applied achieve more defined edges, without saw teeth or anomalies, and the gain is considerable, going from 30 FPS to 47 FPS . In this scene, there is not much difference in quality between Balanced, Quality and Performance modes.
We now turn to a detailed capture of a vehicle. The results are similar. For example, if we look at the edges of the headlights, the wheels or the vehicle’s own paint, FSR 2.0 offers much better results than FSR 1.0. Performance mode achieves even better picture quality than Ultra Quality mode. If you look at the antenna on the bottom right, the aliasing for native mode and FSR 1.0 is much higher. In this scene you can see some more marked differences between the modes of the AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0. For example, on the inside of the fender, some detail is lost in Performance mode, which is better seen in Quality mode. The grass in the background has a bit more detail in Quality mode. The difference when playing is not too noticeable, and contrary to what happened with FSR 1.0, here we can use the Performance mode without a noticeable loss of quality.
In this image we have a more general detail of a building. The main difference, again, is at the edges, with much more efficient processing and filtering in the case of AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 if we compare it with AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 1.0
In this scene, again, the quality differences between the FSR 2.0 modes are best seen. If you look at the windows where there are shadows, in Performance mode some detail is lost and the bricks are blurred. In this case you can also see that the smoke on the left has been sharpened quite a bit, creating a somewhat less realistic effect than the native image. However, if we compare it to FSR 1.0 in any of its modes, the quality is considerably better in the second generation of filtering. Overall, in this scene, FSR 2.0 still shows a higher quality overall finish than FSR 1.0, and improves on the native image by applying filters that don’t require as much processing as AA, gaining quite a bit of FSP.
The results are fairly consistent across all scenes and environments, even in small details like the door glass grille and its edges, FSR 2.0 does a better job than the previous version and native mode itself. Not even the Ultra Quality mode of FSR 1.0 can achieve similar results in terms of edge sharpness and no aliasing. In the captures with FSR 1.0 you can see more blurred finishes, such as a watercolor effect in some areas (for example in the irregularities of the wall). In the case of the RX 6750XT in 4K, in addition, the Performance mode of FSR 2.0 achieves a higher number of FPS.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 it applies fairly reliable sawtooth filtering, but you can also notice that it tends to apply a sharpening filter. In many cases, this filter achieves good results. In the following image you can see that even in performance mode, the sharpness of the image has been enhanced, for example in the edges of the concrete pillar on the right side if we compare it with the capture without FSR. In the case of the tunnel, you can see more detail and sharpness in the Quality mode than in the other modes. The saw teeth that can be seen on the Danger banner or the tunnel entrance of the native image, FSR 2.0 removes perfectly. However, the shadow of the lamp on the left, due to the poor quality with which the game renders it, is difficult to salvage.
Below we leave you some reduced captures of what is seen in full screen in the different scenes that we have analyzed. All with FSR 2.0 Balanced mode.
The jump from FSR 1.0 to FSR 2.0 is impressive
AMD has done an excellent job with this technology. AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 not only do they represent an impressive leap in quality from the previous FSR 1.0 version, but their processing manages to improve even the original image, making this type of technology no longer simply a way to improve the FPS of games when the graphics do not It is capable of becoming an option that, in addition to that, also improves the graphic quality of the titles and puts it on a par with the most recent versions of NVIDIA’s DLSS 2.0, with the advantage of not depending on an exclusive manufacturer. .
Even in the “worst” quality mode such as FSR 2.0 Performance, the image quality is far superior to all previous FSR 1.0 modes, including Ultra Quality, and we still have significant performance gains over the native image. The different filters that they apply allow us to dispense with anti-aliasing, for example, since we manage to eliminate the saw teeth without the performance penalty that activating it in the game engine would entail. At the moment FSR 2.0 is available in the game deathloop, but hopefully soon we will see it in more games. AMD itself has announced a few titles in which we can enjoy FSR 2.0, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, among others, and development studios have already started working with this technology, since its implementation is not as direct as FSR 1.0 and is requires more work.
End of Article. Tell us something in the Comments!