Amd Fidelityfx Super Resolution 2.2 Download !LINK!
Maurizio Marston
FSR 2.0 supports the same graphics cards technically. AMD says the requirements for an optimal experience are a little more strict, though. You can still use it with an Nvidia or AMD GPU, but AMD recommends a slightly more powerful graphics cards for higher resolutions. You can see the recommended GPUs in the table below.
AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) and Nvidia's Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) are quickly becoming must-have features in the latest PC games. They help the best graphics cards along by rendering the game at a lower resolution to boost performance. But between them, which one reigns supreme?
For example, a game might not run particularly well at native 4K rendering. FSR allows a user to render at anywhere from 1440p (FSR Ultra Quality) to 1080p resolution (FSR Performance), which will make hitting higher framerates easier, with two other options as well. The resulting image is then upscaled to the target resolution, resulting in higher performance than 4K and sharper detail than 1080p. UI elements and text are then applied to the final output.
AMD also has plans for dynamic scaling factors, though this hasn't been implemented yet. Dynamic scaling would allow games to render at anywhere from native resolution to 50% of native resolution, and everything in between, normally with a target framerate specified in the game.
Performance mode, AMD admits, "visibly impacts image quality and should only be selected in situations where the need for the ultimate in performance is critical." As you'd expect, upscaling using one fourth of the target resolutions pixels can be a bit hit and miss.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is a spatial upscaler: it works by taking the current anti-aliased frame and upscaling it to display resolution without relying on other data such as frame history or motion vectors.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 3 technology includes both upscaling and frame generation. AMD FSR 2 is therefore superseded by FSR 3. Developers only need to integrate FSR 3 to benefit from upscaling and frame generation.
When using AMD FSR, you can choose between four modes: Ultra Quality, Quality, Balanced, and Performance. The difference between each mode is their scaling factor, which affects the input resolution from which the output resolution upscales from. This essentially allows you to customise the degree to which image quality or performance is prioritised.
Moving down to AMD FSR Balanced Mode, the final upscaled image will be decidedly softer than native rendering. The lower the target output resolution, the more noticeable this is, meaning that this mode is best suited for 4K, 1440p at a push, and not well-suited for 1080p.
While AMD FSR and Nvidia DLSS help strike a balance between performance and resolution, both tools are fundamentally different from each other. FSR uses a spatial algorithm to achieve its upscaling goals, whereas DLSS upscales using temporal solutions aided by artificial intelligence.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 1.0 is a cutting edge super-optimized spatial upscaling technology that produces impressive image quality at fast framerates for any GPU. The most performant settings reduce image quality and are recommended mostly for higher screen resolutions.
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2 is a cutting edge temporal upscaling algorithm that produces high resolution frames from lower resolution inputs. The different variant goes from ULTRA QUALITY (having the least visual impact) to PERFORMANCE (giving the highest boost in performance) where the latter is best utilized when running the game in higher resolutions like 4k. FSR 2.0 generally works better across a higher variety of resolutions than its predecessor, but with the downside of being a bit more expensive, especially on older hardware.
At its core, FidelityFX Super Resolution works the same as all image upscaling technologies. FSR lets a graphics card internally render games at a lower resolution, then performs software tricks to upscale that image to the higher chosen resolution of your monitor.
FidelityFX Super Resolution uses two separate passes for its image upscaling, AMD game engineering director Nicolas Thibieroz told me. The first pass upscales the image from the lower internal render resolution, while the second pass recreates high-quality edges from the source image and performs image sharpening to tidy up the rest of the picture, reducing the softer visuals inherent to image upscaling.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Both AMD FSR and Nvidia DLSS set out to do largely the same thing, namely to improve image quality through upscaling a low res input to a higher resolution while boosting performance over fully native rendering. The holy grail? Enjoying that glorious 4K experience without the debilitating GPU load which normally comes along for the ride.
AMD also reckons FSR delivers, "near-native resolution with super high-quality edges and distinctive pixel detail." Those claims, plus the inevitable comparison with DLSS, certainly set expectations pretty high.
On the downside, it lacks the magic of DLSS, which at its best can look almost indistinguishable from native resolution. Put another way, you know that softening and blurring of image quality you get when running non-native resolutions? That conventional upscaling, when you're running, say 1080p on a 1440p panel or 1440p on a 4K monitor?
In this first iteration of FSR, four quality modes are offered: Performance, Balanced, Quality and Ultra Quality. At any given output resolution, each level pertains to a particular input resolution from which the output is scaled. When running at an output resolution of 4K, for instance, Performance mode begins with an input resolution of 1080p, which is then processed and upscaled to 4K.
Balanced mode has an input resolution of 2259 x 1270, Quality is 2560 x 1440, and Ultra Quality steps that up to 2954 x 1662. If, on the other hand, your monitor is 1440p, then Performance mode has an input resolution of 1280 x 720, Balanced is 1506 x 847 input, and so on.
As you move down through the modes from Ultra to Performance, the image quality becomes ever softer and less detailed, just as it does when you scale up ever lower non-native resolutions. But at each stage, FSR is always that bit better than conventional scaling.
Indeed, with those input resolution numbers to hand, some very useful and direct comparisons can be made. For example, FSR outputting at 4K in Quality mode involves an input resolution of 1440p. So, the question is: How does that look compared to simply running at 1440p scaled up on a 4K monitor? To have any value at all, FSR needs to be better.
Apart from comparing FSR with standard non-native scaling, the other inevitable yardstick is Nvidia's DLSS. Like we said, at its best and in its latest much improved 2.0 iteration, it can be very hard to distinguish between DLSS scaling and running full native resolution. What it does is a little bit magic.
It is with FidelityFX Super Resolution, albeit only just when running at the top Ultra Quality setting. That makes sense given that Ultra involves a very high and close-to-native input resolution. But even in Performance mode, FSR is definitely a touch sharper than simply scaling 1080p all the way up to 4K.
UPDATE 24/6/21: There's been some confusion around the Kingshunt comparisons in the first screenshot gallery below, specifically the image comparing default upscaling to FSR and TAAU. The aim of this gallery is to show that temporal upscalers can resolve detail that FSR misses, but the comparison doesn't take into account that post-process effects like depth of field adjust according to resolution, adding further artefacts. To address this, we've added a Godfall gallery beneath, which strips out post-process effects and injects UE4's TAAU technology and shows the detail differences without additional artefacts.
Original story: AMDs FidelityFX Super Resolution is finally here, and we've been able to test it out across a number of titles. The idea here is pretty straightforward: to dramatically increase performance while minimising the hit to image quality. So the questions we had going into this one were simple enough: how does FSR actually work? How does it look in comparison to native resolution imagery? And how does it stack up against top-end temporal upscaling solutions, like the excellent technique built into Unreal Engine 4? We can answer those questions today, but what we cannot do is offer any comparisons to Nvidia's DLSS: test material simply isn't available.
So how does FSR actually work? To its credit, AMD has been open with journalists about this in the run-up to launch. FSR is essentially a single frame spatial imagine enhancement technique that looks for edges and resolves those them smartly into a higher resolution grid. Jaggies and shimmer from standard upscaling are the worst upscaling artefacts and FSR aims to comprehensively address this. However, all the upscaler has to work with is the standard image - it does not gain any additional information from prior frames, neither are specific buffers isolated or rendered at a higher resolution. By default, it also 'inherits' whatever anti-aliasing solution is in play - typically TAA. So FSR does not replace TAA and cannot improve upon its flaws. The lack of a temporal component means that in-surface detail - the image 'inside' the edges - does not gain any further information, so resolves in a less distinct manner. AMD uses its contrast adaptive techniques here seen in CAS, but this cannot resolve extra detail.
So, with this information in mind, I started out by looking at Godfall - one of AMD's key games in its FSR press materials. At native 4K, there's a very crisp image and high frequency texture detail on ground artwork and foliage, plus the character's hair. Ultra quality FSR runs internally at 1662p instead, and even with the best FSR option in play, the inherently pristine nature of the presentation is definitely not quite the same. FSR is a single frame technique searching for edges, so inner surface detail looks to my eye to resolve in a similar manner to the 1662p internal resolution. Areas of the image composed of sub-pixel detail - like hair strands for example - also show visible breakup. This is inevitable when upscaling a lower resolution image that has no temporal accumulation. One area that I think fares very well in comparison to native quality in ultra quality mode are the edges of geometric objects. If we look at their edges and not their inner surface detail, we can see very similar levels of edge resolve between the two here. This is FSR's major strength.
df19127ead