*I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. GET DISCORD ACCESS FOR ONLY $1: www.patreon.com/ErockOnTech Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/ErockOnTech My Equipment: Camera: Cannon M200 Mic: Maono PD400X
Cyberpunk would've been a bit harder since they're so closely partnered with NVIDIA but Starfield should have been THE PERFECT TARGET. Really disappointed in the 2 release titles because I will absolutely not be buying either of those games, but will probably wait out until they can finally bring it to Starfield and other titles maybe in months to come.
Eh, fail may not be the right word. It is expected to see this to be integrated in more games in the future, especially once it becomes open source to the public like FSR 1 and 2. Integrated FSR 3 and FSR 3 FG will look better than the driver approach of FG. They just need to be in more games that people actually plays.@@Ghostlynotme445
There are two big problems I have with upscaling and frame generation. One is that they use these software technologies as the main selling point of their GPUs to try and justify cutting corners on the actual hardware of the GPU. The second reason is that developers use them as a crutch to not optimise their games properly. It's getting pathetic now. Upscaling and FG are decent technologies, but I have always preferred native rendering and have been more into the actual hardware specs of a GPU instead of its features like upscaling and FG.
FSR3 works across all vendors though and it even works on GPUs from 7 years ago (GTX 10-series)... so AMD does not really use the software as main selling point here. NVIDIA does that since DLSS frame generation is only supported on their latest cards (40-series).
GPUs are becoming more and more powerful each generation. The software is just skyrocketing ahead of the curve. The 40 series is the biggest jump in pure hardware for over five generations?
I gave FSR 3 a shot in the Forspoken demo as I don't own Immortals or Forspoken, I tried it on my RX 6800 and RTX 3050 and both results were absolutely fantastic. It doubled the performance although I'd say performance is a loose term and it's more like perceived framerate. The results were very clean with very very minimal graphical issues if any at all. The input lag wasn't great to the point I'd just play at the original framerate because it's better that way, but it's great to have this technology on all modern cards instead of just RTX 40 series
Btw the latency did not drop from 70ms to 10ms. You can notice that in the native rendering it shows "overall PC latency" (input to screen), but when you enable FSR FG it only shows "render latency" (how long does each frame take).
It would be wild to see FSR3 take off and put pressure on NVIDIAs intentional hardware gatekeeping moving forward. I remember the big thing they said back with the FSR3 announcement was that it would be easy for anyone who already had FSR2 in their games to update to FSR3. Now it's just time to see how long it takes for devs to do it for each game.
Unfortunately amd is not gonna do shit to nvidia, nvidia is making bank on AI cards, they've been releasing extremely overpriced cards for a while now and they still have a massive monopoly over amd. If nvidia released a turd and slapped its logo on it, people would still buy it
@@emllik2155The problem with Nvidia is that they don't make bad products, just expensive products. Unlike Intel, it's basically stagnated for a decade giving AMD plenty of time to kick their ass, Nvidia never slept. Even with the 20 series being criticized for being such a minuscule upgrade compared to the previous series, they still made the best and most powerful GPUs on the market. And even if AMD did have a Zen moment for GPUs, it would literally only help gamers and nobody else because unfortunately just making a more powerful product wouldn't help if nobody bothers to support the damn thing outside of games.
I prefer AMD cards mainly because they focus on open source stuff and their software is arguably better. However, I had to get an NV gpu becasue unfortunately, cuda support is pervasive in content creation/productivity software (and as such the only viable option for this type of work). Games I had 0 issues with AMD... and I can also manage somewhat for content creation/productivity, but the issue is I can greatly improve my workflow with NV gpu. I honestly hope AMD manages to force NV to open up their 'proprietary features' or switch to open source where everyone benefits.
It is not UE5's fault 3:07 it is because UE5 lets the game devs implement demanding graphics. Recently Game Publishers and Game Studios have not been optimizing their games much. It is not UE5, its the people who use it.
Epic (owners of UE) do also push developers to use processing heavy features such as nanite and shortcuts like upscaling. So it’s not entirely inaccurate to blame UE5.
now we wait for amd to finally improve upscaling quality. i get why it looks the way it does, it's designed to be as lightweight as possible, but i would love to see them going with intel route and doing something like utilizing their new gpus compute power to improve image quality while still allowing use of upscale on older hardware with worse image quality
Taking into a count the performance of dlss3 and fsr3, would you prefer a 7800xt or a 4070? I want to buy one of them but I'm not sure which one, i think 7800xt has better performance without ray tracing but i want to play on a 4k TV and 7800xt has more memory. I'm not sure with the upscaling, i would like to play with ray tracing but i prefer to play at least 60 fps
Lack of VRR with FSR not an issue for you? Also are we sure the frametime is accurately reported with FSR? I heard it's borked. With Reflex DLSS 3 is supposed to have 70% less latency than FSR, unless you're using a 7000 series card with AntiLag +. So I think latency should have actually went to DLSS here.
I have a VRR display. I did not notice any issues with VRR at all. I was told by some people to disable V sync. Then I was told by other people to enable v sync. It seems like no one really knows what’s best and what’s not yet. As I said in the video, the only latency measuring tool I had was the Nvidia tool. It’s the same tool Daniel Owen used in all his videos. That tool said AMD had better latency. But if you say it’s wrong, then ok.
@@ErockOnTech Yeah, something looks off with the latency measurement. 7ms of latency against 40-50ms? On top of that, Reflex isn't suppose to work with FSR 3 in Aveum, as Daniel experienced. Maybe something was messed up on his system though and it's working for you? But even still that big of a difference in Latency seems off.
To put that into perspective, the minimum time between frames at 144Hz is 6.9ms. And with every other frame being frame generated, your minimum, possible, latency is like 14ms. And no game renders at 0 latency overhead, you know what I mean? Just think the indicator is off for some reason.
@@panjak323 I've realized that now, though it's not just Native vs FG. FSR shows render and DLSS shows average PC Latency, which is why his conclusion was wrong. And originally I was looking at the Frametime graph until he mentioned the overlay.
Thanks for the video! The performance overlays says "Render Latency" for FSR3 and "Average PC Latency" for DLSS3, and they are for sure not the same thing. Actually, with a 4090 (or any Nvidia card really) FSR3 is guaranteed to have a significantly higher input latency due to the lack of Anti Lag(+), while DLSS3 FG uses Nvidia Reflex.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Best settings for fsr In game frame gen (Forspoken and Aveum) -Enable Antilag in driver -Disable Freesync in driver -Enable vsync in game -Make sure driver is not overriding in game vsync to off Frame Gen / Fluid Motion in driver -Enable Freesync in driver -Enable AntiLag -Disable Enhanced Sync -Disable in game vsync -Limit FPS with Riva Statistics to half your monitor refresh rate or 20% less
Baffling how not even the rtx 3000 series supports Nvidis's frame generation Meanwhile, FSR3 is gonna breathe new life into older and weaker gpus, even from their direct competitors. AMD is the best ❤
There appears to be a pretty massive mistake in this video - In DLSS he shows Average PC Latency, but in FSR3 he shows Render Latency. These are two different stats, with Average PC Latency being the lag for the entire PC to process the frame.
yeah he just does not know what he is talking about, idk how he thinks the latency goes from 70 to 10 when turning FSR FG on, there is no way you can improve latency by adding fake frames between every real one, it will always increase the latency so if i saw these numbers when recording and editing there is no way i wouldnt scratch my head and check again, especially with the different wordings on the latency counters and the afterburner frametimes going nuts with FSR on, there is clearly something wrong with FSRs frametimes reports. Also DLSS 3 is not exlusive to 40 series, Framegeneration is, DLSS 3 and DLSS 3.5 are supported by 20,30 and 40 series alike, i would have thought a tech channel would know the difference...
@@vendetta9399 Like 90% of the "tech" youtuber on yt , he have no fucking idea of what he spoke to , no knowledge about how generated frame create latency because of not being generated by the engine itself , even AMD & Nvidia say it in their dev documentation "this is by design" the thing is this guy like every others youtubers want to "surf on the vibe" saying bullshit without being able at least to understand how these features work... What surprise me is even without knowledge how the fuck he didn't even bother to understand what is render latency and pc latency, having 0,7ms of frametime with 88fps is not possible (11,3ms) so rivatunner provide wrong frametime latency , and even without technical knowledge i bet everything that the latency with fsr fg enabled is probably much higher than just quality dlss + fg because of the lack of reflex to compensate the latency introduced since the build-in latency compensation with fsr3 is not enough , and Anti Lag+ reserved to RX 7000.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
@@vendetta9399 Well I even casted doubt on it in the video... but yeah lets just pretend like I never doubted it. Lets pretend like I never said those things. Cool story bro. I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Pardon me but doesn’t FSR at this moment need Vsync to be turned On and VSR off. You’re testing nothing with these settings and are simply running at native resolution?
RTSS is bugged with FSR3 so the frametime graph is wonky. Vsync/nvidia control panel also is a fix. the NVIDIA performance overlay to see the true PC latency. cheers
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment. @@vendetta9399
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
How is the image quality of these comparitively, FPS means nothing if in order to be 10 percent faster they have to be 10 percent worse in quality. We need to make sure the quality is the same otherwise it's like saying 1080p has more fps than 1440p therefore it's better. I hope fsr3 is great, because fsr2 is kinda rubbish and I have a 6800xt.
Well the gameplay is there on screen. You can pause it and look for yourself if there are issues with the image quality. But this game is not a good test of image quality. This game has graphical issues and bugs and texture pop in. This would not be a fair test. I only used this game because AMD only gave me 2 poor options to choose from.
@@ErockOnTech Hi Making visual comparisons especially from a moving image on TH-cam would really just be impossible due to the compression TH-cam does on video, with zoomed in stationary images at 4k it's definitely possible as there will be less compression artifacting. FSR2 's major issue in my experience has been its antialiasing implementation, with is being clearly more unstable and shimmery on oblique angles compared to DLSS. Furthermore I'd say it's slightly less sharp. Some level of comparison may have been possible in this game, however I appreciate that it may not have been possible due to its bugginess. I too would be interested seeing in in something like CP2077. My only concern is that your takeaway doesn't seem to factor in the overall image quality ( or at least not clearly in the summary). As this is obviously a hugely important factor in how easy it is to make something perform well .
You're correct. My conclusion does not take into account image quality. As I said before, this game is an awful choice to perform this test. Additionally, I did not have time to perform an image comparison side by side. So I did not touch that topic with a 10 foot poll. I'll happily revisit that discussion when FSR 3 is available on more games. In my personal experience, FSR 3 was not noticeably better or worse than DLSS 3 in terms of image quality in this one singular game showcase. @@jacobgirling7739
Why didnt you just go 1440p? I play on my 4090 at that rez and thus i can ultra everything and still have a smooth experience. The only game i ever had to use dlss on was the newest hitman at 1440p with everything on ultra and ray tracing enabled on everything. Went from 40 fps at the most demanding areas to around 80 with dlss quality
@@ErockOnTech i must have missed it but still i know with dlss there is no point in using it at 1440p since the 4090 can crush any game in that rez at ultra(mostly) but i wouldnt say "most gamers wont run this at ultra" many will just not at 4k but rather 2k
I hope for a time machine in my time so that I can go back in 2000s & play the games of that era. The rate at which tech is developing gives me more hope
2:23 you mention DLSS 3 is exclusive to 40 series card is technically wrong, DLSS 3.X.X works on all 20,30 and 40 GPU's its just the the frame generation which is exclusive to the 40 series. This is why Nvidia need to push their little table on their website more to show DLSS big term and show DLSR/DLAA & DLRR works on all, DLFG is 40 series exclusive as this DLSS 3 misconception gets confusing. Just me nitpicking, the video put together is well done.
Thank you. Yes, definitely a nitpick for sure. But you're not the only one. Others have said something similar. See here is the problem. Check this out. "DLSS 3 is only available on Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture, thus it can only work on GeForce RTX 40-series GPUs. One cannot use DLSS 3 on RTX 30-series graphics cards as they do not include an Optical Flow Accelerator, which is the core component to achieve frame generation. It’s worth noting, however, that DLSS 3 seems to be software-locked to RTX 40-series GPUs. You can bypass it with a config file, according to Wccftech, though it will likely cause instability, crashes, and poor performance in most games. Note, however, that DLSS Super Resolution still works on all RTX GPUs. In DLSS 3 games, you can still use the Super Resolution portion on RTX 20-series and RTX 30-series GPUs. Only Frame Generation is locked to RTX 40-series graphics cards." -Digitaltrends.com
@@ErockOnTech Twice i've replied but i think my link is being flagged as spam or something so ill summarise incase it appears / delayed. Nvidias website for DLSS shows DLSS 3+ available on each card, frame gen as it's seperate thing only available 40 series, confusing marketing pushed when it launched, had to backtrack when 3.5 came out etc. DLSS 3/3.5 and all dll files associated to it are available on each RTX card it's just the frame generation which isn't. Apologies if i come across as an ass hole, it's a good video, glad the comparisons were made of both FSR3 and DLSS as I'm toying with going for an AMD card so seeing FSR3 in action outside of forspoken helps, my previous comment was a picky footnote, you could add it in or leave it. Keep up the good work.
3:11 not a single one of (real) gamers will run it on 4k. There is not game engine, nor GPU that can handle that. So it's not pathetic, but it's dumb to run it on 4k and then complain that it's demanding.
You don’t pay much attention to marketing or what you’re being sold do you? Everything in gaming today is “4K” this and “4K” that. Plenty of gamers play games at 4K. It’s not stupid to test the game at 4K. Especially on a $1600 top of the line GPU. I’ll never understand why gamers defend trash PC ports and poorly optimized games. But hey go for it. What is a “real” gamer? That is such an out of touch statement.
2:18 is baltent misinformation. DLSS 3 does not require a 40 series card and works happily on 20, 30 and 40 series cards. the only tech that requires the 40 series is frame generation. In fact the latest DLS 3.5 Path tracing and Ray reconstruction works on all RTX cards.
DLSS 3 is only available on Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture, thus it can only work on GeForce RTX 40-series GPUs. One cannot use DLSS 3 on RTX 30-series graphics cards as they do not include an Optical Flow Accelerator, which is the core component to achieve frame generation. It’s worth noting, however, that DLSS 3 seems to be software-locked to RTX 40-series GPUs. You can bypass it with a config file, according to Wccftech, though it will likely cause instability, crashes, and poor performance in most games. Note, however, that DLSS Super Resolution still works on all RTX GPUs. In DLSS 3 games, you can still use the Super Resolution portion on RTX 20-series and RTX 30-series GPUs. Only Frame Generation is locked to RTX 40-series graphics cards. - digitaltrends.com If you want to get mad at me, then go get mad at every major tech news outlet saying the same thing.
This was always AMD's weak spot in marketing their products, they have always played catch up with Nvidia. Imagine if AMD revealed FSR 3 with Starfield in tandem, the amount of attention it would have gotten would have been incredible!
But this way most people wont be able to see the flaws of the software cause noone plays the games and noone is going to buy the game just for testing it. And Forespoken has no DLSS Framegen support we have to rely on half baked reviews as this one until finally hardware unboxed and digitala foundry will make a proper review and analyzis
Catchup? Seems people don’t really know the history of AMD and what they have brought to the market bot CPU and GPU wise. Without AMD we wouldn’t have had the x64 instruction set to begin with. And I’m pretty sure AMD has been on top of technological advancements (first with 8GB cards, first to support OpenCL, vulkan, dx11, dx12 and the list goes on)
@@ErockOnTechabsolutely not, seeing you’re the owner of this channel I really do hope people don’t take your tests seriously as you don’t seem to know the slightest about what AMD has brought to gaming overall compared to nVidia, and these FSR3 tests are faulty and not tested as they should have been.
No reason to not use DLSS quality at 4k. It's fucking stupid. Only reason is if you have headroom then you should just use dldsr and dlss at the same time.
funniest thing is that forspoken has borked implementation of FSR 3 while aveum is very snappy, and the 20 player one did it better, doesn't seem to make very positive first impression on this limited crowd
I'm just curious how anti aliasing can improve FPS and latency - it's normally costs some performance as any other post processing, so something is fishy with this "native AA" mode
Where is the comparison of image quality and artifacting? Higher frame rate is only good if the image holds true in motion. This is already a big issue when using FSR upscaling in most games and why people prefer DLSS.
It was already many hours of work to make this video. Adding in individual pixel comparisons will take more time. But I’ll say this. Looking at the footage over and over while editing; the image quality wasn’t too bad on either upscaling option. The image issues I noticed were with the game in general.
I would like to see a blind testing to see how many people can in fact distinguish upscaled from native resolution rendering in game, and if they can identify consistently the difference between DLSS and FSR. If in the majority of cases native/upscaled is indiscernible then the technology is extremely relevant as a purchase decision factor. Incidentally, Immortals of Aveum should not be even used as a benchmark for testing since it is an inexcusable disaster at optimization. It doesn't even look that good.
Hello can someone help me with cpu and gpu problem? When I play any game my cpu usage always skyrocketing to 100% and my gpu is only 40-50% usage so there is a lot of stuttering, fps drop and lagging but the loading speeds are fine. What should I do? Do I need to upgrade my cpu or gpu or is the motherboard the problem that is causing it? I hope someone see my comment
i think the 1% low are way more important to be high then the avg fps, because if you play 100+fps and the 1% low are two low you have a potential of stuttering or lagging issues
Great video, Erock! the 1% low is the bad thing for me. 1% lows are more important than fps imo. 1% lows destroy immersion for me. Well, 0.1% lows most exactly.
Thanks amigo for sharing dlss3 and amds version of fps content; if by chance dlss3 arrives on starfield would you let us know if its met to consumers expectations or not, and if not, that it's the game version, or if its the 4090 thats the issue?
Now with AMD FLF allowing a fairly compromised FG in most DX11/12 games, it is safe to say AMD has more features than Nvidia at this point, with Nvidia still having the better quality features (DLSS, DLDSR down-sampling, RT performance). Hopefully in less than a year or two from now, AMD will finally catch up with DLSS in image quality and Nvidia will hopefully add a FLF competitor for all their RTX GPUs.
Can someone please enlighten me how fsr or dlss is better than native? And why does Nvidia and AMD have to go such lengths in developing these upscaling technologies to produce higher frames at the cost of image quality when gamers agree that native and high frame rates + ray tracing is better than those fake stuff? We're paying more for those graphics cards that support these new features but we can't even play those games at native resolution. So what's up with that? Shouldn't we be supposed to be getting stronger gpus instead of these fake stuff? As far as I know, rtx 40 series is very underwhelming except for the 4090. It's frustrating when we could just game in a much simpler idea with Native + high graphics settings + high refresh rate. Easy but we can't have that can we?
Keep in mind that he tested fsr3 on the top nvidia card. Add to that the fact that fsr3 is new, unlike dlss3 that got many optimisation patches, and fsr3 will straight out beat dlss3 in every aspect + it works with nvidia 20 series. I got a 4070ti, but i'm still excited to see the performance in other games when fsr3 will get implemented
You cant use FG on FSR at native, fsr on this situation os running like DLAA, on NVIDIA you can use it without dlaa, they just did not give you the options to select on this game
I tested it with both options. More information is never a bad thing. Did you watch the whole video or only that one chapter. I used Native AA and I also used FSR Quality.
@@ErockOnTech what i meant was that FMF requires FSR upscaler to be active so it can adquire motion vectors, while dlss FG can be used without any upscaller active this meaning it works even without DLAA that is the equivalent of "FSR Native". This game just doesnt give you this options.
:) apu gaming is going to be godly. 😅 I'm not going back to pc gaming ever again. (Planning to get strix point apu or later.) Mini pc/handheld. I ll get what ever is cheap.
As I've said in the past, I got the 4080 because it was on sale for the same price as the 7900xtx at the time, and I valued AI frame rendering more than the extra VRAM as a 1440p gamer. So I'm just laying the groundwork to say "I have no reason to care about FSR3". Having said all that, I think radeon as a division of AMD, are truly amazing to have pulled out FSR3, in this quality, within this time frame. Sure it was a LOT later than dlss3. But I still think that getting FSR3 out this soon and in this quality is still a huge win! Absolutely huge to those who decided to go with AMD. Glad because whether we like it or not, AI rendering is the future, and we all need some competition in it
The problem is it must be included in Games ... even if it is open source on AMD side . Older games that need powerful GPUs to run perfect dont have this in game . Look Games like , Control , Metro Exodus , No Mans Sky and much older games . You need to wait that they put this shit in a game . If this game dont support this FSR or DLSS ... its crap . I play with old 1070 ti . Because i dont see a 16 gb vram gpu with good RT performance about 500-600€ . GPU prices way to high in my eyes .
Doesn't the game developer implement FSR 3 at their own pace? From what I understand the 2 games might just be the first to finish the implementation?!
I have a Nitro 7900XTX and a TUF 4090 with a 7800X 3D so similar system to yours. Immortals of Aveum runs like a wet fart on the 4090 PC as far as the questionable frametimes but on the 7900XTX it runs much better. This same behavior exists between the 6800XT and 3080Ti. I looked at the game when it first launched and figured they would've fixed the Nvidia performance by now but its just as bad it seems. That said I did look into FSR 3 in this game and it's actually impressive as far as image quality and latency, comparable to that of DLSS 3 Frame Generation. My biggest issues with FSR 3 is the fact it doesn't work with VRR/Freesync and you have to use V-Sync and that you cant use FSR 3 independently of FSR Super Resolution, they both have to be on at the same time. I'm not a fan of this because the implementation of FSR in Immortals of Aveum is not very good. Even Native AA FSR way oversharpens the image and it intensifies the flickering that's in the game even without any upscaling. It's a very good start though.
dude?? i don't get it... what is your beef with Immortals of Aveum??? i don't see ANY of the bugs you are referring to... AND, graphically this is one of the most gorgeous games i've EVER played... i love it and i have a blast playing it... i'm running this game on a rx7900xtx card on Ultra settings and with FSR 3 Balanced setting enabled... the gameplay and graphics are just flawless... i'm very confused as to why you're knocking it so bad, when the game is nowhere near as bad as you say it is...
Well, gaming is a form of art and all art is subjective. So I could hear a song and love it. But you hate it. So I suppose there is that. However, objectively speaking, I think a better question for you to seek out is why the majority of people don’t like the game? There are 20 people playing the game as shown in the video. If the game is so great, then where are the players? Lastly, go look at my footage again. Watch very carefully at the scene where I’m in the elevator with the NPC. Watch her torso area. Right before the elevator stops, her arms and surrounding objects glitch out. This happens more than once in this video.
@@ErockOnTech i don't want to sound so disagreeable and negative, but comparing a song to a video game is not the same thing... sorry, but thats a bad example on your part... as for why the majority of people don't like this game??? i don't know any of these people, BUT, Immortals got good reviews from critics, AND, a game can appeal to some players but not to others... and that does NOT make a game "bad"... and yes, i saw the glitch you're referring to in the video, but i did not see that glitch when i was playing... it makes no sense to me why those glitches happen on a 4090 card... i'm all AMD gamer... i never buy anything that says "nvidia" on it, no matter how good it is... lol
@@VALxTheEpicGamer My example spoke to the subjectivity of art. My example was NOT trying to compare a song to a video game. It was saying just how we have different tastes in music, we can also have different tastes in video games. I’m not sure how you don’t understand that. Maybe you do. But maybe you just want to argue. I don’t know. You like the game. I don’t. Why do you care if I like it or not? End of story.
@@ErockOnTech if you put it like that, i do see your point... you don't like Immortals, but you like Starfield... and i hate Starfield.. and Cyberpunk is nothing more then a first person RPG version of Gran Theft Auto.. lol but, Starfield didn't cost me anything on Steam since i got the free Premium Edition with the purchase of my rx7900xtx, and it is also available for free on Xbox Game Pass... and i care if you like it or not because you are saying things in your video that are misleading and NOT 100% accurate.. i'm not trying to argue with you... i'm just trying to be fair to everyone, is all...
I currently run an Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3080 OC 12G LHR Graphics Card Mainly playing Diablo 4 and COD. Getting seemingly endless DirectX errors! A friend of mine suggested I get a PowerColor Radeon RX 7900 XTX Hellhound OC 24GB I need help guys!
@@ErockOnTech I’ve done that several times man. Every time it happens, I check the event log and it’s always the same. NVLDDMKM missing. With COD it says game_ship.exe Apparently it’s a big problem for many gamers
Sorry mate, I don't know how to break it to ya, but your latency counter is borked! I could spout of plenty of potential reasons why, but just based on simple math it's pretty obvious. We know that FSR3 is holding a frame in order to do the frame generation (just like nvidia does) so there's no physical way that you're latency is lower than that single frame. My best guess is that the nvidia latency overlay is keeping track of number of frames ready on the CPU side and then averaging it out over frame preset times. Meaning that it's getting confused with all the 0.6ms generated frames.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Says who? Frame Gen for DLSS 3 actually disables V sync. Daniel Owen and Digital Foundry both confirmed this as well. For FSR 3, it seems to work totally fine with V Sync off. The frame rate radically increased. What in the world is your issue?
One issue with this testing is that MSI afterburner doesn't work well with FSR 3 yet, so that's why it's reporting horrendous 1% lows and a bad frame time chart. I believe it only taking into account the real frames and not the fake ones for those calculations. The only software rn that's reporting this correctly is AMD's own Adrelanine software. But yeah other than that, FSR 3 looks pretty good, although I don't like to use these technologies, I rather turn down some settings and run native.
I prefer native as well. Interesting theory on MSI after burner. I’m curious though. If it doesn’t work well with FSR 3, then how is the active FPS and AVG FPS extremely high? Those numbers seem accurate.
@@ErockOnTech I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but I've heard other reports on the same thing, Daniel Owen also talks about it. Perhaps the calculation of the 1% lows and frame time is taken from a different point of the graphics pipeline? Maybe try it on an AMD 7000 GPU and drivers, and compare the frame from MSI afterburner and AMD's own software. See if there is a difference.
I like that AMD is making FSR available for all GPUs. I'm sure that prevents some people with an RTX 3000 GPU from upgrading to 4000. Because the hardware performance jump to the rtx 4000 series, especially in the mid-range, is quite disappointing.
The version of FSR 3 that has to be enabled by the game - that's on the developers to put it into the game. AMD can only do so much about that. I would expect this to be mentioned in the video. The other version of FSR 3 (Fluid Motion) can be enabled in the driver and works with RDNA 3 in almost all games with DX 11 or 12, twelve games have been mentioned to work already. There are still issues with FreeSync afaik, and you can get rid of the bad frame timing by enabling a frame limiter on RivaTuner.
We won't see FSR3, Frame Gen on Cyberpunk anytime soon. CDprojekt's title is all Nvidia showcase at this point, but Starfield should've absolutely released with FSR3.
I think most people know by now that all upscaling tech(DLSS, FSR, Frame Gen) needs to be added in by the dev team. This is fairly common knowledge towards the target audience for this video. I mentioned the Fluid Motion at the driver level in my closing statements of the video. I assume, like most people, you didn't make it that far.
DLSS 3.5 is not frame generation. It's ray reconstruction. Immortals is an awful game to do an image comparison. AMD really should have picked another title to showcase this technology.
I had a bad experience a few years ago with AMD due to bad drivers and I wrote them off for what I thought was permanent. I recently built a new PC for a family member at a $1000 budget using all AMD and it's been running great. I started getting a bit irritated at how Nvidia treats their customers. I won't be surprised in the slightest if Nvidia releases the 50 series and just disables DLSS on the 40 series to try and force people to buy the 50 series. AMD goes out there and releases their tech for free to EVERYONE even on Nvidia cards, they definitely are the 'good guys' in this scenario tbh. My next build will certainly be AMD.
this is not some smart test because who have have 4090 that one will use dlss and who have 7900xtx or similar that one will use AFMF ,FSR3 and hyper x and will have 2-3x more fps anyway
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
FSR3 frame generation is best with v-sync on. It helps to bring up the 1% lows as well. Such a shame that AMD decided to implement it in this game and Forspoken. Lol.
Best settings for fsr 3 In game frame gen (Forspoken and Aveum) -Enable Antilag in driver -Disable Freesync in driver -Enable vsync in game -Make sure driver is not overriding in game vsync to off Frame Gen / Fluid Motion in driver -Enable Freesync in driver -Enable AntiLag -Disable Enhanced Sync -Disable in game vsync -Limit FPS with Riva Statistics to half your monitor refreshrate or 20% less
Great work on this video Erock. My perspective is these are interesting technologies but I think they're being promoted to gamers who are less aware about the benefits of 'downscaling'. These gamers might be buying 4K monitors for native resolutions without understanding the benefits of using a 1440p monitor and rendering the in game resolution in 4K to get the benefits of a sharper and clearer image. We all know that upscaling a 1080p image on a 1440p monitor looks mushy, so why would gamers think that playing on a 4K monitor with DLSS or FSR will ever look as good as playing 4K on a 1440p monitor with the same performance hit as these technologies, but much better image? In that situation, I would wonder how these technologies might help the FPS, there it makes sense to me, but the other way around just begs to burn money where it's not needed, IMO. 🤗
Thank you! Yeah, I think the only issue is that some games don’t allow for you to use any resolution outside of what your monitors maximum resolution and below. Unless you know some trick I haven’t seen before or something. I’ve seen games natively allow for me to run 4k on a 1440p monitor. But most games won’t. Are you suggestion a trick with the Windows 10 or 11 display settings?
Oh, thats probably it. I just researched and some 1440p monitors are basically downscaled at the hardware level but are actually 4K. In windows I have used 4K 60hz just bc it was there but I only use 1440p 120/144hz. In game however I dont have to do anything while in 1440p to use 4K in games. Some even let me keep the high refresh rate while older titles tend to lock the 60hz. Now it makes sense. 😅 Damn, so thats really stinks everything up. I thought anybody with a 1440p monitor could do this. I use an LG 32GK650F-B.
I'm a game developer. I gurrante to you. It is not Unreal engine 5 issue. It is the developers. There are many great optimized games made in ue4/ue5 it is the developers who make crappy optimized games
I think people forget 4K is 4x 1080p..... investing resolution is incredibly hard on gpus run it in1080p and fps will jump dramatically. The hardware on new GPUs is significantly more powerful than previous generations? It simply has to do with resolution people. Just do not understand what quadrupling your resolution does in a gpu, and how it has to process all the video exponentially. The amount of data it takes to make those fine lines, not look jagged. Is an exponential curve?It's not linear. People can hate on newer cards and not being able to handle 4k hi, but jesus christ man, it's 4k so having software, they can boost frames per second with the slight visual decrease in quality to up your frames per second and keep a 4k resolution is necessary
We have to take into account that the game is using software that was added in game level. When it comes to FSR3 on other games DLSS3 is better and we don't know if FSR3 will actually work on all titles like they said. It's just allowing developers to just enable all the new features without optimizing it with real world hardware.
with fsr the overlay was displaying render latency which is very different from the dlss test where it showed pc latency. dlss has lower latency i'm 200% sure. with fsr3 you cant use reflex and with dlss you can. also idk that game is also dogwater wish they implemented fsr into starfield or something actually relevant that people might actually play
Yeah I think this is subject to an individual's latency sensitivity. Also, I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
*I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that.
GET DISCORD ACCESS FOR ONLY $1: www.patreon.com/ErockOnTech
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/ErockOnTech
My Equipment:
Camera: Cannon M200
Mic: Maono PD400X
The discord link doesn't work
@@ghostrideralex11 Try this: discord.gg/YVxDcE9Y
@@ErockOnTech It worked :) thanks
@@ghostrideralex11Awesome!
One update amd have documented that 1%lows are not captured properly by the system. As you can see there is not stuttering, please do a update on this
AMD should have released it on Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077. the new Phantom Liberty DLC would have been a *perfect* time to add FSR 3.
I agree 100%!
I guess if fsr 3 failed it least be only in two worse games to start with and fixes later with newer titles
Cyberpunk would've been a bit harder since they're so closely partnered with NVIDIA but Starfield should have been THE PERFECT TARGET.
Really disappointed in the 2 release titles because I will absolutely not be buying either of those games, but will probably wait out until they can finally bring it to Starfield and other titles maybe in months to come.
Eh, fail may not be the right word. It is expected to see this to be integrated in more games in the future, especially once it becomes open source to the public like FSR 1 and 2. Integrated FSR 3 and FSR 3 FG will look better than the driver approach of FG. They just need to be in more games that people actually plays.@@Ghostlynotme445
Not if nobody is playing it, no. It's actually better to showcase it on a popular game that someone actually owns and plays.@@solstice5605
There are two big problems I have with upscaling and frame generation. One is that they use these software technologies as the main selling point of their GPUs to try and justify cutting corners on the actual hardware of the GPU. The second reason is that developers use them as a crutch to not optimise their games properly. It's getting pathetic now. Upscaling and FG are decent technologies, but I have always preferred native rendering and have been more into the actual hardware specs of a GPU instead of its features like upscaling and FG.
I agree 100%! I’ve said this many times on my channel and almost daily in my Discord.
FSR3 works across all vendors though and it even works on GPUs from 7 years ago (GTX 10-series)... so AMD does not really use the software as main selling point here. NVIDIA does that since DLSS frame generation is only supported on their latest cards (40-series).
totally agree, although in most games I actually prefer DLSS Quality vs native
What the hell dude? This tech is working on 10 year old GPUs. In any case Nvidia is the one doing that.
GPUs are becoming more and more powerful each generation. The software is just skyrocketing ahead of the curve. The 40 series is the biggest jump in pure hardware for over five generations?
Imagine the latency on an AMD card with Anti-Lag or Anti-Lag+ on top of FSR3.
It’s not noticeable when I’ve tried it, even double stacking fsr3 frame gen and afmf it feels fine
It doesn't decrease latency. First case is whole PC latency, then it's only render latency. You can look what the counter says.
Plot twist: all those 20 players are only testing fsr3
You are likely correct. LOL
FSR 3 rocks, can't wait for its implementation on games like Starfield, The last of us, Cyberpunk, etc
I gave FSR 3 a shot in the Forspoken demo as I don't own Immortals or Forspoken, I tried it on my RX 6800 and RTX 3050 and both results were absolutely fantastic. It doubled the performance although I'd say performance is a loose term and it's more like perceived framerate. The results were very clean with very very minimal graphical issues if any at all. The input lag wasn't great to the point I'd just play at the original framerate because it's better that way, but it's great to have this technology on all modern cards instead of just RTX 40 series
I tried both on 3060 fsr was downgrade compared to dlss 3 in forspoken demo
Btw the latency did not drop from 70ms to 10ms. You can notice that in the native rendering it shows "overall PC latency" (input to screen), but when you enable FSR FG it only shows "render latency" (how long does each frame take).
You’re right. My bad on that.
The reason most aren't mad at this the same way as Nvidia's tech is its free tech , Nvidia charges for frame gen on limited GPUs and AMDs is free
That's true.
It would be wild to see FSR3 take off and put pressure on NVIDIAs intentional hardware gatekeeping moving forward. I remember the big thing they said back with the FSR3 announcement was that it would be easy for anyone who already had FSR2 in their games to update to FSR3. Now it's just time to see how long it takes for devs to do it for each game.
Yeah I assume the rollout will be fairly quick.
@@ErockOnTech *Amd Fantastic FSR 3 Cool Benifit Pc gamers, and also HyperRx Q 2024 Suprise Gamers, Nevidia ?*
👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Unfortunately amd is not gonna do shit to nvidia, nvidia is making bank on AI cards, they've been releasing extremely overpriced cards for a while now and they still have a massive monopoly over amd. If nvidia released a turd and slapped its logo on it, people would still buy it
@@emllik2155The problem with Nvidia is that they don't make bad products, just expensive products. Unlike Intel, it's basically stagnated for a decade giving AMD plenty of time to kick their ass, Nvidia never slept. Even with the 20 series being criticized for being such a minuscule upgrade compared to the previous series, they still made the best and most powerful GPUs on the market. And even if AMD did have a Zen moment for GPUs, it would literally only help gamers and nobody else because unfortunately just making a more powerful product wouldn't help if nobody bothers to support the damn thing outside of games.
I prefer AMD cards mainly because they focus on open source stuff and their software is arguably better.
However, I had to get an NV gpu becasue unfortunately, cuda support is pervasive in content creation/productivity software (and as such the only viable option for this type of work).
Games I had 0 issues with AMD... and I can also manage somewhat for content creation/productivity, but the issue is I can greatly improve my workflow with NV gpu.
I honestly hope AMD manages to force NV to open up their 'proprietary features' or switch to open source where everyone benefits.
The most PC optimized game I ever played has been Alien Isolation. Runs fantastic even on old PCs...
Interesting and good to know. Thanks for sharing!
It is not UE5's fault 3:07 it is because UE5 lets the game devs implement demanding graphics. Recently Game Publishers and Game Studios have not been optimizing their games much. It is not UE5, its the people who use it.
I understand. Makes sense.
Epic (owners of UE) do also push developers to use processing heavy features such as nanite and shortcuts like upscaling. So it’s not entirely inaccurate to blame UE5.
@@jesperhustad Good point
now we wait for amd to finally improve upscaling quality. i get why it looks the way it does, it's designed to be as lightweight as possible, but i would love to see them going with intel route and doing something like utilizing their new gpus compute power to improve image quality while still allowing use of upscale on older hardware with worse image quality
Taking into a count the performance of dlss3 and fsr3, would you prefer a 7800xt or a 4070? I want to buy one of them but I'm not sure which one, i think 7800xt has better performance without ray tracing but i want to play on a 4k TV and 7800xt has more memory. I'm not sure with the upscaling, i would like to play with ray tracing but i prefer to play at least 60 fps
Immortals runs decent on my 7900xtx. So far super happy wit the 7900xtx. Cant wait for new driver update so we get frame gen in almost every game
Wont be until next year, so go ahead and download the preview driver until then. Has been very stable on my 7900xt.
The fluid motion frames in the preview driver is pretty cool. You can tell it’s going to be better.
Really interesting findings here. Thank you for taking the time to put this comparison together. FSR looks very promising.
No problem! Thank you for watching and commenting.
Lack of VRR with FSR not an issue for you? Also are we sure the frametime is accurately reported with FSR? I heard it's borked. With Reflex DLSS 3 is supposed to have 70% less latency than FSR, unless you're using a 7000 series card with AntiLag +. So I think latency should have actually went to DLSS here.
I have a VRR display. I did not notice any issues with VRR at all. I was told by some people to disable V sync. Then I was told by other people to enable v sync. It seems like no one really knows what’s best and what’s not yet. As I said in the video, the only latency measuring tool I had was the Nvidia tool. It’s the same tool Daniel Owen used in all his videos. That tool said AMD had better latency. But if you say it’s wrong, then ok.
@@ErockOnTech Yeah, something looks off with the latency measurement. 7ms of latency against 40-50ms? On top of that, Reflex isn't suppose to work with FSR 3 in Aveum, as Daniel experienced. Maybe something was messed up on his system though and it's working for you? But even still that big of a difference in Latency seems off.
To put that into perspective, the minimum time between frames at 144Hz is 6.9ms. And with every other frame being frame generated, your minimum, possible, latency is like 14ms. And no game renders at 0 latency overhead, you know what I mean? Just think the indicator is off for some reason.
@@ChrisPFuchsnative is pc latency, with FG it's just render latency, it's even written on the overlay.
@@panjak323 I've realized that now, though it's not just Native vs FG. FSR shows render and DLSS shows average PC Latency, which is why his conclusion was wrong. And originally I was looking at the Frametime graph until he mentioned the overlay.
FRS3 seems amazing from your testing which is surprising but good. I wonder how it will work in steam deck and if it will make games more stable 🤔
Dude I hope so! I love using the Steam Deck but we need more power or upscaling tech like this!
Steam deck not really fast enough but hopefuly the next version will have all these features.
damn 10gb of vram usage with dlss while with fsr it was under 10gb. and a big fps differences between dlss and fsr is what actually surprises me.
Good point!
Thanks for the video!
The performance overlays says "Render Latency" for FSR3 and "Average PC Latency" for DLSS3, and they are for sure not the same thing.
Actually, with a 4090 (or any Nvidia card really) FSR3 is guaranteed to have a significantly higher input latency due to the lack of Anti Lag(+), while DLSS3 FG uses Nvidia Reflex.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
The conclusion ESPECIALLY helped me. Thank you for concluding and making your findings clear.
No problem! I'm happy to help!
Best settings for fsr
In game frame gen (Forspoken and Aveum)
-Enable Antilag in driver
-Disable Freesync in driver
-Enable vsync in game
-Make sure driver is not overriding in game
vsync to off
Frame Gen / Fluid Motion in driver
-Enable Freesync in driver
-Enable AntiLag
-Disable Enhanced Sync
-Disable in game vsync
-Limit FPS with Riva Statistics to half your
monitor refresh rate or 20% less
Baffling how not even the rtx 3000 series supports Nvidis's frame generation
Meanwhile, FSR3 is gonna breathe new life into older and weaker gpus, even from their direct competitors.
AMD is the best ❤
There appears to be a pretty massive mistake in this video - In DLSS he shows Average PC Latency, but in FSR3 he shows Render Latency. These are two different stats, with Average PC Latency being the lag for the entire PC to process the frame.
yeah he just does not know what he is talking about, idk how he thinks the latency goes from 70 to 10 when turning FSR FG on, there is no way you can improve latency by adding fake frames between every real one, it will always increase the latency so if i saw these numbers when recording and editing there is no way i wouldnt scratch my head and check again, especially with the different wordings on the latency counters and the afterburner frametimes going nuts with FSR on, there is clearly something wrong with FSRs frametimes reports.
Also DLSS 3 is not exlusive to 40 series, Framegeneration is, DLSS 3 and DLSS 3.5 are supported by 20,30 and 40 series alike, i would have thought a tech channel would know the difference...
@@vendetta9399 Like 90% of the "tech" youtuber on yt , he have no fucking idea of what he spoke to , no knowledge about how generated frame create latency because of not being generated by the engine itself , even AMD & Nvidia say it in their dev documentation "this is by design" the thing is this guy like every others youtubers want to "surf on the vibe" saying bullshit without being able at least to understand how these features work...
What surprise me is even without knowledge how the fuck he didn't even bother to understand what is render latency and pc latency, having 0,7ms of frametime with 88fps is not possible (11,3ms) so rivatunner provide wrong frametime latency , and even without technical knowledge i bet everything that the latency with fsr fg enabled is probably much higher than just quality dlss + fg because of the lack of reflex to compensate the latency introduced since the build-in latency compensation with fsr3 is not enough , and Anti Lag+ reserved to RX 7000.
And fans eat his words like cereal. I hate people spreading misinformation.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
@@vendetta9399 Well I even casted doubt on it in the video... but yeah lets just pretend like I never doubted it. Lets pretend like I never said those things. Cool story bro.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Pardon me but doesn’t FSR at this moment need Vsync to be turned On and VSR off. You’re testing nothing with these settings and are simply running at native resolution?
9:18 The one with FSR is only render latency, while the DLSS one is the total latency, so kinda impossible to compare
Ah yes. Excellent point.. hmm not sure how I missed that. My apologies. Thanks for pointing it out.
@@ErockOnTech Honestly not sure how the software decides between showing pc latency and render latency, been confused since its inception
RTSS is bugged with FSR3 so the frametime graph is wonky. Vsync/nvidia control panel also is a fix. the NVIDIA performance overlay to see the true PC latency. cheers
problem is he didnt notice that one thing shows "Average PC Latency" and the other says "Render Latency"
RTSS is not the only software showing this behavior. AMD just said "this is normal" without any kind of explanation, I smell BS.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment. @@vendetta9399
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
How is the image quality of these comparitively, FPS means nothing if in order to be 10 percent faster they have to be 10 percent worse in quality. We need to make sure the quality is the same otherwise it's like saying 1080p has more fps than 1440p therefore it's better. I hope fsr3 is great, because fsr2 is kinda rubbish and I have a 6800xt.
Well the gameplay is there on screen. You can pause it and look for yourself if there are issues with the image quality. But this game is not a good test of image quality. This game has graphical issues and bugs and texture pop in. This would not be a fair test. I only used this game because AMD only gave me 2 poor options to choose from.
@@ErockOnTech Hi
Making visual comparisons especially from a moving image on TH-cam would really just be impossible due to the compression TH-cam does on video, with zoomed in stationary images at 4k it's definitely possible as there will be less compression artifacting.
FSR2 's major issue in my experience has been its antialiasing implementation, with is being clearly more unstable and shimmery on oblique angles compared to DLSS. Furthermore I'd say it's slightly less sharp. Some level of comparison may have been possible in this game, however I appreciate that it may not have been possible due to its bugginess. I too would be interested seeing in in something like CP2077.
My only concern is that your takeaway doesn't seem to factor in the overall image quality ( or at least not clearly in the summary). As this is obviously a hugely important factor in how easy it is to make something perform well .
You're correct. My conclusion does not take into account image quality. As I said before, this game is an awful choice to perform this test. Additionally, I did not have time to perform an image comparison side by side. So I did not touch that topic with a 10 foot poll. I'll happily revisit that discussion when FSR 3 is available on more games. In my personal experience, FSR 3 was not noticeably better or worse than DLSS 3 in terms of image quality in this one singular game showcase. @@jacobgirling7739
I was excited for FSR 3 but then found out that it doesn’t provide any picture quality enhancements.
I think Cyberpunk will definitely get it soon.
Warthunder doesn't even have FSR1 yet so not sure if that will ever happen
Not a chance, they are Nvidia's showcase. They took their sweet time to release FSR2, I don't think we will see anything until next year.
Why didnt you just go 1440p?
I play on my 4090 at that rez and thus i can ultra everything and still have a smooth experience.
The only game i ever had to use dlss on was the newest hitman at 1440p with everything on ultra and ray tracing enabled on everything.
Went from 40 fps at the most demanding areas to around 80 with dlss quality
Why I only did 1440p is clearly explained in the video.
@@ErockOnTech i must have missed it but still i know with dlss there is no point in using it at 1440p since the 4090 can crush any game in that rez at ultra(mostly) but i wouldnt say "most gamers wont run this at ultra" many will just not at 4k but rather 2k
I hope for a time machine in my time so that I can go back in 2000s & play the games of that era. The rate at which tech is developing gives me more hope
That was a good time to be a gamer.
@@ErockOnTech not just good, it was like heaven 🤩
@@ErockOnTech Please continue to rock and stay awesome!!! ✌️👍👌
Thank you.@@ss304_82
2:23 you mention DLSS 3 is exclusive to 40 series card is technically wrong, DLSS 3.X.X works on all 20,30 and 40 GPU's its just the the frame generation which is exclusive to the 40 series. This is why Nvidia need to push their little table on their website more to show DLSS big term and show DLSR/DLAA & DLRR works on all, DLFG is 40 series exclusive as this DLSS 3 misconception gets confusing.
Just me nitpicking, the video put together is well done.
Thank you. Yes, definitely a nitpick for sure. But you're not the only one. Others have said something similar. See here is the problem. Check this out.
"DLSS 3 is only available on Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture, thus it can only work on GeForce RTX 40-series GPUs. One cannot use DLSS 3 on RTX 30-series graphics cards as they do not include an Optical Flow Accelerator, which is the core component to achieve frame generation.
It’s worth noting, however, that DLSS 3 seems to be software-locked to RTX 40-series GPUs. You can bypass it with a config file, according to Wccftech, though it will likely cause instability, crashes, and poor performance in most games.
Note, however, that DLSS Super Resolution still works on all RTX GPUs. In DLSS 3 games, you can still use the Super Resolution portion on RTX 20-series and RTX 30-series GPUs. Only Frame Generation is locked to RTX 40-series graphics cards."
-Digitaltrends.com
@@ErockOnTech Twice i've replied but i think my link is being flagged as spam or something so ill summarise incase it appears / delayed.
Nvidias website for DLSS shows DLSS 3+ available on each card, frame gen as it's seperate thing only available 40 series, confusing marketing pushed when it launched, had to backtrack when 3.5 came out etc. DLSS 3/3.5 and all dll files associated to it are available on each RTX card it's just the frame generation which isn't.
Apologies if i come across as an ass hole, it's a good video, glad the comparisons were made of both FSR3 and DLSS as I'm toying with going for an AMD card so seeing FSR3 in action outside of forspoken helps,
my previous comment was a picky footnote, you could add it in or leave it. Keep up the good work.
Damn, this looks awesome. Thanks for the video
3:11 not a single one of (real) gamers will run it on 4k. There is not game engine, nor GPU that can handle that. So it's not pathetic, but it's dumb to run it on 4k and then complain that it's demanding.
You don’t pay much attention to marketing or what you’re being sold do you? Everything in gaming today is “4K” this and “4K” that. Plenty of gamers play games at 4K. It’s not stupid to test the game at 4K. Especially on a $1600 top of the line GPU. I’ll never understand why gamers defend trash PC ports and poorly optimized games. But hey go for it. What is a “real” gamer? That is such an out of touch statement.
I have responded to this comment 2 times already, either you are deleting it or it is stuck in the 'Held for approval' section if you use that.
2:18 is baltent misinformation. DLSS 3 does not require a 40 series card and works happily on 20, 30 and 40 series cards. the only tech that requires the 40 series is frame generation.
In fact the latest DLS 3.5 Path tracing and Ray reconstruction works on all RTX cards.
DLSS 3 is only available on Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture, thus it can only work on GeForce RTX 40-series GPUs. One cannot use DLSS 3 on RTX 30-series graphics cards as they do not include an Optical Flow Accelerator, which is the core component to achieve frame generation.
It’s worth noting, however, that DLSS 3 seems to be software-locked to RTX 40-series GPUs. You can bypass it with a config file, according to Wccftech, though it will likely cause instability, crashes, and poor performance in most games.
Note, however, that DLSS Super Resolution still works on all RTX GPUs. In DLSS 3 games, you can still use the Super Resolution portion on RTX 20-series and RTX 30-series GPUs. Only Frame Generation is locked to RTX 40-series graphics cards.
- digitaltrends.com
If you want to get mad at me, then go get mad at every major tech news outlet saying the same thing.
@@ErockOnTech Apologies, i didn't mean to get mad. been a tough day.
Thank you. All good. @@andrewweller5119
I mean with the top tier amd cards you can test it in cyberpunk i got with my 7900xt 40fps+
This was always AMD's weak spot in marketing their products, they have always played catch up with Nvidia. Imagine if AMD revealed FSR 3 with Starfield in tandem, the amount of attention it would have gotten would have been incredible!
You are absolutely correct!
But this way most people wont be able to see the flaws of the software cause noone plays the games and noone is going to buy the game just for testing it. And Forespoken has no DLSS Framegen support we have to rely on half baked reviews as this one until finally hardware unboxed and digitala foundry will make a proper review and analyzis
Catchup? Seems people don’t really know the history of AMD and what they have brought to the market bot CPU and GPU wise. Without AMD we wouldn’t have had the x64 instruction set to begin with. And I’m pretty sure AMD has been on top of technological advancements (first with 8GB cards, first to support OpenCL, vulkan, dx11, dx12 and the list goes on)
@@ErockOnTechabsolutely not, seeing you’re the owner of this channel I really do hope people don’t take your tests seriously as you don’t seem to know the slightest about what AMD has brought to gaming overall compared to nVidia, and these FSR3 tests are faulty and not tested as they should have been.
@@KillerSneak Yes catchup, for the last 10 years or so they are trying to catch up
As the owner of a 3080 im glad AMD exists so i can get new features for my GPU.
And the choice of games i assume is that they are UE5 games.
Forspoken runs on Luminous. Cyberpunk is on the list of announced titles, so hopefully that will get updated in the next few weeks
Question is, in terms of image quality and artifacts, which one is better?
That is more testing I need to do.
I wonder what Nvidia's gonna do next, it's always good to have this type of competition.
DLLS 4 maybe? Whatever that means I guess.
For 50 series lol@@ErockOnTech
No reason to not use DLSS quality at 4k. It's fucking stupid. Only reason is if you have headroom then you should just use dldsr and dlss at the same time.
funniest thing is that forspoken has borked implementation of FSR 3 while aveum is very snappy, and the 20 player one did it better, doesn't seem to make very positive first impression on this limited crowd
The 1% lows simply destroys it. I hope it's just this game
Be Patient bud! They just launched it! it could have bug so they are to fix it and thats why they launched it only on this 2 worst games
I'm just curious how anti aliasing can improve FPS and latency - it's normally costs some performance as any other post processing, so something is fishy with this "native AA" mode
Where is the comparison of image quality and artifacting? Higher frame rate is only good if the image holds true in motion. This is already a big issue when using FSR upscaling in most games and why people prefer DLSS.
It was already many hours of work to make this video. Adding in individual pixel comparisons will take more time. But I’ll say this. Looking at the footage over and over while editing; the image quality wasn’t too bad on either upscaling option. The image issues I noticed were with the game in general.
@@ErockOnTech That is understandable. It is a good video regardless. Keep up the good work!
@@BassMan_PC Thank you 🙏
I would like to see a blind testing to see how many people can in fact distinguish upscaled from native resolution rendering in game, and if they can identify consistently the difference between DLSS and FSR. If in the majority of cases native/upscaled is indiscernible then the technology is extremely relevant as a purchase decision factor.
Incidentally, Immortals of Aveum should not be even used as a benchmark for testing since it is an inexcusable disaster at optimization. It doesn't even look that good.
I agree about Immortals. Awful game to showcase this technology.
Hello can someone help me with cpu and gpu problem? When I play any game my cpu usage always skyrocketing to 100% and my gpu is only 40-50% usage so there is a lot of stuttering, fps drop and lagging but the loading speeds are fine. What should I do? Do I need to upgrade my cpu or gpu or is the motherboard the problem that is causing it? I hope someone see my comment
i think the 1% low are way more important to be high then the avg fps, because if you play 100+fps and the 1% low are two low you have a potential of stuttering or lagging issues
Great video, Erock!
the 1% low is the bad thing for me.
1% lows are more important than fps imo. 1% lows destroy immersion for me. Well, 0.1% lows most exactly.
Thank you I appreciate it! I agree!
Thanks amigo for sharing dlss3 and amds version of fps content; if by chance dlss3 arrives on starfield would you let us know if its met to consumers expectations or not, and if not, that it's the game version, or if its the 4090 thats the issue?
I will be testing DLSS 3 in Starfield when it launches hopefully soon.
Dlss makes my gpu stutter. I turn it off, and it's gone.
I just lower my settings so I can run it natively at 144Hz
Now with AMD FLF allowing a fairly compromised FG in most DX11/12 games, it is safe to say AMD has more features than Nvidia at this point, with Nvidia still having the better quality features (DLSS, DLDSR down-sampling, RT performance). Hopefully in less than a year or two from now, AMD will finally catch up with DLSS in image quality and Nvidia will hopefully add a FLF competitor for all their RTX GPUs.
That will be nice if it ever happens.
@@ErockOnTech Haha i am an idiot. Meant to put AMD FMF (Fluid Motion Frames).
Can someone please enlighten me how fsr or dlss is better than native? And why does Nvidia and AMD have to go such lengths in developing these upscaling technologies to produce higher frames at the cost of image quality when gamers agree that native and high frame rates + ray tracing is better than those fake stuff? We're paying more for those graphics cards that support these new features but we can't even play those games at native resolution. So what's up with that? Shouldn't we be supposed to be getting stronger gpus instead of these fake stuff? As far as I know, rtx 40 series is very underwhelming except for the 4090. It's frustrating when we could just game in a much simpler idea with Native + high graphics settings + high refresh rate. Easy but we can't have that can we?
Output quality comparison is missing (interpolated frames).
Does fsr perform better on a AMD card compared to Nvidia card ?
Keep in mind that he tested fsr3 on the top nvidia card. Add to that the fact that fsr3 is new, unlike dlss3 that got many optimisation patches, and fsr3 will straight out beat dlss3 in every aspect + it works with nvidia 20 series. I got a 4070ti, but i'm still excited to see the performance in other games when fsr3 will get implemented
You cant use FG on FSR at native, fsr on this situation os running like DLAA, on NVIDIA you can use it without dlaa, they just did not give you the options to select on this game
I tested it with both options. More information is never a bad thing. Did you watch the whole video or only that one chapter. I used Native AA and I also used FSR Quality.
@@ErockOnTech what i meant was that FMF requires FSR upscaler to be active so it can adquire motion vectors, while dlss FG can be used without any upscaller active this meaning it works even without DLAA that is the equivalent of "FSR Native". This game just doesnt give you this options.
You're right. The game does not give that option for sure. @@bindxpoxt
:) apu gaming is going to be godly. 😅 I'm not going back to pc gaming ever again. (Planning to get strix point apu or later.)
Mini pc/handheld. I ll get what ever is cheap.
APUs have a lot of potential for sure!
As I've said in the past, I got the 4080 because it was on sale for the same price as the 7900xtx at the time, and I valued AI frame rendering more than the extra VRAM as a 1440p gamer.
So I'm just laying the groundwork to say "I have no reason to care about FSR3".
Having said all that, I think radeon as a division of AMD, are truly amazing to have pulled out FSR3, in this quality, within this time frame.
Sure it was a LOT later than dlss3. But I still think that getting FSR3 out this soon and in this quality is still a huge win!
Absolutely huge to those who decided to go with AMD. Glad because whether we like it or not, AI rendering is the future, and we all need some competition in it
Nvidia users get both. We get DLSS 3 and FSR 3.
Just give me base tech that works at the driver level on all applications. Not just a few games.
I think AMD is working on that.
The problem is it must be included in Games ... even if it is open source on AMD side . Older games that need powerful GPUs to run perfect dont have this in game . Look Games like , Control , Metro Exodus , No Mans Sky and much older games . You need to wait that they put this shit in a game . If this game dont support this FSR or DLSS ... its crap .
I play with old 1070 ti . Because i dont see a 16 gb vram gpu with good RT performance about 500-600€ . GPU prices way to high in my eyes .
You're right. Upscaling is dependent on the devs adding it to a game and adding it correctly.
But, Nvidia's DLSS 3 'upscaling' looks 5x better in motion than FSR 3. 🤷🏾♂️
I was only comparing FPS for this video.
Doesn't the game developer implement FSR 3 at their own pace?
From what I understand the 2 games might just be the first to finish the implementation?!
I have a Nitro 7900XTX and a TUF 4090 with a 7800X 3D so similar system to yours. Immortals of Aveum runs like a wet fart on the 4090 PC as far as the questionable frametimes but on the 7900XTX it runs much better. This same behavior exists between the 6800XT and 3080Ti.
I looked at the game when it first launched and figured they would've fixed the Nvidia performance by now but its just as bad it seems. That said I did look into FSR 3 in this game and it's actually impressive as far as image quality and latency, comparable to that of DLSS 3 Frame Generation. My biggest issues with FSR 3 is the fact it doesn't work with VRR/Freesync and you have to use V-Sync and that you cant use FSR 3 independently of FSR Super Resolution, they both have to be on at the same time. I'm not a fan of this because the implementation of FSR in Immortals of Aveum is not very good. Even Native AA FSR way oversharpens the image and it intensifies the flickering that's in the game even without any upscaling.
It's a very good start though.
I agree it’s a good start for sure. The wet fart performance comment had me laughing 😂 thank you for that!
dude?? i don't get it... what is your beef with Immortals of Aveum??? i don't see ANY of the bugs you are referring to... AND, graphically this is one of the most gorgeous games i've EVER played... i love it and i have a blast playing it... i'm running this game on a rx7900xtx card on Ultra settings and with FSR 3 Balanced setting enabled... the gameplay and graphics are just flawless... i'm very confused as to why you're knocking it so bad, when the game is nowhere near as bad as you say it is...
Well, gaming is a form of art and all art is subjective. So I could hear a song and love it. But you hate it. So I suppose there is that.
However, objectively speaking, I think a better question for you to seek out is why the majority of people don’t like the game? There are 20 people playing the game as shown in the video. If the game is so great, then where are the players?
Lastly, go look at my footage again. Watch very carefully at the scene where I’m in the elevator with the NPC. Watch her torso area. Right before the elevator stops, her arms and surrounding objects glitch out. This happens more than once in this video.
@@ErockOnTech i don't want to sound so disagreeable and negative, but comparing a song to a video game is not the same thing... sorry, but thats a bad example on your part... as for why the majority of people don't like this game??? i don't know any of these people, BUT, Immortals got good reviews from critics, AND, a game can appeal to some players but not to others... and that does NOT make a game "bad"... and yes, i saw the glitch you're referring to in the video, but i did not see that glitch when i was playing... it makes no sense to me why those glitches happen on a 4090 card... i'm all AMD gamer... i never buy anything that says "nvidia" on it, no matter how good it is... lol
@@VALxTheEpicGamerthis game is hot garbage 😂
@@VALxTheEpicGamer My example spoke to the subjectivity of art. My example was NOT trying to compare a song to a video game. It was saying just how we have different tastes in music, we can also have different tastes in video games. I’m not sure how you don’t understand that. Maybe you do. But maybe you just want to argue. I don’t know. You like the game. I don’t. Why do you care if I like it or not? End of story.
@@ErockOnTech if you put it like that, i do see your point... you don't like Immortals, but you like Starfield... and i hate Starfield.. and Cyberpunk is nothing more then a first person RPG version of Gran Theft Auto.. lol but, Starfield didn't cost me anything on Steam since i got the free Premium Edition with the purchase of my rx7900xtx, and it is also available for free on Xbox Game Pass... and i care if you like it or not because you are saying things in your video that are misleading and NOT 100% accurate.. i'm not trying to argue with you... i'm just trying to be fair to everyone, is all...
I currently run an Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3080 OC 12G LHR Graphics Card
Mainly playing Diablo 4 and COD. Getting seemingly endless DirectX errors!
A friend of mine suggested I get a PowerColor Radeon RX 7900 XTX Hellhound OC 24GB
I need help guys!
Look up DDU. Uninstall your drivers. Then reinstall.
@@ErockOnTech I’ve done that several times man. Every time it happens, I check the event log and it’s always the same. NVLDDMKM missing. With COD it says game_ship.exe
Apparently it’s a big problem for many gamers
Sorry mate, I don't know how to break it to ya, but your latency counter is borked! I could spout of plenty of potential reasons why, but just based on simple math it's pretty obvious. We know that FSR3 is holding a frame in order to do the frame generation (just like nvidia does) so there's no physical way that you're latency is lower than that single frame. My best guess is that the nvidia latency overlay is keeping track of number of frames ready on the CPU side and then averaging it out over frame preset times. Meaning that it's getting confused with all the 0.6ms generated frames.
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Native 4K is such a massive waste of power and this video is a great example of why DLSS and FSR exist. Stop wasting horsepower on resolution.
Big Big L from AMD for not releasing FSR 3 FG with Starfield especially DLSS isn't(wasn't) even implemented
You're right!
You disabled vsync when the vsync needs to be turned on foe the frame gen to even work. So your results are total bull s
Says who? Frame Gen for DLSS 3 actually disables V sync. Daniel Owen and Digital Foundry both confirmed this as well. For FSR 3, it seems to work totally fine with V Sync off. The frame rate radically increased. What in the world is your issue?
AMD says V Sync is recommended but the FSR 3 frame gen tech can be used without V Sync.
Frame-time measurement with 3rd pt tools not supported with FSR3, which is why afterburner goes nuts.
Yeah I figured I would try something different. I mean AMD markets the technology as working on the competition’s product. So I tried it like that.
One issue with this testing is that MSI afterburner doesn't work well with FSR 3 yet, so that's why it's reporting horrendous 1% lows and a bad frame time chart. I believe it only taking into account the real frames and not the fake ones for those calculations.
The only software rn that's reporting this correctly is AMD's own Adrelanine software.
But yeah other than that, FSR 3 looks pretty good, although I don't like to use these technologies, I rather turn down some settings and run native.
I prefer native as well. Interesting theory on MSI after burner. I’m curious though. If it doesn’t work well with FSR 3, then how is the active FPS and AVG FPS extremely high? Those numbers seem accurate.
@@ErockOnTech I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but I've heard other reports on the same thing, Daniel Owen also talks about it. Perhaps the calculation of the 1% lows and frame time is taken from a different point of the graphics pipeline?
Maybe try it on an AMD 7000 GPU and drivers, and compare the frame from MSI afterburner and AMD's own software. See if there is a difference.
@@justaguy6216 Good suggestion!
I like that AMD is making FSR available for all GPUs. I'm sure that prevents some people with an RTX 3000 GPU from upgrading to 4000. Because the hardware performance jump to the rtx 4000 series, especially in the mid-range, is quite disappointing.
The version of FSR 3 that has to be enabled by the game - that's on the developers to put it into the game. AMD can only do so much about that. I would expect this to be mentioned in the video.
The other version of FSR 3 (Fluid Motion) can be enabled in the driver and works with RDNA 3 in almost all games with DX 11 or 12, twelve games have been mentioned to work already.
There are still issues with FreeSync afaik, and you can get rid of the bad frame timing by enabling a frame limiter on RivaTuner.
We won't see FSR3, Frame Gen on Cyberpunk anytime soon. CDprojekt's title is all Nvidia showcase at this point, but Starfield should've absolutely released with FSR3.
I think most people know by now that all upscaling tech(DLSS, FSR, Frame Gen) needs to be added in by the dev team. This is fairly common knowledge towards the target audience for this video.
I mentioned the Fluid Motion at the driver level in my closing statements of the video. I assume, like most people, you didn't make it that far.
You're probably right.@@praisetheoak
So amd have helped Nvidia . This just makes me want to buy an Nvidia card so I can have the best of both worlds. Good job AMD :)
You're correct. I've thought about this same thing.
fuck, why nobody is talking about the IMAGE QUALITY of Both versions?
FSR 3 vs DLSS 3.5?
DLSS 3.5 is not frame generation. It's ray reconstruction. Immortals is an awful game to do an image comparison. AMD really should have picked another title to showcase this technology.
@@ErockOnTech I'm not talking about Frame Gen.
And I'm not talking about RR
I'm Talking about dlss.
Great review! Wonder how it will fair in other games.
Thank you!
I had a bad experience a few years ago with AMD due to bad drivers and I wrote them off for what I thought was permanent. I recently built a new PC for a family member at a $1000 budget using all AMD and it's been running great. I started getting a bit irritated at how Nvidia treats their customers. I won't be surprised in the slightest if Nvidia releases the 50 series and just disables DLSS on the 40 series to try and force people to buy the 50 series. AMD goes out there and releases their tech for free to EVERYONE even on Nvidia cards, they definitely are the 'good guys' in this scenario tbh. My next build will certainly be AMD.
limit your fps and 1% lows will be the same as average fps
Thanks for the advice.
this is not some smart test because who have have 4090 that one will use dlss and who have 7900xtx or similar that one will use AFMF ,FSR3 and hyper x and will have 2-3x more fps anyway
Well AMD users can only use FSR. Nvidia users can use both FSR and DLSS.
@@ErockOnTech AMD users can use AFMF or hyper x too and that is 2x more fps then
Frame generation more blurry or just me ?
You’ll have to be more specific. Both technologies are called “Frame Generation” in the game’s menu.
Should actually run it on resident evil 4 and village even 7
I would if it was available.
Pretty sure the latency number is wrong, you need amd software to see
I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
FSR3 frame generation is best with v-sync on. It helps to bring up the 1% lows as well. Such a shame that AMD decided to implement it in this game and Forspoken. Lol.
Definitely a shame. I was told to disable v sync before. I’ll have to test this theory about the 1% lows. Thank you for sharing this information.
You're welcome.
Best settings for fsr 3
In game frame gen (Forspoken and Aveum)
-Enable Antilag in driver
-Disable Freesync in driver
-Enable vsync in game
-Make sure driver is not overriding in game vsync to off
Frame Gen / Fluid Motion in driver
-Enable Freesync in driver
-Enable AntiLag
-Disable Enhanced Sync
-Disable in game vsync
-Limit FPS with Riva Statistics to half your monitor refreshrate or 20% less
Looking at my RX 6800 ... I mostly play DCS WORLD...well?
Ive never heard of DCS World before. Are you saying your 6800 is strong enough or not strong enough?
Great work on this video Erock. My perspective is these are interesting technologies but I think they're being promoted to gamers who are less aware about the benefits of 'downscaling'. These gamers might be buying 4K monitors for native resolutions without understanding the benefits of using a 1440p monitor and rendering the in game resolution in 4K to get the benefits of a sharper and clearer image. We all know that upscaling a 1080p image on a 1440p monitor looks mushy, so why would gamers think that playing on a 4K monitor with DLSS or FSR will ever look as good as playing 4K on a 1440p monitor with the same performance hit as these technologies, but much better image? In that situation, I would wonder how these technologies might help the FPS, there it makes sense to me, but the other way around just begs to burn money where it's not needed, IMO. 🤗
Thank you! Yeah, I think the only issue is that some games don’t allow for you to use any resolution outside of what your monitors maximum resolution and below. Unless you know some trick I haven’t seen before or something. I’ve seen games natively allow for me to run 4k on a 1440p monitor. But most games won’t. Are you suggestion a trick with the Windows 10 or 11 display settings?
Oh, thats probably it. I just researched and some 1440p monitors are basically downscaled at the hardware level but are actually 4K. In windows I have used 4K 60hz just bc it was there but I only use 1440p 120/144hz. In game however I dont have to do anything while in 1440p to use 4K in games. Some even let me keep the high refresh rate while older titles tend to lock the 60hz. Now it makes sense. 😅 Damn, so thats really stinks everything up. I thought anybody with a 1440p monitor could do this. I use an LG 32GK650F-B.
If only game devs would start making games again that don't need upscaling to run well.
I'm a game developer.
I gurrante to you. It is not Unreal engine 5 issue. It is the developers.
There are many great optimized games made in ue4/ue5
it is the developers who make crappy optimized games
I think people forget 4K is 4x 1080p..... investing resolution is incredibly hard on gpus run it in1080p and fps will jump dramatically. The hardware on new GPUs is significantly more powerful than previous generations? It simply has to do with resolution people. Just do not understand what quadrupling your resolution does in a gpu, and how it has to process all the video exponentially. The amount of data it takes to make those fine lines, not look jagged.
Is an exponential curve?It's not linear. People can hate on newer cards and not being able to handle 4k hi, but jesus christ man, it's 4k so having software, they can boost frames per second with the slight visual decrease in quality to up your frames per second and keep a 4k resolution is necessary
I don’t get it.. why even made this features available on bad games.. people don’t play it not because of graphics.. im super clueless 😂
I agree.
We have to take into account that the game is using software that was added in game level. When it comes to FSR3 on other games DLSS3 is better and we don't know if FSR3 will actually work on all titles like they said. It's just allowing developers to just enable all the new features without optimizing it with real world hardware.
I agree. That is why I said "We don't know if FSR 3 will only look good here in Immortals or if this can be expected on future games."
Yes, it needs to be added in by the dev team. But that is the same logic for DLSS 3 as well. @Noodles1922
If FRS 3 was available in Space Skyrim, AMD would've sold so many more GPUs.
I think you’re right. Lol Space Skyrim.
with fsr the overlay was displaying render latency which is very different from the dlss test where it showed pc latency. dlss has lower latency i'm 200% sure. with fsr3 you cant use reflex and with dlss you can. also idk that game is also dogwater wish they implemented fsr into starfield or something actually relevant that people might actually play
You’re right. My bad on that.
10:54 but still FG by FSR feels like stuttery and laggy
Yeah I think this is subject to an individual's latency sensitivity. Also, I made a mistake. The latency reported for FSR 3 is render latency. The latency reported for DLSS 3 is PC latency. These two are not the same. Therefore, the two latency comparisons is inaccurate. My apologies on that. I updated the pinned comment.
Thanks!!
really good video
Thank you very much!
Why didn’t this melon test on a 7900XTX?
I don't have one and what does it matter? AMD says the technology works on Nvidia cards too. The test is valid.
Good for AMD! Hoping we can get a price war going next lol😂
That'll be nice!