FSR 4.1

The problem is those two statements are kind of opposed. What I mean is if they port FSR4, and it looks good, then it will be heavy on the resources. To reduce the load it has to be a cut down network. That won't look as good. Also I believe the Switch 2 has tensor cores for DLSS to run on. If AMD ran purely on shaders it would hit even harder since there is hardware not being used.

For small chips it is just a hard tradeoff of IQ vs speed. We see that on the GabeCube with FSR4: It hits harder than we might want because the GPU is so small.
I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of conversation: Tensor cores don't mean DLSS is free.
I think the general point is that maybe a relatively more intensive algorithm can be run, independent of the regular shader engines, etc. And if the right balance is achieved, the GPU cores are free to render the game. and the tensor cores more/less handle the scaling. And the end result is a good image with good performance.

However, DLSS can still be "slow". And therefore hold up the throughput of the final frames. We saw that when DLSS 4.5 released. the "L" preset in particular, is on average about 10 frames slower than DLSS 4 K preset. And it was close to to 20 frames slower, than DLSS 3.

Switch 2 doesn't have many Tensor cores. And they are a relatively older version, with less optimizations. Reportedly, even though Switch 2 is using a "lite" version of DLSS----its still not exactly fast to run it. Some games/developers have chosen to skip it. It sounds like it may be a situation where even though DLSS is offloaded to the tensor cores----its such a straing on those, it can hold up the final frame output in a detrimental way.

I think over time, probably two things will happen, which will make DLSS a better option:

1. Nvidia is able to work with Nintendo to improve the algorithm
2. Developers get more time with Switch 2 dev kits, and gain a better understanding of how to customize and implement DLSS into their Switch 2 games.

------------------

Everyone better understands ML derived code nowadays. So, even the shader based stuff has improved drastically. So much that, we have a user driven project which has ported DLSS3 Preset E, to run on shader code with relatively dated instructions. It doesn't suck. It doesn't look quite as good as the leaked INT8 FSR4. But, it runs faster.

Playstation's new QSSR is running on PS5's GPUs as shader/compute code. Base PS5 GPUs don't have features normally associated with running ML derived code. Yet, they were able to make something which looks great. You're right, being purely shader/compute based, it can potentially take away from the target render speed of the game. AMD is generally very good at asynchronous compute. So, it doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Depending upon the game, testing so far has shown QSSR framerate performance to range from a small hit of maybe 5 frames or in the case of Ghosts of Tsushima----slightly better framerate than FSR3 and/or custom scalers.

AMD has a new FSR 4 "Lite" which is meant for APUs. I'm sure it doesn't look as good as FSR4 on a 9070 XT. And we only have a few seconds of comparions, of a couple of scenes, from an official AMD youtube video.
But, what they show is CLEARLY better than FSR3. In the case of how it resolves the flowing river, its the difference between a totally busted looking image and-----hey that's a pretty normal looking videogame river. and they claim it runs faster than FSR3. They've got some talent working on this stuff, it seems!

That said, I still have to go back to No Man's Sky and their use of FSR 2 on Switch 1: it looks stupidly good. So, true talent and dedication to customize the code rather than pasting it in as general use code library, seems to make all the difference.

Compare all this to the shader based "DLSS" which was featured in Control for a few months, until DLSS 2.0 released and actually used the Tensor cores. It looked fine if you stood still. Looked like artifacting crap, when you started moving. It even looked somehow like an interlaced image. It was pretty interesting and we have come a long way! Epic's own TSR is hardware agnostic and looks pretty dang good, etc.
 
Last edited:
However, DLSS can still be "slow". And therefore hold up the throughput of the final frames. We saw that when DLSS 4.5 released. the "L" preset in particular, is on average about 10 frames slower than DLSS 4 K preset. And it was close to to 20 frames slower, than DLSS 3.
1. Those numbers do not live in a vaccum, image qulity is different.
2. Those numbers sounds like grabbed out of free air, source for those claims?

Let is let some facts into the debate:
1792557272851.png
 
I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of conversation: Tensor cores don't mean DLSS is free.
No but it is hardware that FSR wouldn't be using. Running on shaders is also not free. So unless AMD has something that is more advanced training wise then no, it isn't likely to be faster with better quality. There's no reason to believe they do, given that they are basically always at least a little behind nVidia since nVidia has so much money to throw at research.

FSR4 is just heavier than older FSR technology, and particularly on hardware that is fairly limited. Like on the GabeCube you see things like Crimson Desert where FSR3 quality mode gives a 137% FPS (vs native) but FSR4 quality mode only gives 120%. Also consider that the Steam Machine is a lot more powerful than the Switch 2.

That's an advantage of the older FSR technology, particularly FSR1 since it is so simple: They don't take a lot of overhead. Hence developers may choose them on low-spec hardware like the Switch. FSR4 doesn't have that, it is a heavier algorithm just like DLSS.
 
1. Those numbers do not live in a vaccum, image qulity is different.
2. Those numbers sounds like grabbed out of free air, source for those claims?

Let is let some facts into the debate:
View attachment 832283
This chart more/less confirms what I said.

For example, 13% of 136fps, is 17.68.

136fps is what I was getting in the Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmark at 1440p Quality, DLSS 3 Preset "C" with an RTX 5080. And in the same benchmark with the same settings: DLSS 4.5 Preset L "was close to 20 frames slower".

**Different games load the GPU differently. Some games will show relatively less framerate hit, as per the chart stating as little as 4%. There's also different GPUs, with different amounts of Tensor cores**

Personally, I prefer the image quality of 4.5 Preset M. IMO it handles motion and small animations, better. And that preset also gives better framerate.


**here's Hardware Unboxed numbers, with a 5070 at 1440P. DLSS 4 Preset K Vs. 4.5 Preset M (so the lighter preset). And in Cyberpunk, they also found a 13% difference. And that's DLSS 4 K Vs. 4.5 M. Not DLSS 3 Vs. 4.5 L (the heaviest preset).

View: https://youtu.be/36zbGPECzDI?si=rlQIxXemE2RGDeRb&t=626
 
Last edited:
This chart more/less confirms what I said.

For example, 13% of 136fps, is 17.68.

136fps is what I was getting in the Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmark at 1440p Quality, DLSS 3 Preset "C" with an RTX 5080. And in the same benchmark with the same settings: DLSS 4.5 Preset L "was close to 20 frames slower".

**Different games load the GPU differently. Some games will show relatively less framerate hit, as per the chart stating as little as 4%. There's also different GPUs, with different amounts of Tensor cores**

Personally, I prefer the image quality of 4.5 Preset M. IMO it handles motion and small animations, better. And that preset also gives better framerate.


**here's Hardware Unboxed numbers, with a 5070 at 1440P. DLSS 4 Preset K Vs. 4.5 Preset M (so the lighter preset). And in Cyberpunk, they also found a 13% difference. And that's DLSS 4 K Vs. 4.5 M. Not DLSS 3 Vs. 4.5 L (the heaviest preset).

View: https://youtu.be/36zbGPECzDI?si=rlQIxXemE2RGDeRb&t=626

Your exmaple is with FPS is locked to a specific hardware configuration and now you drag personal bias into it.
I prefer DLSS 4.5 Preset "F" due to the best image quality.
 
Back
Top