You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page.

AMD reveal more on FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 (FSR)

By - | Views: 15,256

With GDC ongoing, there's lots of info flying out from developers and hardware vendors and now AMD has given talks and more detail on FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0. If you need a quick primer, see our original post from the initial announcement.

One of the main things is that it might be more difficult to integrate for developers. It requires developers provide it with more data points but AMD say it will be easier to integrate with games that "already have a temporal upscaling rendering path". They estimate if that rendering path exists it could be "as little as a few days" to integrate FSR 2.0.

Along with some updated screenshots they gave out a trickle of new info. Here's one of the new comparison shots, click it to enlarge it (warning - large file size):

It will support various quality modes just like FSR 1.0, here's what they've changed to for FSR 2.0:

FSR 2.0
Quality Mode
Description Scale factor Input
resolution
Output
resolution
Quality “Quality” mode provides similar or better than native image quality with a projected significant performance gain.

1.5x per dimension

(2.25x area scale)
(67% screen resolution)
1280 x 720
1706 x 960

2293 x 960
2560 x 1440
1920 x 1080
2560 x 1440
3440 x 1440

3840 x 2160
Balanced “Balanced” mode offers an ideal compromise between image quality and projected performance gains.

1.7x per dimension

(2.89x area scale)
(59% screen resolution)
1129 x 635
1506 x 847
2024 x 847
2259 x 1270
1920 x 1080
2560 x 1440

3440 x 1440
3840 x 2160
Performance

“Performance” mode provides image quality similar to native image quality with a projected major performance gain.

2.0x per dimension

(4x area scale)
(50% screen resolution)
960 x 540
1280 x 720

1720 x 720
1920 x 1080
1920 x 1080
2560 x 1440

3440 x 1440
3840 x 2160

As for hardware support, as they already announced it continues to be cross-vendor and cross-platform too. Since it's now an "advanced temporal upscaling solution" it will be a little more demanding to use.

Here's what they suggest as a starting-level (minimum) for FSR 2.0, which may change over time:

Target Upscaling Resolution AMD Graphics Cards NVIDIA® Graphics Cards
4K

Radeon™ RX 6700 XT​
Radeon™ RX 5700​
(And above)

GeForce RTX™ 3070​
GeForce RTX™ 2070​
(And above)

1440P

Radeon™ RX 6600​
Radeon™ RX 5600​
Radeon™ RX Vega Series​
(And above)

GeForce RTX™ 3060​
GeForce RTX™ 2060 ​
GeForce® GTX 1080
(And above)

1080P

Radeon™ RX 6500 XT​
Radeon™ RX 590​
(And above)

GeForce® GTX 16 Series​
GeForce® GTX 1070​
(And above)

No release date has yet been set but games will start appearing with FSR 2.0 in "Q2 2022" and sometime around then it will see the wider open-source release of FSR 2.0 for everyone.

See their full talk about FSR 2.0 below:

YouTube Thumbnail
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Accept Cookies & Show   Direct Link
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
22 Likes
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG and Humble Store. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
14 comments
Page: 1/2»
  Go to:

fagnerln 24 Mar
I want to see comparison with FSR1 as it works fairly well and curious that they don't have "ultra quality" mode
Lofty 24 Mar
i wonder why they don't have support for 2880 x 1620 or 3200 x 1800 ? Surely there is room for those who just want a minimal drop in quality and another 10 - 15 fps to nudge their 4k experience from 45-50 to 60fps. After all at 1440p scaled to 4k no matter how good FSR 2.0 is an 'ultra quality' and an 'extreme' mode would surely almost become imperceptible at 4k.

Right now i can force FSR1.0 in the steam launch commands and any game i manage to get it working with (not as many as i would like tbh) it offers me up those two resolutions above and the quality drop even without integrating it into the game engine is minimal and i do notice a definite frame rate boost, in fact oddly it can look almost better with the contrast adaptive sharpening.


Last edited by Lofty on 24 March 2022 at 8:34 pm UTC
Jahimself 24 Mar
On the screenshot, if you watch it full picture, and look the first face on the foreground, you can better compare native to other FSR. You can observe how it alterate the overall image.

I prefer having real resolution upscale, even for a performance loss, than having performance increase for graphic quality loss. There are enough graphical setting in most game that allow you to balance your fps. And in other scenario when you have too much perf, you rather have resolution upscale for real graphic improvement (imo)
Quoting: JahimselfOn the screenshot, if you watch it full picture, and look the first face on the foreground, you can better compare native to other FSR. You can observe how it alterate the overall image.

I prefer having real resolution upscale, even for a performance loss, than having performance increase for graphic quality loss. There are enough graphical setting in most game that allow you to balance your fps. And in other scenario when you have too much perf, you rather have resolution upscale for real graphic improvement (imo)
I dunno, except maybe for movie-style cutscenes, graphical detail levels in games passed the point where I don't care any more years ago. So for me, as long as it doesn't degrade back down to pixel-art levels, more speed for a bit less detail is something for nothing.
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: JahimselfOn the screenshot, if you watch it full picture, and look the first face on the foreground, you can better compare native to other FSR. You can observe how it alterate the overall image.

I prefer having real resolution upscale, even for a performance loss, than having performance increase for graphic quality loss. There are enough graphical setting in most game that allow you to balance your fps. And in other scenario when you have too much perf, you rather have resolution upscale for real graphic improvement (imo)
I dunno, except maybe for movie-style cutscenes, graphical detail levels in games passed the point where I don't care any more years ago. So for me, as long as it doesn't degrade back down to pixel-art levels, more speed for a bit less detail is something for nothing.

Agreed, I'd say for about the last 5 years or so now, it's not just the amount of polygons we're pushing, or the resolution of the textures, but the overall level of detail in characters, environments, animations, the quality of lighting and the post processing of 3D graphics in games has reached a point where everything looks pretty amazing at just about any resolution or quality setting to be honest.

Anything extra on top now is just more cake icing on top of cake icing.

I still remember people losing their mind over how far graphics advanced with the 'PS3 quality' era of games, and we've now reached the point where 'PS4 quality' games can run on a handheld PC.

Graphics are officially at the point where 'they're good enough' for me. I just want decent battery life and stable frame rates now.
Lofty 25 Mar
Im a bit confused with some of the above posts but maybe im misinterpreting them ( it happens )

The benefit of FSR (and in today in game engines that now don't actually change your monitors resolution on game for this reason) is that you don't have to drop your physical resolution on your monitor, as LCD's are notoriously bad at scaling images and look terrible vs CRT when running lower resolutions. That really is one of the biggest points of FSR, if everybody still ran quality CRT's monitors you could run games at lower resolutions and still get excellent perceived real world fidelity and high frame rates simply by dropping the resolution.. no need for FSR.

In game (")graphics(") are separate to real world monitor fidelity (a pixel game is still graphics). Once you are running 1:1 pixel mapped resolution over a digital (HDMi / DisaplyPort ) connector with zero loss you have max fidelity for that panel. And because of the need to run an LCD at it's native resolution in order to stop the panel applying bi-linear filtering of your image (like those smudge filters you get on Retroarch) and because of the trend for 1440p to be the new 1080p that's your new base line performance target. Not to mention the new influx of cheaper 144hz/165hz and soon to be 240hz 4K monitors which all require huge amounts of power to run at native resolution.. FSR / DLSS is the workaround.

Of course there are a few rare bespoke monitors with integer scaling options that bypasses the bi-linear filter but you can actually run integer scaling on Linux using a command like: WINE_FULLSCREEN_INTEGER_SCALING=1 and run your game fullscreen at 1/4 of the resolution of the actual game, and if you can't put up with the chunky pixel graphics you will see why you need bi-linear filtering on monitors on a modern game, but you will also see how crisp and clear the pixelated graphics are because no scaling outside of the monitors physical pixel grid was required.

So yea, graphics aren't monitor fidelity actually both go hand in hand. FSR is a really usefull tool and there should be an "ultra" mode and an "uber" mode (Ultra: 2880 x 1620 Uber: 3200 x 1800 (or extreme mode) for those on 4k monitors so they don't have to drop all the way down 67% to 1440p to get some FPS benefits.
Quoting: LoftyIm a bit confused with some of the above posts but maybe im misinterpreting them ( it happens )

In game (")graphics(") are separate to real world monitor fidelity (a pixel game is still graphics). Once you are running 1:1 pixel mapped resolution over a digital (HDMi / DisaplyPort ) connector with zero loss you have max fidelity for that panel.
Right, so to clear up that misinterpretaton you mentioned, when I said "as long as it doesn't degrade back down to pixel-art levels" I meant "As long as it doesn't start looking like those retro games which make blocky little characters intended to look like pixels used to in the early 90s but obviously don't any more". So your whole learned disquisition on what pixel graphics is and isn't was somewhat beside the thrust of what I was saying.

I was trying to say "I don't mind a bit of reduction in visual fidelity unless it gets really extreme". I was trying to say it in a mildly amusing way; evidently I failed. Clearer?


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 25 March 2022 at 2:03 am UTC
Lofty 25 Mar
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: LoftyIm a bit confused with some of the above posts but maybe im misinterpreting them ( it happens )

In game (")graphics(") are separate to real world monitor fidelity (a pixel game is still graphics). Once you are running 1:1 pixel mapped resolution over a digital (HDMi / DisaplyPort ) connector with zero loss you have max fidelity for that panel.
Right, so to clear up that misinterpretaton you mentioned, when I said "as long as it doesn't degrade back down to pixel-art levels" I meant "As long as it doesn't start looking like those retro games which make blocky little characters intended to look like pixels used to in the early 90s but obviously don't any more". So your whole learned disquisition on what pixel graphics is and isn't was somewhat beside the thrust of what I was saying.

I was trying to say "I don't mind a bit of reduction in visual fidelity unless it gets really extreme". I was trying to say it in a mildly amusing way; evidently I failed. Clearer?

evidently.
Eike 25 Mar
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: gradyvuckovic
Quoting: Purple Library GuyI dunno, except maybe for movie-style cutscenes, graphical detail levels in games passed the point where I don't care any more years ago. So for me, as long as it doesn't degrade back down to pixel-art levels, more speed for a bit less detail is something for nothing.

Agreed, I'd say for about the last 5 years or so now, it's not just the amount of polygons we're pushing, or the resolution of the textures, but the overall level of detail in characters, environments, animations, the quality of lighting and the post processing of 3D graphics in games has reached a point where everything looks pretty amazing at just about any resolution or quality setting to be honest.

Sometimes, I looked at the high and not-so-high quality settings screenshots in games magazines and couldn't tell which was which without reading the accompanying text.

(... and still wanted to have max quality settings. X) )
Guppy 25 Mar
Quoting: JahimselfOn the screenshot, if you watch it full picture, and look the first face on the foreground, you can better compare native to other FSR. You can observe how it alterate the overall image.

The white bit with the "carbon fiber" texture? yeah I did wonder why the 'quality' seems to double the size of the pattern not of the other seems to do that.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: Liberapay or PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone with no article paywalls. We also don't have tons of adverts, there's also no tracking and we respect your privacy. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.