A review of tests from TechPowerUp and Tom’s Hardware US, which come to the same conclusion: the FSR 2.0 is a real hit.
AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 technology is available for gaming death loop from May 12. During the presentation last March, AMD promised better image quality than FSR 1.0, at the cost of slightly higher resource consumption. Verification through two tests; one made by W1zzard for the TechPowerUp site, the other by Aaron Klotz for the US site of Tom’s Hardware. We will mainly focus on the second one which has the advantage of accurately reporting the average frames per second provided by FSR 1.0, FSR 2.0 as well as NVIDIA DLSS and this, for different graphics cards.
For the purely visual aspect, TechPowerUp offers the following video opposing FSR 1.0, FSR 2.0 and DLSS 2.3 in various scenes of the game. death loop. You can view full-screen still images in different definitions at the source.
Some additional comparisons offered by Tom’s Hardware US in 1080p.
As for the gains in frames per second, AMD had announced the color, the FSR 2.0 saves less than the FSR 1.0. At 1080p/Ultra, a Radeon RX 6700 XT averages 110 frames per second. FSR 1.0 quality mode takes the counter to 149.4 and 167.6 in performance mode. Under the same conditions and with the same modes, the FSR 2.0 maxes out at 135.8 IPS in quality mode, 152.2 IPS in performance mode. In any case, the gains compared to native rendering are of course still significant.
With a GeForce RTX 3070, the performance differences are very small between DLSS, FSR 1.0, and FSR 2.0 at 1080p. These technologies provide around 10 images per additional compared to native definition.
Same experience but in 2160p this time. While FSR 1.0 quality mode allows the Radeon RX 6700 XT to average over 60 FPS, FSR 2.0 with the same settings reduces the frames per second at about 50fps. In the case of the GeForce RTX 3070, DLSS Performance offers the biggest boost in FPS.
|Text||Radeon RX 6700 XT||GeForce RTX 3070|
|FSR 1.0 Quality||60.8||57.7|
|FSR 1.0 Performance||79.7||74|
|FSR 2.0 quality||51.4||52.3|
|FSR 2.0 Performance||67.5||67.1|
What about older graphics cards?
Since not everyone is lucky enough to have a graphics card as recent as a Radeon RX 6700 XT or a GeForce RTX 3070, our colleague also did some measurements with older references: GeForce GTX 1080, GeForce GTX 970, RX Vega 64, RX 480, at 1080p/Ultra for all but the tested GTX 970 at 1080p/High.
|Text||Geforce GTX 1080||GeForce GTX 970||RX Vega 64||RX480|
|FSR 1.0 Quality||93.2||48.4||86.3||44|
|FSR 1.0 Performance||107.4||53.8||98.6||48.3|
|FSR 2.0 quality||86.1||45.1||80.3||40.2|
|FSR 2.0 Performance||96.9||48.5||90.1||44.2|
In conclusion, Aaron Klotz believes that AMD “He did a great job with FSR 2.0 in finding a way to deliver image quality similar to DLSS 2.0, without the hardware requirements that NVIDIA’s enhancement technology requires” ; the FSR 2.0 actually has the advantage of accommodating a wide range of GPUs, including older ones and those of the competition.
Same story for TechPowerup’s W1zzard. The latter writes: “AMD has done the unthinkable: the new FidelityFX Super Resolution FSR 2.0 is excellent, as good as DLSS 2.0, even DLSS 2.3. Sometimes it does a little better, sometimes it does a little worse, but overall it’s a big win for AMD.”.
At this stage, the only question finally concerns the adoption of FSR 2.0, subject to the good will of the developers who must implement the technology in their productions. For now, the only game that benefits from FSR 2.0 is death loop. AMD has formalized a dozen titles that will soon adopt it. For comparison, in less than a year, FSR 1.0 went from 7 games at launch to over 80.
Sources: TechPowerUP, Tom’s Hardware US