DLSS offers slightly better performance, but a 4.9% difference (at most) is hard to justify a purchase given how expensive Nvidia’s graphics cards are right now. FSR 2.0 isn’t locked to AMD’s graphics cards, unlike DLSS, which only works with RTX 20- and 30-series GPUs. It may look like a loss for FSR 2.0, but as you can see in my charts, I ran these tests with an Nvidia RTX 3090. DLSS and FSR 2.0 are much tighter, though, offering a 96.3% and 92.9% increase, respectively. Even with 2x scaling of the native resolution, the three upscaling methods fall in line like they did with the Quality preset. And in fairness, this is where DLSS starts to see some limitations, too. Performance mode is where the image quality of FSR 1.0 started to fall apart. FSR 2.0 is behind, sure, but all three upscaling modes offered a massive increase in my frame rate, even at their most modest quality modes. DLSS came in second place with a 55.7% increase, while FSR 2.0 trailed with a 48.2% increase. Starting with Quality mode, it’s not a surprise that FSR 1.0 leads with a 66% improvement in my average frame rate versus native 4K. I looked at the Quality and Performance modes with each of the upscaling methods, which provide 1.5x and 2x scaling, respectively. FSR 2.0 performanceĭeathloop has FSR 1.0, FSR 2.0, and DLSS, so I was able to do some side-by-side comparisons in terms of performance and image quality. Although I need to see more games with it to fully count DLSS out, Deathloop is an extremely impressive showing, both in terms of image quality and performance. FSR 2.0 is basically a branded version of Temporal Super Resolution (TSR), which first showed up in Ghostwire Tokyo in March.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |