Generally, you possibly can see ghost photographs, equivalent to in Kratos’ swing over this snowy background, the place there is a blurring of the axe and arms as AFMF, or Superior Fluid Movement Frames from AMD, interpolates in-between frames.
We’ll additionally speak about FSR 4 vs. prior FSR iterations and native: In some scenes, just like the one above, picture readability and stability are significantly improved over prior FSR variations.
The Ultramarine’s armor and hanging cables each present vital enchancment within the newer model versus the older.
In different scenes, just like the one above exhibiting an air assault, we will see heavy warping with FSR 3.1, however nonetheless modulation with FSR 4 for the flying models.
The bottom assault exhibits points with shadows pulsing beneath the Tyrannids in each variations.
Smeared trails behind NPCs and barrels are improved upon with FSR 4, however generally nonetheless current.
So, we’ll be taking a look at AMD’s Constancy FX Tremendous Decision model 4 with the brand new RX 9070 XT (learn our evaluation) GPUs and evaluating it towards the prior model. That is a picture high quality particular take a look at, and like we stated within the NVIDIA protection of DLSS and MFG, not all faux frames are created faux equal. This may have a look at that partly. What we’re not doing right here but is evaluating FSR 4 and AFMF to DLSS and MFG. That could be a later piece if there’s curiosity, however we have to lay the groundwork for every expertise independently first.
One necessary factor to recollect with all of this, similar to with NVIDIA’s that we checked out, is that we’re carefully inspecting these photographs immediately for picture high quality. Meaning we’re pausing issues and zooming in. In actual play, it’s seemingly that a few of these variations would go unnoticed at full pace and “zoomed out.” One different notice is that YouTube/video compression makes issues generally troublesome to totally recognize.
Let’s get into it.
FSR 4 Overview
AMD’s FidelityFX Tremendous Decision (FSR) upscaling has lastly moved into the “AI” buzzword period with FSR 4’s machine-learned Convolutional Neural Community (CNN) mannequin co-developed with Sony. Sony and AMD introduced a collaboration effort again in December of 2024, dubbed “Undertaking Amethyst.”
Sony strongly implied that it’s going to make use of a rebranded model of FSR 4 as its personal “PSSR” as a way to goal 1080p native rendering on the PS5 Professional, however with the upscaler doing the work to output trying picture at “4K.”
On the PC aspect, FSR 4 will solely run on the brand new Radeon RX 9000 collection graphics playing cards in the meanwhile, with no official phrase on back-porting to RX 7000. We’re uncertain right now whether or not it’s a technical limitation or a product segmentation transfer on AMD’s half.
The official help listing for FSR 4 has 36 video games on the time of writing, which is late March. That’s not quite a bit, however the quantity will hopefully develop as extra video games are up to date. A number of of the listed video games are massive Sony titles as effectively, indicating that the corporate is critical about using the tech, but in addition exhibits the partnership between them.
The earlier technology, FSR 3.1, is technologically distinct from its predecessor (FSR 3) by the use of being applied as a modular .dll file slightly than being completely baked-in to the sport. This paves the best way for future revisions of FSR to be extra simply applied by the sport builders or simply on the whole.
FSR 4 additionally makes use of a .dll file, and will be swapped-in formally in FSR 3.1 video games through a driver-level override in AMD’s Adrenaline software program in a really comparable solution to NVIDIA’s DLSS override. Nonetheless, the video games must even be on AMD’s official whitelist to get the toggle to look within the driver software program.
Unofficial instruments like OptiScaler open the door for lots extra flexibility, however we haven’t examined them but so we will’t make a advice, however there’s stuff like that on the market.
AFMF 2.1 Overview
AMD additionally contains in-game body technology, or “faux frames,” below its FSR umbrella, and we have not seen any indication from AMD that its in-game framegen algorithm has modified since FSR 3.1.
In AMD’s phrases, “Superior body technology interpolation expertise when used with AMD FidelityFX Tremendous Decision (FSR) 3 inserts 1 body between current ones.”
Nonetheless, AMD additionally has separate driver stage body technology often known as Superior Fluid Movement Frames (AFMF) that may be utilized with out in-game help. AFMF 2.1 is a brand new introduction alongside FSR 4.0. To make use of it, you want AMD Software program: Adrenalin Version 25.3.1 or newer, RX 6000 or newer, and a DX11, 12, or Vulkan recreation. RX 6000 solely helps AFMF in unique fullscreen mode, whereas RX 7000 and newer help borderless windowed, and the AMD 9070 (learn our evaluation) reviewer information said that “in-game show setting ought to be set to borderless fullscreen mode.”
And that is quite a lot of guidelines, however remember that Clean Movement, NVIDIA’s reply to AFMF, is unique to the RTX 50-series.
NVIDIA has said that “help for GeForce RTX 40 Collection GPUs shall be coming in a future replace.”
We’re specializing in AFMF 2.1 right here, so this is not a direct 1:1 equal to the piece we simply ran on NVIDIA’s in-game frame-gen, however we’ll even be trying on the body technology efficiency for AMD. For this text, the efficiency we care about is picture high quality, and never the precise literal framerate efficiency. That shall be a separate take a look at together with doubtlessly latency.
That is an remoted take a look at in order that we will construct foundational information first, similar to we did for NVIDIA. The direct comparability could be NVIDIA Clean Movement versus AMD Fluid Movement Frames, however we’re specializing in simply AMD immediately. That comparability might come later.
As for FSR testing, our FSR comparisons will deal with FSR 3.1 vs. FSR 4, with a pair references to native seize as an anchor. We captured all the pieces at 4K decision with FSR working on the Efficiency preset, which means it’s upscaling from 1080p base render decision. We disabled anti-aliasing, digital camera results, and movement blur the place attainable to get the cleanest photographs we might.
The aims immediately are purely picture high quality, not efficiency. We’ll be evaluating frame-by-fake-frame picture high quality, FSR iteration high quality, and taking a look at behavioral patterns on the whole.
Let’s get into the picture high quality comparisons.
Warhammer 40,000 House Marine 2
First up is Warhammer 40K House Marine 2. Like all the pieces else we examined for this piece, FSR 4 help comes by the use of the driver-level override. We used the Excessive graphics preset, turned off digital camera shake, and set movement blur to off; nevertheless, we discovered the latter doesn’t really work and movement blur persists regardless, however that’s a recreation factor.
Armory
We’ll begin the comparisons with a scene within the Armory, or “Armouring Corridor” in native Grimdark. Even earlier than strolling ahead, the distinction between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 is stark. Static components like the ground of the walkway that shift and shimmer closely with FSR 3.1 are actually stably locked-in. On prime of that, the whole picture is far clearer and extra detailed.
Examples of this embrace the ground, the place we see improved picture stability and readability, the Ultramarine’s armor exhibiting comparable enhancements in a side-by-side, the distant hanging cables, and the tech monks’ hoods. Distant candle flames that may’t even be made out with FSR 3.1 are seen with FSR 4, bringing them again into existence.
As we stroll ahead and the… we’ll name it a “kiosk,” drops down, the distinction in readability is so apparent it’s virtually like taking a look at two totally different resolutions. Irrespective of the place you look there’s enchancment. The high quality particulars below the principle monitor, the tech priest’s masks, and even simply the overall distinction and visible discernability of all of the mechanical arms and tubes are all vastly improved. We double-checked our settings and confirmed that they have been working as supposed for a like-for-like comparability, so it truly is simply that significantly better on this instance.
This can be a very promising begin for FSR 4.
Let’s examine FSR 4 to native 4K. House Marine 2 forces both TAA or upscaling always (even at native), so we went with the default of TAA for the native seize.
We additionally did this in our DLSS comparability, which confirmed how some situations, like Cyberpunk, can really look worse than upscaling due to TAA.
The flickering and shimmering on the ground in House Marine 2 we noticed with FSR 3.1 can be current at native with TAA. That makes FSR 4 look much more spectacular right here – even on the efficiency preset – because it’s taming an undesirable habits. We stated this earlier than, however we shouldn’t be seeing issues that look worse with all defaults at native than with an upscaling expertise.
Normal element earlier than transferring – like within the ground, partitions, and priest hoods – is a toss-up between native with TAA and FSR 4 Efficiency mode. That’s concurrently a critique of TAA and a reward of FSR 4.
The inexperienced orb far within the distance seems very barely higher with native TAA. Because the “kiosk” drops down, the extent of element between native with TAA and FSR 4 Efficiency could be very shut. Nonetheless, we predict FSR 4 really comes out barely forward – most clearly within the spherical speaker-looking components on prime of a few the screens.
Like we stated within the DLSS piece, upscaling ought to by no means look higher than “native,” and recreation builders shouldn’t be leaning on upscaling applied sciences on this approach. The one cause it ever does look higher is due to points equivalent to these with TAA, which is the default right here.
Command
We’ll briefly have a look at one other indoor scene within the marketing campaign’s command bridge earlier than transferring on to a mission. Once more, all the pieces is sharper, clearer, and simpler to discern when utilizing FSR4. Gadriel’s face, Titus’ hair, and Chairon’s armor – notably the chest ornament – stand out as night-and-day variations.
Trying on the bridge’s holographic map space, FSR 3.1 suffers from distracting flickering on a number of the spherical grates (beneath the three skulls and on the fitting aspect of the principle terminal). Switching to FSR 4 virtually completely eliminates this habits. The skinny traces throughout the hologram that shimmer and boil with FSR 3.1 come throughout as a lot cleaner with FSR 4. The opposite ship seen out the left home windows doesn’t present a lot distinction, nevertheless.
It might be that the most important areas of enchancment with FSR 4 are in dimly-lit or low distinction scenes. We’ll take a look at that with the following comparability.
“Decapitation” Mission – Scene 1
Loading into the “Decapitation” Operations mission offers us a brighter out of doors space. Whereas the marine’s armor is once more visibly better-looking with FSR 4, the impact on the remainder of the scene is extra refined, extra like lifting a haze slightly than a metamorphosis. You’ll be able to clearly see this within the texture of the bottom and on the shoulders of the statues.
As soon as in movement, FSR 3.1 begins to deteriorate, however FSR 4 retains the picture clear. Sadly, the bugged everlasting movement blur makes it arduous to attract a distinction between the 2 FSR revisions whereas the marine is rolling down the steps. Components such because the element within the inlaid stone ground and the buildings to the fitting look higher throughout movement with FSR 4. Thus far, it seems like a lot of the FSR 3-to-4 enhancements are seen in movement.
“Decapitation” Mission – Scene 2
Strafing to the aspect exhibits off an enormous enchancment favoring FSR 4 over FSR 3.1. Each single factor on display screen seems higher with FSR 4 – the textures on the edges of the steps, the statues, the murals towards the far wall, and the guardsmen. It once more gives the look of working at a better decision.
This might be a really attention-grabbing scene to match the hottest implementations of DLSS and FSR head-to-head in a future piece.
“Decapitation” Mission – Scene 3
Final for House Marine 2 is an upscaling torture take a look at by the use of a sluggish pan of the Tyrranid assault. The flying creatures passing over the entrance of the huge constructing trigger the home windows to warp and blur closely when utilizing FSR 3.1. It nonetheless occurs with FSR 4, however to a lesser extent. That is near a worst case state of affairs for any upscaler, interval.
In each the air and on the bottom, FSR 3.1 causes the creatures to blur right into a mass, generally phasing out and in of existence or mixing collectively. FSR 4 isn’t completely immune right here both, however once more does a approach higher job than the prior model.
Since this state of affairs is so arduous on upscalers, let’s examine to native with its pressured TAA once more. Watching the flying creatures in entrance of the home windows exhibits us what it’s presupposed to seem like, freed from the heavy warping seen with FSR 3.1, and even the warping-lite modulation seen with FSR 4.
Trying on the floor assault once more exhibits simply how effectively FSR 4 is dealing with this relative to FSR 3.1. It’s very near the look of the native seize, however nonetheless suffers from an impact that makes the shadows beneath the Tyrranids seem to pulse and shift beneath them. At this stage of high quality element and chaotic motion, even native with TAA struggles slightly bit with grain and warp. Some areas are cleaner, however like we stated earlier, this explicit recreation has toss-up comparisons between them.
Monster Hunter Wilds
Monster Hunter Wilds is up subsequent. We used the Excessive graphics preset, however turned off anti-aliasing and digital camera results like movement blur, vignette, and depth of subject. We additionally diminished digital camera shake to its minimal ranges. Cutscenes are completely in-engine, which is helpful, so we bought a mixture of these with some precise in-game seize.
Title Display screen
Taking a fast have a look at the title display screen animation exhibits little distinction between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4. Textures and edges are barely sharper with FSR 4. The stippled impact on fur as seen with FSR 3.1 can be virtually completely gone with FSR 4. There’s not a lot else to debate right here so we’ll transfer on.
Oasis
Leaping into the precise recreation on the level you select your weapon by the small oasis exhibits an unsightly sample superimposed over the sand when utilizing FSR 3.1 that goes away with FSR 4. It doesn’t make the sport unplayable or something, but it surely’s fairly distracting.
When speaking to Alma, we will see that FSR 4 handles the high quality strands of her hair slightly higher than FSR 3.1 does. It additionally provides sharpness to the weapons instantly to her left. Whereas working in direction of the coaching barrel, we see that FSR 4 retains the element of the hunter’s garments and gear sharper. It’s not an enormous distinction, nevertheless.
Going to Camp
The lengthy cutscene that takes you to the principle camp exhibits a lot the identical. FSR 4 has a slight benefit to picture high quality through sharpness and minor element enhancement. Hair, fur, and feathers profit probably the most by the use of FSR 4 lowering the looks of patterns or stippling superimposed over them.
One clear distinction is in trails behind objects transferring throughout a patterned background. For instance, when the 2 Felynes drop the barrel, it leaves a smeared path behind it on the wood walkway, as does the NPC on the left aspect of the display screen and the unlucky Felyne because it falls backwards. We expect FSR 3.1 handles this very poorly – FSR 4, whereas not excellent, undoubtedly does higher.
Contemplating what we noticed in House Marine 2, the much less drastic variations between FSR revisions in Monster Hunter Wilds is stunning.
Marvel Rivals
The ultimate recreation we’ll analyze for FSR upscaling is Marvel Rivals. To maintain issues constant, we used the coaching vary to assemble footage.
Rocket Leap
Static scenes don’t differ a lot between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 in Rivals, presumably due to the sport’s artwork model and robust default sharpening filter. We’ll want to have a look at motion to suss out the variations, and blasting ahead with Rocket’s sprint is an efficient place to start.
Even earlier than dashing, we will see a blob of pixels round Rocket’s head getting distorted within the FSR 3.1 recording, which isn’t almost as pronounced with FSR 4. As quickly as we blast ahead, FSR 3.1 turns into an over-sharpened, grainy mess, as seen on Rocket’s gun, jetpack, tail, and the bottom under. FSR 4 is in a position to deal with the sudden motion way more gracefully, and solely will get unhealthy across the finer factors of element just like the spikes on Rocket’s knees and the hair/fur on his head.
Rocket Strafe
Subsequent we strafed to the aspect whereas taking pictures. Earlier than transferring, we will see a repeating sample overlaid on the left aspect of the bottom, just like what we noticed in Monster Hunter Wilds, that’s not current with FSR 4.
As soon as we do begin transferring and taking pictures, FSR 4 retains extra element within the bullet trails than with FSR 3.1. After dropping off the primary ledge and reloading, FSR 3.1 responds to all of the movement by giving all the pieces within the neighborhood of Rocket’s mannequin a form of deep-fried-meme look, and ghosting on the trailing fringe of his jetpack. There’s nonetheless slightly little bit of ghosting with FSR 4, but it surely’s significantly diminished – and the deep-fried look is gone.
Rocket Wallrun
Final, we tried a wallrun. FSR 3.1 dealt with it general higher than we anticipated, however nonetheless left horrible ghost photographs as Rocket climbs up throughout the purple banner. FSR 4 nonetheless has them barely, however they’re not noticeable to us at full pace in real-time.
For the remainder of the run, there’s not an enormous distinction between the 2 FSR revisions exterior of a slight readability benefit and diminished ghosting with FSR 4.
AFMF 2.1 Picture Comparisons
We’re moving into the AFMF and body technology comparisons now. We’ll play some side-by-side, frame-by-frame comparisons whereas setting this part up.
For comparability functions, we chosen video games that help in-game body technology to match with driver-level modifications. In the actual world, you must virtually at all times go for in-game body technology over AFMF on the driver if in-game is obtainable. The obvious draw back of AFMF is that it has no consciousness of UI components, so menus, textual content, and icons could also be distorted (though we noticed NVIDIA battle with this even with in-game body technology).
All footage for AFMF comparisons was captured at 4K 120FPS. A 7900 XTX (watch our evaluation) with Adrenalin 25.2.1 was used for AFMF 2.0 seize and a 9070 XT with Adrenalin 25.3.1 was used for all the pieces else. AFMF Search Mode was set to Excessive and Efficiency Mode was set to High quality, the really useful settings for our setup.
AMD is extra direct than NVIDIA about recommending framegen solely in situations the place the sport can already run at a minimum of 60FPS, and we caught to that advice.
As with NVIDIA framegen, the seller’s seize utility (Radeon ReLive on this case) was probably the most sensible solution to seize, however as a result of we won’t manipulate the speed of body technology (like we might for NVIDIA), we’ll must rely extra on frame-by-frame comparisons. We always had points with AMD’s Document & Stream tab disappearing after reboots, so if AMD is studying this, please repair that (and sure, our IGP is disabled).
Warhammer 40,000 House Marine 2
We used the identical settings for House Marine 2 that we did for the FSR comparisons, with Decision Upscaling set to FSR and Render Decision set to Native since it could actually’t be explicitly disabled. We set Movement Blur Depth to Off although the setting would not work. Framegen labored with fullscreen enabled, so we left that setting alone.
Screenshake
We’ll begin with the worst-case state of affairs.
We recorded an extra scene in House Marine 2 to indicate the downsides of body technology. These clips aren’t tightly managed or synchronized; we simply loaded into the principle hub and shook the mouse round violently, so we’ll freeze body some elements to indicate the problems. Apart from making it very apparent that movement blur was nonetheless on (regardless of being toggled off), this permits us to see a number of frames the place AFMF is certainly utilized on prime of UI components just like the “Assemble” waypoint. Making use of body technology on prime of UI components could cause ghosting and duplication of UI components, which simply seems unhealthy. We will examine this to the in-game body technology choice, which can be a garbled, muddy mess on this state of affairs, with distortions across the edges that nearly seem like eye floaters. It utterly breaks on this state of affairs, however completely preserves the UI layer even within the worst frames.
Fast actions like this aren’t out of the query for mouse-and-keyboard customers. They’re particularly widespread in sure sorts of video games, like shooters specifically the place a quick or twitchy response necessitates them. In comparison with native, a lot of these speedy motion situations are a worse expertise with body technology.
Armory
Our armory scene is comparatively sluggish, however we will nonetheless see the results of body technology on transferring limbs versus native rendering. The telltale signal of generated frames right here is the slight blurring of element on the marine’s armor in frame-by-frame playback, just like the again of his proper leg as he passes below the sunshine, however that is solely actually seen when carefully inspecting particular person frames in a selected location. The necessary movement blur and utility of FSR additionally assist disguise the generated frames, since each of those results result in the identical form of temporal smearing that generated frames are topic to.
The frame-by-frame playback of AFMF 2.0 versus 2.1 reveals higher variations, with a outstanding secondary picture surrounding the marine’s proper arm upfront of its motion within the subsequent “actual” body. This solely impacts transferring components of the scene; there is no noticeable signal of body technology within the comparatively static background even with the older model.
“Decapitation” Mission – Scene 1
By rolling down the steps, we will see a weak level of body technology, though the inescapable movement blur makes it more durable to detect. There are a number of frames the place the high quality particulars on the marine’s armor are blurred, just like the bottoms of his boots the place traces are misplaced. Transferring body by body with native and AFMF 2.1 seize aspect by aspect, there is a clear distinction between the even and predictable movement blur and the irregular, pale outlines of generated frames. The marine’s toes change place greater than another a part of his armor throughout the dive and roll, which is why they’re particularly liable to blurring and transparency.
The generated frames are additionally identifiable by ghosting behind the bullets being fired within the background, with traditional ghosting habits inflicting an undesirable look. In our current piece discussing NVIDIA’s framegen, we famous comparable habits with raindrops that made the rain results look softer and extra clear in movement.
Evaluating AFMF 2.0 to 2.1 at comparable framerates, 2.1 seems to have much less ghosting than 2.0, which ought to assist make the impact much less noticeable throughout gameplay. In every generated body of the AFMF 2.0 seize, there is a clear secondary picture of the marine upfront of the following actual body, as we famous to a lesser diploma within the armory scene. Blurring and lack of element will be points, however ghosting is a way more seen draw back of framegen and one that may smash the expertise.
A comparability to in-game body technology on the identical timestamp demonstrates that it is predictably significantly better at preserving element, because it’s given extra data to work with instantly from the sport engine.
The in-game technology causes a crisp define upfront of the marine’s motion, seen above round his gun and his arms, however the element inside his boots is not distorted in any respect. This might nonetheless result in the shimmering outlines that we noticed with NVIDIA’s framegen, however the person frames are nearer to actuality than with AFMF.
“Decapitation” Mission – Scene 2
We’ll begin off this subsequent scene with one other native comparability to ascertain which components are as a consequence of common movement blur and that are as a consequence of body technology. The AFMF 2.1 seize matches native with its rendered frames, but it surely’s interspersed with generated frames the place the marine’s armor loses sharpness on the fast-moving legs. That is clearly the realm we have to deal with, so we will transfer to a 2.0 versus 2.1 comparability with that information.
Strolling sideways in entrance of a lightweight background makes the distinction between 2.0 and a couple of.1 extra apparent, with 2.1 exhibiting some slight irregularities across the edges of the marine’s legs the place 2.0 exhibits large secondary photographs. As ordinary, the ensuing impact could be simpler to note in movement if there weren’t already different blurring results pressured on us with this recreation.
God of Battle Ragnarök
God of Battle ran effectively above 60FPS on the 9070 XT even at Extremely, which made it more durable to seize generated frames, so we stored our testing transient. The extremely preset was used with movement blur, movie grain, and digital camera shake disabled. We anticipated FSR to be pressured when in-game framegen was enabled, however the choices menu did not mirror that, so the scaling methodology was set to TAA and the standard to Native for all assessments (scaling can’t be explicitly disabled).
Axe
As anticipated, the moments of speedy motion throughout Kratos’ windup and swing are probably the most troublesome for AFMF to cope with. Whereas the native seize clearly exhibits every body of his arms and the axe because it strikes, the AFMF 2.1 seize has particular person frames with apparent makes an attempt at interpolation. That is most noticeable instantly on the fashions, because the path of particles behind the axe is already an intentional smear.
By swinging Kratos’ axe in entrance of the white snowy background, we will clearly see ghost photographs with the older AFMF 2.0 body technology. Direct body by body comparability is tougher right here because of the decrease frequency of generated frames, but it surely’s clear that the generated frames with 2.0 extra generally have ghosting across the axe and even Kratos’ mannequin. 2.1 exhibits some artifacts as effectively, but it surely’s normally within the type of unevenness within the define of the axe and Kratos’ arm as they swing ahead, whereas the core of his mannequin is best preserved.
Checking again towards God of Battle’s particular implementation of in-game body technology, we see the identical habits as in House Marine 2 the place the small print of Kratos and the axe are excellently preserved, however there is a distinct define the place framegen has carried out its model of content material conscious fill within the space that these objects will occupy within the subsequent actual body. Compared, the fullscreen AFMF 2.1 impact has extra distortion across the ordinary axe and arm space.
Log
The motion of the axe on this small QTE was too speedy for both 2.0 or 2.1 to maintain up with, with the big deltas between frames resulting in the same look from each AFMF variations. The pinnacle of the axe seems doubled in some generated frames, with extra distortion across the deal with. It is troublesome for any kind of body technology to compensate for giant deltas between frames, which is a part of why AMD recommends working at 60FPS earlier than turning it on (with latency being the opposite half).
Marvel Rivals
Marvel Rivals is subsequent.
Mantis 3
Beginning with the soar pad, we will see originally of this scene that each AFMF 2.0 and a couple of.1 present ghosting on the rings that stand up from the pad. As soon as in movement, each iterations have hassle maintaining with the speedy motion, however 2.1 does a reasonably higher job of preserving Mantis’ define.
The space between the secondary picture and the core of Mantis’ mannequin with 2.0 creates a higher blurring impact, and though the generated frames with 2.1 solely roughly preserve the form of her arms and toes, the ensuing silhouette is stronger. As she approaches the apex of the soar, the distortion happens within the background as a substitute, with 2.0 extra generally exhibiting doubling of surroundings components just like the railing instantly in entrance of her.
Marvel Rivals’ in-game body technology model behaved in the identical approach as God of Battle’s and House Marine 2’s, with crisp outlines across the subsequent identified place of Mantis’ mannequin, seen above the knees in these frames, coupled with some afterimages trailing behind the arms. The general impact remains to be far cleaner than AFMF, particularly because the artifacts solely apply to Mantis’ mannequin, leaving the scene behind her virtually utterly away from framegen issues.
Mantis 2
We do not advocate utilizing framegen for video games like Marvel Rivals the place latency is a priority and speedy mouse actions are widespread. Framegen is form of like v-sync in that at finest it is a beauty improve possibly, and at worst it is a supply of latency.
On this scene, we will see distortion round Mantis’ arms with AFMF 2.1 upfront of the movement they’re about to make as she fires, however a rendered body was buffered as a way to generate that picture, whereas with out framegen, rendered frames are merely delivered once they’re prepared.
Discover additionally that with AFMF, Luna Snow’s nametag is distorted on the primary body the place the digital camera shakes, which is an extra drawback of AFMF versus in-game body technology. Utilizing the in-game choice, the nametag is preserved.
Cyberpunk 2077
In Cyberpunk, we used the Excessive preset with out ray tracing and set FSR 3 to Native AA, since FSR was required as a way to allow in-game framegen.
Automobile
First is a automobile scene. Maintaining a tally of the headlight beam because it passes over shrubs and rocks to the fitting of the street, we will see that the surroundings seems to wiggle barely with AFMF 2.1 because the generated frames do not place objects in exactly the right location. With AFMF 2.0 in the identical areas, there is a a lot less complicated lack of element as each generated body is a blurry mess. The realm on the shoulder that tracked barely mistaken with 2.1 is as a substitute utterly layered with a ghost picture with 2.0; we desire the newer model right here, however native rendering with out faux frames nonetheless seems cleanest.
Transferring to a 2.1 versus native comparability, we will see that the wiggling habits is certainly an artifact of AFMF and never one thing carried over from the unique native render. The native seize has fewer frames, clearly, however the objects to the fitting aspect of the street monitor in a transparent, straight line between frames versus the slight side-to-side shifting with AFMF 2.1. Native ought to sometimes be crisper, even when much less easy, so this is smart.
Benchmark
Utilizing the sport’s built-in benchmark scene, we will once more see that 2.1 is extra liable to distortion in areas the place 2.0 would blur and ghost, with the vertical pillar right here turning right into a wavy line in faux frames.
Because the digital camera passes the nook with pages from the Evening Metropolis Journal, 2.1 does a significantly better job of preserving textual content and high quality element the place 2.0 simply ghosts.
Transferring to a later a part of the scene, body by body playback reveals extra distortion seen with 2.1 because the digital camera passes over the barbed wire fence: straight traces stay clear with 2.1, however they do not stay straight. As ordinary, 2.0’s equal is a totally duplicated ghost picture of the fence in every generated body.
Once more, we will verify again towards the native footage for affirmation that the habits we’re seeing comes from AFMF. The horizontal fence bars are straight and uninterrupted in every body of the native seize, whereas they’re regularly damaged up and uneven within the AFMF 2.1 footage, though AFMF 2.1 does do a reasonably good job of preserving the scene behind the fence with out main framegen distortion.
Conclusion
By way of picture high quality, FSR 4.0 is an enchancment over FSR 3.1. And AFMF 2.1 is an enchancment over 2.0. Each of those are good issues as a result of if these weren’t the case, then AMD is utilizing numbers mistaken.
Whether or not or not it’s value utilizing these applied sciences in any respect is extra situational, similar to with DLSS. To start with, it’s going to be extremely particular to the video games and likewise the individual enjoying them. The use case for these, take FSR for instance, is certainly different to reducing the settings, however after we’ve polled our viewers previously, there are lots of people preferring to decrease the settings than to make use of an upscaling strategy like FSR or DLSS. It’s actually going to be one thing that customers ought to toggle and determine in the event that they like.
Whereas that may sound like a wishy-washy reply, that’s the reply. It is extremely situational. The excellent news is that it’s simple to show these applied sciences on and off to see for those who prefer it.
Some folks will desire the upper graphics high quality with the potential picture high quality losses that upscaling applied sciences present and different folks received’t.
Going again as to whether it’s value turning on, one of the best reply we will present is that we predict it’s different, similar to DLSS, to reducing settings in some video games in comparison with working video games at decrease efficiency. So for those who’re making an attempt to repair efficiency points and also you need the upper settings, typically talking, each the most recent variations of DLSS and FSR work effectively for that.
Within the video games we examined utilizing FSR 4.0 as an override was an enchancment over previous variations, which is nice.
Whereas AMD has made enhancements to those applied sciences, the query you must ask is whether or not you need to use them in any respect. With body technology, you continue to get some actually nasty photographs that aren’t consultant of how the sport was supposed to look.
You get ghosting, doubling up of photographs, and distortion of textual content. Lots of people will see that and need to flip it off. This will even depend upon the sport.
It’s rather less clear what the choice ought to be on the upscaling entrance as a result of it’s going to depend upon how a lot you’re struggling to run a specific recreation. It turns into a alternative of sacrifice between graphics settings or picture high quality crispness. For some folks, it is probably not a alternative if the sport is working too poorly. General, FSR 4, similar to DLSS 4, is an enchancment over its previous model. That is what we need to see. However like DLSS, the diploma of enchancment on the size of slightly bit higher vs completely transformative, it’s going to be nearer to the a-little-better aspect. It received’t change the way you essentially see video games.
Subsequent, we might have a look at FSR 4 vs DLSS vs XeSS in a future content material piece. That may allow us to have a look at the direct comparability between rivals.
