@@UtaNngkrngDpanKompi XESS also has the worst frametime. 16.2ms compared to 6-7ms on FRS3. I can tolerate slightly worse visual quality for smooth gameplay. High frametime = high input lag.
Yes quality is the poorest but it's the fastest. XESS is a good mid ground. Good quality but FPS is much lower. the key is no NPU needed for FSR so don't knock FSR for something it's not designed for. With DIRECTSR coming soon, I speculate that any more powerful enough NPU in your CPU/GPU, you get AI accelerated upscaling so AMD GPU owners will have similar quality as Nvidia & Intel. However, for cheaper machines without NPU, FSR3 will be the fallback upscaler.
FSR3 is awful when it comes to input latency. Makes my mouse "glide" in any fast paced game like COD. For single player games? Maybe useful. Multiplayer ones? Nope.
I think that’s just because these newer versions of frame gen are all pretty much at the same level of image quality but if you compare the version 2 of each of these the differences were much greater especially comparing fsr to flash or even xess, fsr 2 was the clear loser
xess performance gives the same fps as fsr quality. So yeah, I would compare xess always a level lower. That doesn't mean xess is bad of course. the quality is impressive, just at a performance hit
dlss upscaling and frame generation have both its own version, and versions 3.5 have improvements over version 3.0 Blame nvidia for having a complete mess of a naming scheme, when they name '3.5 is rtx reconstruction' but then dlss can be 3.5 without this feature as well...
considered its the "bad" XESS i.e the DP4A and not the good XMX that only run on intel GPU's its very very impressive
Most Nvidia users that don't have 40 series cards should just use DLSS and MOD in FSR frame gen on top for best result
Best thing with fsr 3 is that it is working on any gpu unlike dlss 3 that only works on Rtx 40 series
I mean so does XESS and it's way better than FSR3
@@UtaNngkrngDpanKompi Better? Haha... nice joke. Literally half the frame rate.
@@UtaNngkrngDpanKompi XESS also has the worst frametime. 16.2ms compared to 6-7ms on FRS3. I can tolerate slightly worse visual quality for smooth gameplay. High frametime = high input lag.
Вот скажите пожалуйста, по ощущениям где картина плавнее, на FSR FG или на DLSS FG?
FSR3 hasn't come out of beta yet?
FSR has the highest frame-rate.
And the shittiest image quality. There's flickering everywhere as there has been since its first iteration.
With the best blur😂
Yes quality is the poorest but it's the fastest. XESS is a good mid ground. Good quality but FPS is much lower. the key is no NPU needed for FSR so don't knock FSR for something it's not designed for. With DIRECTSR coming soon, I speculate that any more powerful enough NPU in your CPU/GPU, you get AI accelerated upscaling so AMD GPU owners will have similar quality as Nvidia & Intel.
However, for cheaper machines without NPU, FSR3 will be the fallback upscaler.
@@jcdenton4911 yes but at least ghosting is gone after FSR2.3
@@SolarErazer the issue isn't the blur. You can always turn up sharpening. Issue the simmering for specular highlights.
FSR 3 with FG is most blurry and it has weird flickering on some elements.
as a 4070 user , I'd rather avoid input lags. The only reason to use fg is to avoid cpu bottlenecks.
DLSS still top tier
FSR 3 looks blurred , if you look closely at starfield the far areas are blurred vs dlss 3.5
Plus it's flickering some lights
@@matTmin45fr starfailed bruh
Waiting for NPUs in gaming . . .
Probably in 2026
FSR3 is awful when it comes to input latency. Makes my mouse "glide" in any fast paced game like COD. For single player games? Maybe useful. Multiplayer ones? Nope.
That goes for any frame generation tool. Same thing will happen with DLSS frame generation. They all create input latency.
try in amd graphic card.
my cpu 7800x3d only 50 watts in starfield lol.
my 5800x3d too lol, and barely 62C
Pc gamers are hilarious haha always trying to keep up with the best......NOTHIING AT ALL LOOKED DIFFERENT FROM THE NEXT yall are on some good shit
See an optometrist ASAP.
I think that’s just because these newer versions of frame gen are all pretty much at the same level of image quality but if you compare the version 2 of each of these the differences were much greater especially comparing fsr to flash or even xess, fsr 2 was the clear loser
I agree totally.
@@sapphyrus I see Intel still uses lying fake plants.
If you were watching this on a phone, that would be the reason. On a large screen there's a big difference in many elements of the image.
It's incredible how even the newcomer Intel is way ahead in image quality compared to AMD.
well its true, but its also 50%+- less FPS so what is that worth?
@@liav1609 Even a more aggressive upscaling mode looks better than FSR so the FPS amount comparison is apples to oranges.
xess performance gives the same fps as fsr quality. So yeah, I would compare xess always a level lower. That doesn't mean xess is bad of course. the quality is impressive, just at a performance hit
DLSS 3.5 on starfield ? really ? xD there is no ray tracing on starfield its standard DLSS 3. forcers...
They have to justify paying for their overpriced gpus. At this point they’d still buy nvidia if they charged 3x the current price
dlss upscaling and frame generation have both its own version, and versions 3.5 have improvements over version 3.0
Blame nvidia for having a complete mess of a naming scheme, when they name '3.5 is rtx reconstruction' but then dlss can be 3.5 without this feature as well...
NVidia fans will pay even $1000 more for the same performance
Mes yeux ne voit aucune différence 😅
They all look about the same to me.