![]() ![]() ![]() You might however for quality FSR still want to put preference towards image quality regardless of the added performance impact. In the case of FSR performance you have more leeway to processing them after FSR upscale w/o it really impacting GPU resource overhead as much because it's a lower upscale quality in the first place. Tone mapping is actually low enough resource usage provided it's not using a LUT texture filter scaling that you can apply it after FSR and not really impact GPU resource usage noticeably or measurably in a significant way to actually matter, but will change the tone mapping results a bit due to being applied before or after scaling since it'll process a few less or more sub pixel details before or after depending on where it is in the render pipeline.įor both post processing and hud there are performance and image quality considerations to why you might want it before or after and that can also vary depending on FSR performance and quality as well. There are real performance and image quality considerations for all three to be applied before or after FSR applying them before is easier on GPU resources. In the performance FSR or quality FSR you might want tone mapping/post processing/hud considerations and trade offs before or after FSR upscaling via toggle option. The only thing I wish AMD would do with it is make the render pipeline flexible in regard to which pipeline blocks are processed in which order. I think it looks like a improvement and better than the initial FSR for certain by a fair bit. But I'm not quite up in arms yet, I also agree with the notion that AMD could very well be planning on releasing the feature for older GPUs down the road, and just needs more time to tune the feature for those architectures. At the very least Vega should have been included. I agree with the common sentiment that this feature would be much more useful for older GPU architectures. This is all to say, I think it's good feature and I'm very glad it exists, but for me personally I doubt I'll be using it much until I start consistently playing games that push my hardware to its limits, which I imagine won't be the case for a while - hopefully. And we all know that AMD's raytracing tech isn't quite there yet, especially on something like the 6700 XT, so I'm generally of the mindset that it's just not something I'm expecting to use despite the existence of RSR. That game in particular is so fast paced I think it makes very little difference overall, so even with RSR available I doubt I'd use it much. Raytracing is also very low on my priority list currently, so even if I'm playing a game that supports it, like Doom Eternal, I'd much rather play with it off to be able to max everything out and have extremely consistent + high fps. Would be interesting to see how RSR handles it now. Halo Infinite was a good example, I had to make use of the in-game dynamic resolution feature to have a great experience (mainly for fps consistency). Although as it stands right now, for me and my current hardware (R7 5800X, 6700 XT, 1440p 144hz display), I can maintain a constant 144fps or higher at high (if not mostly maxed) quality settings, and it's only the very newest of games (which often aren't the most well-optimized, for the first several months at least) that I have to settle for a lower constant fps at higher quality, or lower quality settings if I want to maintain a constant high fps. Really neat overall, definitely looks better than I expected. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |