Quote from: Reader on March 21, 2024, 11:41:11Why are you adding photos and videos of FSR 2.0 to an article about FSR 3.1... The difference between 2.x and 3.0 is enormous!

It says it right in the article:

"FSR 2, which handles the image upscaling in FSR 3, pales in comparison to DLSS when it comes to visual quality. For instance, Digital Foundry has shown that FSR 2 exhibits more ghosting, flickering, and aliasing than DLSS, especially, in the Performance mode which is arguably the most important setting."

FSR 3 is basically just FG (frame-gen) and latency reduction (anti-lag) added onto FSR 2's upsampling, which is generally regarded as crap. So the photo is there to show that. The whole point of this is that unlike FSR 3 where these two components are inseparably combined, FSR 3.1 both decouples them and improves the upsampling to try and resolve these issues, which many users have been complaining about for a long time. From my understanding of the issue, these are both things that are huge and should go a long, long way toward making both AMD and non-AMD GPU users happy.

Why are you adding photos and videos of FSR 2.0 to an article about FSR 3.1... The difference between 2.x and 3.0 is enormous!

And what FX, XTX even mean?

I thought AMD Frame Generation was already decoupled from FSR3? The GTX 1650 could also use their Frame Generation.