FSR 4 vs. DLSS 4
Article Index
AMD really needs FSR 4 to be great.
Why test at 1440p?
Because it is a more common resolution than 4K, and previous versions of FSR struggled at 1440p.
To be a truly viable option for gamers, AMD needs to deliver high-quality results at this resolution.
But that could all change with FSR 4.
We’re proud to collaborate with@PlayStationon Project Amethyst!
FSR 4 is looking fantastic!
But where exactly does FSR 4 fall?
Can it match DLSS 3?
That’s what we will be exploring in detail throughout this article and the accompanying video footage.
How Does FSR 4 Work?
This is because it uses FP8 processing, which isn’t accelerated on previous RDNA GPUs.
Accessing FSR 4 is very similar to Nvidia’s latest implementation of DLSS 4.
Some games have native integrations simply enable FSR 4 in the game, and you’re good to go.
However, there are a couple of important things to note.
Presumably, those titles will need to be whitelisted, making future driver updates crucial.
We are kicking off the analysis of FSR 4 with a look at 1440p.
Because it is a more common resolution than 4K, and previous versions of FSR struggled at 1440p.
To be a truly viable option for gamers, AMD needs to deliver high-quality results at this resolution.
This is a stress test, and we are holding nothing back.
Sharpness was set to 0 for upscaling unless otherwise specified.
All DLSS 4 examples utilize the latest model via Nvidia’s driver override.
Let’s get into it.
FSR 4 is much less blurry in motion and far more stable.
Just cover your eyes if it gets too ugly.
This is almost like the leap from DLSS 1 to DLSS 2.
This improvement is evident in every example using the Quality mode.
FSR 4 is actually somewhat usable at 1440p in Performance mode.
Gone are the days of FSR being completely useless at upscaling from a low render resolution.
Now, the real testfor FSR 4 is how it compares to DLSS 3 and DLSS 4.
Beating FSR 3.1 is nice, but that bar was relatively low.
How do these technologies compare in terms of blur and texture quality?
Textures and Blur
FSR 4 holds up really well in this regard.
The DLSS 4 version preserves almost the same level of detail and sharpness whether stationary or in motion.
DLSS 3 appears quite blurry in motion compared to the stationary image.
This trend was observed in other games we tested, though results varied depending on the title and scene.
The performance of these upscalers across various quality prefs remains relatively consistent.
This means that the clarity of the Quality mode and the clarity of the Performance mode follow similar trends.
In most cases, we preferred its sharpness over DLSS 3.
Edge Stability
Next up is edge stability.
Outside of these cases, FSR 4 delivers mixed results.
A similar trend was observed in Spider-Man 2.
In other situations, FSR 4 is not as stable as DLSS 3 when comparing the same quality configs.
At times, FSR 4 Balanced even appeared more stable than FSR 4 Quality, which is unexpected.
FSR 4 winning in a Balanced vs.
Meanwhile, DLSS 4 delivers the best of both worlds.
This is one of the biggest areas AMD needs to focus on when improving future versions of FSR 4.
Ghosting
When it comes to ghosting, all upscalers are prone to it in the worst cases.
However, DLSS 4 is relatively more resilient in this scenario.
However, in the games we did test, FSR 4 is unlikely to cause significant ghosting issues.
Disocclusion
A major win for FSR 4 comes in the area of disocclusion.
Hair
Hair quality is very similar across all three upscalers.
This element is now being upscaled effectively.
This applies across various games, including fur rendering in Ratchet & Clank.
The only major difference is that the edge of the fur appears aliased using FSR 4.
This jot down of artifact is not present in a title like The Last of Us Part I.
It is also not a case where DLSS outperforms FSR at lower quality tweaks.
This represents a strong result for AMD’s upscaler in this area.
Particles
Particle quality presents mixed results.
The results were different in The Last of Us Part I when examining dense spore clouds.
Transparency
We were very impressed with the quality of transparencies in FSR 4.
This was a major weakness in FSR 3 and 2.2, where transparencies appeared garbled and looked terrible.
Grainy, pixelated fire is much less common in FSR 4, resulting in image quality similar to DLSS.
The transparent logo on top of the store character now looks like any other element in the game.
This also improves scenarios where characters or objects become transparent as the player moves through the game world.
This is a huge win for games featuring many transparent objects that require upscaling.
While the DLSS 3 image is slightly blurrier, it maintains better stability.
Trees
Tree quality is another area where FSR 4 delivers mixed results.
The simplest way to describe its performance relative to DLSS 3 is that it is sharper but less stable.
Several factors, such as motion speed and tree density, influence these results.
That said, DLSS 3 does not always outperform FSR 4.
Additionally, as the quality modes are lowered, FSR 4 gains ground relative to DLSS 3.
It is only in the highest quality setting that DLSS 3 holds a noticeable advantage.
Gone are the days of grass appearing extremely grainy and ugly in motion.
Other titles also showed favorable results for FSR 4, such as The Last of Us Part I. DLSS 4 holds the edge in overall stability, but FSR 4 remains highly usable.
In this case, DLSS 3 Quality mode exhibited some graininess, while FSR 4 looked fantastic by comparison.
Fences
Fence quality is another area with mixed results.
The fact that FSR 4 offers a similar or better experience than DLSS 3 is a strong result.
For mesh-style fences with thinner details, FSR 4 struggles more.
After triple-checking, we consistently found the Balanced mode to provide better visual stability.
If instability becomes an issue, it may be worth experimenting with Balanced mode instead of Quality mode.
Regarding moire effects, there is another odd situation.
Water
Water quality is very similar across all three technologies.
This should no longer be a major concern when using FSR upscaling.
Rain
We were pleased to see that rain quality has been significantly improved in FSR 4.
In fact, FSR 4 appears slightly better than DLSS 3 in some cases.
Performance Benchmarks
Next, we analyze performance.
Since the baseline performance of each GPU is similar, these results should be quite comparable.
We start with Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart at max controls.
However, the overall performance uplift from each upscaler is very similar.
Balanced mode results were closely matched, while FSR 4 had a slight advantage in Performance mode.
On the 5070 Ti, we observed a 24% improvement, which is very similar.
At each quality level, DLSS 4 provided a slightly higher performance uplift, but the difference was minimal.
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered already runs well on these GPUs at 1440p, so upscaling has a smaller impact.
DLSS 4 provided a 16% uplift in Quality mode and a 24% uplift in Performance mode.
FSR 4 showed a 14% improvement in Quality mode and a 29% improvement in Performance mode.
Results in Spider-Man 2 were similar.
While slightly slower than DLSS, the difference was not substantial.
Only a few percentage points separate the two technologies.
This represents a massive step forward for AMD’s upscaler at this resolution.
FSR 3 was mostly unusable at 1440p and not very competitive with DLSS 3, let alone DLSS 4.
What’s most impressive is that FSR 4 image quality generally falls somewhere between DLSS 3 and DLSS 4.
In most cases, FSR 4 should meet the expectations for image quality, delivering a pleasant experience.
This has substantially narrowed the upscaling gap between AMD and Nvidia at 1440p.
What’s most impressive is that FSR 4 image quality generally falls somewhere between DLSS 3 and DLSS 4.
FSR 4’s biggest advantage over DLSS 3 lies in texture quality and blur reduction.
AMD has effectively eliminated TAA blur, something DLSS 3 does not fully achieve.
In direct comparisons, this is the most noticeable improvement FSR 4 is simply less blurry.
That’s not to say FSR 4 is not universally superior though.
This creates a trade-off: FSR 4 offers better clarity but reduced stability.
Fixing this issue could further shut the gap to DLSS 3.
Even in instances where FSR 4 is less stable, it remains usable and is not far behind.
The only clear advantage FSR 4 has over DLSS 4 is in disocclusion.
This puts AMD in an interesting position.
But now that FSR 4 is highly usable and effective in most scenarios, the decision becomes less clear.
However, if the Radeon GPU is cheaper, the decision becomes more difficult.
Would it be worth paying 10% more for DLSS 4?
The next big problem for AMD, the spanner in the works, is game support.
The decision to pay extra for DLSS 4 is contingent on games also supporting FSR 4.
In that situation, paying a 20% premium for a GeForce GPU or even more becomes justifiable.
While this may improve as more developers integrate FSR 4, AMD remains far behind Nvidia in game support.
Looking ahead, we hope to see the gap in game support and image quality continue to close.
FSR 4 provides a solid foundation for this progress, but AMD still has work to do.
Until that happens, AMD remains in an early adoption phase with FSR 4.
So you’ll need to factor that in to your value calculations when tossing up between GeForce and Radeon.
However, this varies by game.
In most titles, Quality mode provides the best image quality, with noticeable compromises when lowering options.
However, in some games, Balanced mode can actually deliver a more stable image.
If stability issues arise in Quality mode, switching to Balanced may improve the experience.
Otherwise, Quality mode remains the preferred setting for most cases.
