Afinda

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Alright, long story short:

FSR2.x works different than FSR1, it requires game-engine level information (motion vectors and stuff) to not only up-scale to target resolution but also reconstruct detail and apply sharpening whereas FSR1 doesn't and was just a tad better upscaling algorithm.

To be able to use FSR 2.x, it needs to be natively supported by the game for that game-engine level information.

Typically FSR 2.x, like DLSS, is split into different Quality levels. Each will result in the original rendered frame to be at a lower resolution than the target resolution to be then scaled back up to the target resolution and sharpened:

  • Quality - 67% (1280 x 720 -> 1920 x 1080)
  • Balanced - 59% (1129 x 635 -> 1920 x 1080)
  • Performance - 50% (960 x 540 -> 1920 x 1080)
  • Ultra Performance - 33% (640 x 360 -> 1920 x 1080)

Source (AMD)

So why do you see less utilization then?

There's two things at play here

  1. Upscaling and Reconstruction are cheaper than rendering a native frame but still a tad more expensive than simply rendering at a lower target resolution (cheaper/expensive in terms of calculation time spent)
  2. Less required performance for image rendering can lead to a shift towards more draw calls required by the GPU for more utilization and in turn result in a CPU bottleneck if the CPU can't keep up with the now less strained GPU.

Bonus: If you lock your framerate, target FPS is reached but GPU utilization is low and yet there's no stutter: You GPU can easily handle what's being thrown at it and doesn't need to go the extra mile to keep up.