A pesar de que se lanzó hace menos de cuatro meses, la tecnología de escalado espacial FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) de AMD ya es compatible con más de 20 juegos hasta la fecha, además de implementaciones no oficiales que potencialmente pueden agregarla a la mayoría de los títulos.
En declaraciones a Digital Foundry de Eurogamer en una entrevista publicada el sábado, el director de ingeniería de AMD, Nick Thibieroz, afirmó que los resultados de la adopción y recepción de FSR entre los desarrolladores hablan por sí mismos.
FSR 1.0 is the result of extensive research at AMD, with multiple groups exploring different solutions using a variety of underlying upscaling technologies. Given the goals we had set out, we chose to release FSR 1.0 as we know it would appeal to a large number of developers and gamers who want to be able to enjoy high-quality gaming at faster frame rates on multiple platforms, without being limited by proprietary hardware.
So, while I appreciate that the choice of a spatial upscaler surprised many, I think the results speak for themselves in terms of developer reception and adoption. In fact, it’s been impressive to see the various ways FSR has been leveraged by professionals and enthusiasts alike so far!
De hecho, a menudo hemos cubierto declaraciones de desarrolladores que elogian la tecnología. EXOR Studios decía recientemente que no podrían haber logrado 60 cuadros por segundo en las versiones de consola de The Riftbreaker sin FSR, por ejemplo.
Dicho esto, la calidad a menudo sufre bastante cuando se usa FidelityFX Super Resolution. Thibieroz admitió que FSR no es la mejor técnica de mejora cuando se trata de calidad bruta, pero dijo que es el paquete general lo que más cuenta.
If you solely focus on just one facet of upscaling – let’s talk image quality – then sure, I think it’s fair to say some upscaling techniques out there may provide better results (although in some cases «pixel peeping» on still images may be needed to make this claim). I think if you narrow the evaluation of upscalers to just a single criterion then your conclusion will be incomplete. FSR was designed to tick many boxes, as we’ve discussed, and it’s the combination of great features that make up the full package. Think of it like buying a new car: I don’t think anyone would solely base their purchase on how good the car looks. A smart buyer is going to consider how fast it goes, what options it provides, how smooth the driving experience is, and whether they can afford it in the first place.
Digital Foundry preguntó por qué AMD no aprovechó el aprendizaje automático como lo hizo NVIDIA con DLSS, y Thibieroz respondió que las técnicas basadas en ML no son necesariamente la mejor solución para todo.
Of course, if it’s done right, ML can be a very powerful tool, but it’s not the only way to solve problems. [..] There are also trade-offs that you’re going to need to make to leverage ML, which mean it might not tick some of the other – really important – boxes for a solution. Using ML in a real-time context might mean that we lose portability, performance, and – if not done right – even some quality.
If we’re being objective about ML and upscaling algorithms, I think the first iteration of NVIDIA DLSS is a good illustration of what I’m talking about here. The mere presence of ML in a solution does not imply you are going to get great results. ML clearly shows promise, and AMD is heavily investing in ML R&D on a number of fronts, but just because an algorithm uses ML does not mean it’s the overall best solution given a set of goals.
Uno de los principales puntos débiles de FSR es sin duda la implementación de un sistema de aprendizaje automático como tiene DLSS. Teniendo a AMD detrás seguro que esta mejora y muchas más no habrán quedado en el tintero.
Fuente Eurogamer