Improvements are evident, but core issues remain.
This comparison to XeSS, or in particular DLSS, shows that FSR 3.1 still has room for improvement. Even areas of FSR 3.1 that improved, such as still image stability, still don't match what's possible with DLSS and XeSS. Core issues therefore remain, encapsulating moving objects, revealed backgrounds, objects lacking motion vectors, particles, and more.
Based on our testing, while FSR 3.1 has improvements over the previous version, particularly in terms of detail stability while the camera is still, core issues unfortunately remain. Ultimately, I think the technique needs to be advanced in a new direction, as proven by rival offerings XeSS and DLSS, if AMD wants to remain competitive in this space. As things stand, the hierarchy of quality persists: FSR at the bottom, XeSS in the middle and DLSS at the top.
AMD's FSR 3.1 upscaling tested: improved over FSR 2 but DLSS and XeSS are still ahead
Digital Foundry tests out FSR 3.1 in Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart. Are we now looking at a good DLSS/XeSS alternative or does the quality gulf remain?
www.eurogamer.net
Edit- ERA shot.
Last edited: