winjer
Member
The difference id TFLOPs is not that big.
Besides, we have seen FSR4 run on a 6600XT well enough.
FSR4 on RDNA2 and 3 comparison
- Thread starter winjer
- Start date
The difference id TFLOPs is not that big.
Besides, we have seen FSR4 run on a 6600XT well enough.
No I'm talking about TOPs not TF. TOPs helps to have more calculations AI based in less time. FSR4 is AI based in the end. XSX is not well equipped for such stuff and it could take more GPU mss especially working at lower resolution.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
RDNA uses dp4a, do TOPs are run on the same shaders.
Minsc
Gold Member
The main takeaway for me really is the Ryzen Ai MAX+ 395 miniPCs are going to thrive with FSR4 now. They were already a generation or two ahead of the handheld hardware out now, but with FSR4 that will keep them relevant for many years to come. Though all the handhelds also see the FSR4 gains, however they do not have the AI cores like those Ryzen 395 chips, so I have always expected they would age pretty well, for an all-in-one solution with no dGPU.
Loomy
Thinks Microaggressions are Real
The slow comment was sarcasm because some people are giving AMD shit for not releasing an unfinished project.
And? You need an optimal AI hardware to run AI upscaler, I doubt xsx can run a full fat FSR4 without any problems as for example ps5 pro because now "it works" on pc. Doesnt seems realistic to me. Maybe can do something more close to the DLSS on switch 2, obviously better but we have to see I guess how effective it's for resolution below 1080p compared FSR3.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
the Series X should have no issue running this leaked FSR4 version, neither should it have any issue running XeSS. of course these versions of either aren't as good as the "full" quality versions that run on the intended dedicated hardware, but they are very competent already, even on low end hardware like the Steam Deck and other handheld systems
winjer
Member
What part don't you understand that the Series X and the 6750XT have the same hardware.
Cu count and clocks speed vary, but they are not that far apart.
And even a 6600XT can run FSR4.
Last edited:
What part you don't understand about to have a discrete number of TOPs to run AI instructions for AI upscaler. I just expressed my doubt about the effectiveness and the cost on the XSX hardware.
Last edited:
Closer
Member
But AMD was the one that leaked FSR4 for RDNA2/3, and they're the ones developing this version. This is their move.
winjer
Member
What numbers for TOPs do you think these the Series X and 6750XT have?
Very low if I remember correctly.
winjer
Member
Tell me the numbers you have. Go.
Why you ask me something you know? I don't remind the precise number but it's not remotely close to the ps5 pro. I guess you have to stay around this number to run an ai upscaler properly.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
I know exactly how many TOPs each has. But I really want to know how much do you think they have, for you to make such a statement that the Series X is unable to run FSR4.
Bojji
Member
On RDNA2 Xess/FSR4 Int8 run on shaders - Xbox Series X support the same instructions as RDNA2 PC GPUs so it IS able to run those reconstruction techniques in games. Regular PS5 on the other hand is outdated in this aspect.
But I doubt we will see it in action.
Last edited:
Not even half of the ps5 pro if I'm not wrong.
I never said is not able to run FSR4. I doubt it can run it without compromises or excessive costs because there isn't the hardware TOPs number for obvious reasons.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
The PS5 Pro has dedicated hardware. That is not the point.
The matter is that the Xbox Series X can do 48 TOPs total, using dp4a.
The 6750XT can to 53 TOPs, also using dp4a. It's not a huge difference.
And the 6600XT, can do 42.4 TOPs.
Of course that RDNA2 will never be able to run FSR4 as well as a chip that has support for ML.
But it can run it and it looks almost as good as FSR4 FP8. And even in the performance mode, it will look better than FSR3.1.
I want to remind to you even high AF is still expensive for console hardware but not on pc so I will be careful to say "because it works on pc it will work as the same on XSX".
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
the costs don't seem all that extreme on PC so far. especially considering that you can reduce render costs elsewhere because it allows a lower input resolution when using FSR4 to look better than FSR3 with a higher input resolution.
if FSR4 balanced mode looks better than FSR3 quality mode, the increased cost of FSR4 it's not really an issue.
winjer
Member
Once again, ML runs mostly on L1 and L2.
And the Series X has more memory bandwidth that a 6750XT and much more than a 6600XT.
Jesus if you are obtuse. Believe whatever you want what I can say.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
Of the two of us, I'm the only one that has presented numbers and facts.
Just keep that in mind.
What fact? You presume it.
winjer
Member
No, all those numbers are public.
And you still haven't disputed in a technical way, why the Series X can't run FSR4 Int8, when even a 6600XT can.
I never say it can't run it. Can you stop to be so childish. I said the TOPs number is so scarse on XSX which I doubt FSR4 will be the same as RDNA4. Nothing more.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
WTF, you just spent half a thread saying you doubt the Series X can run FSR4.
I said feasible to be fair. Use it properly or whatever. Goodbye tough xbox warrior
Last edited:
The Mad Draklor
Member
I said feasible to be fair. Use it properly or whatever. Goodbye
I guess you conveniently "forgot"...
rnlval
Member
FSR4 INT8 works with frame rate gains on the Steam Deck.
winjer
Member
FSR 4 auf RDNA 2 & 3 im Test
Per „Hack“ ist FSR 4 auch auf Grafikkarten mit RDNA 2 (RX 6000) und RDNA 3 (RX 7000) lauffähig. Qualität und Performance im Test.
Lot's of more individual tests in the article, but here are the averages.
rnlval
Member
FSR 4 FP8 hardware support is only for RDNA 4.
For RDNA 3, Linux camp's early FSR4 FP8 is using the slower FP16.
The recent FSR 4.0.2 leak has the FSR 4 INT8 model from 2024. RDNA 3 still has WMMA INT8 that is beyond the RDNA 2 era DPA4. If AMD officially supports FSR4 for RDNA 3.x, it most likely WMMA INT8 variant instead of the earlier FSR 4.0.2 's DPA4 INT8.
RDNA 4 has WMMA INT8, WMMA FP8, and DPA4 INT8.
RDNA 3 has WMMA INT8 and DPA4 INT8.
RDNA 2 has DPA4 INT8.
AMD still sells RDNA 2-equipped APUs and GPUs as new in the embedded markets e.g. Tesla Motor's NAVI 23 GPU.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So is AMD going to officially release this to their PC GPUs soon?
rnlval
Member
Who knows. AMD still sells RDNA 2 and RDNA 3.0/3.5 as new products in APUs/SoCs and embedded IoT markets e.g. AMD's automotive NAVI 23 for Tesla Motors' EV Infotainment.
kevboard
Member
probably. you have to ask yourself why this exists. the only reason this has any reason to exist is if they want to support their older GPUs with an XeSS alternative.
rnlval
Member
AsRock's BC-250 SKU recycles PS5 APU with an active GPU with 24 CU scale and six-core compact Zen 2s. For Linux, BC-250's PS5 GPU is not the full RDNA 2 GPU as per DX12U, hence RDNA 1 drivers need to be used. PS5 GPU has RDNA 2 RT, but is missing RDNA 2's other DX12U improvements.