AMD FSR 3.1 – free alternative to NVIDIA DLSS 3
We independently test the products and technologies that we recommend.
1. The principle of operation of image scaling technology
Despite the emergence of increasingly powerful and expensive video cards, such as the GeForce RTX 4090, the graphics requirements in games do not stand still. On the one hand, 2K and 4K monitors have become fashionable, the resolution of which can bring even the most expensive GPUs to their knees. On the other hand, the fashionable but gluttonous ray tracing and the newer path tracing do not help. The weak optimization of engines in literally every second or third AAA game does not add optimism.
Understanding that not every gamer will run to the store for a new video card costing a thousand dollars, manufacturers are trying to find workarounds to reduce the load on the GPU. Perhaps the most successful solution in this regard is image scaling systems, which allow you to increase the image resolution from a lower to a higher level, reducing the load on the GPU and practically without degrading the image quality.
One of the most successful examples was NVIDIA's DLSS system. Its success has spurred the development of similar technologies from competitors: in the summer of 2021, AMD introduced a similar but free FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) technology, followed by similar solutions announced by Intel (XeSS), Apple (MetalFX), and Sony (PSSR). All of them may differ in terms of technical implementation, but the idea of "stretching" an image from a lower resolution to a higher one remains unchanged.
Let's break down the technical differences between DLSS and its free counterpart FSR to understand the key features of each technology.
| Characteristic | AMD FSR | NVIDIA DLSS |
|---|---|---|
| Operating principle | Spatial scaling | Scaling with AI and Time-Based Data |
| Requirements | Works on any GPU (AMD, NVIDIA) |
Requires NVIDIA RTX Tensor Cores |
| Quality | FSR 2.0 is closer to DLSS, but slightly inferior | High quality thanks to AI and time data |
| Flow Rate | Good FPS increase | High FPS with quality preservation |
| Compatibility | Universal, supports different GPUs | NVIDIA RTX Only |
| License | Open source | Proprietary |
| Integration | Simple and accessible | Requires training for the game |
The pioneer NVIDIA DLSS uses special tensor cores for scaling, which use “smart” algorithms to stretch the image without loading the main GPU unit. The data for scaling is taken from the engine code, after which the data obtained from previous frames is added to it. NVIDIA is constantly improving and complicating DLSS, using new data for frame interpolation. For example, DLSS 3 added a new optical engine that receives information at the pixel level using particles, reflection, light and shadows. Because of this, each new version of DLSS is in fact exclusive to the next generation of video cards, and DLSS 3 is supported exclusively by GeForce RTX 4000 series models.
Unlike DLSS, FSR is based on the good old Lanczos filter, which has historically been used to increase sharpness in video card settings. AMD has tweaked the technology by using a two-stage filter in combination with additional things like CAS (Contrast Adaptive Sharpening) and spatial metadata. No tensor cores are needed to process the data, and all the magic happens at the software level, so FSR can work on any video card models, including the old hits Radeon 5700XT and GeForce GTX 1650. The only requirement is support for Vulkan and DirectX.
FSR and DLSS are usually enabled in the game's graphics settings (provided that the game itself supports them) and usually have several scaling options. Most often, these are 3-4 quality modes, such as Ultra Quality, Quality, Balance, and Flow Rate, which differ in internal rendering resolution and have different performance-to-image quality ratios. The difference is that FSR uses fixed resolution values for the X and Y axes (e.g. 66%), while NVIDIA specifies the ratio of the render resolution to the final image.
2. AI-powered frame generation
In addition to image scaling, NVIDIA has come up with another “enhancer” to increase average FPS – AI-powered extrapolation and frame generation technology, which, if implemented correctly, can double or even triple the number of frames per second, while adding a small input lag.
At first glance, it seems that creating an entire non-existent frame is a task from the realm of science fiction. In fact, interpolation technology has long been used in televisions, and video card manufacturers have taken it to a new level. Frame interpolation does not create a picture from scratch; instead, the video card creates two real frames, evaluates the movement of the pixels, and forms an intermediate artificial frame based on this data.
AMD introduced an alternative generation system FMF (Fluid Motion Frame) almost 2 years later and everything is simpler in it, due to which the system is not tied to a specific series of video cards. While DLSS 3 uses so-called optical flow fields to improve the accuracy of frame rendering, FMF simply divides the image into a pack of 8x8 pixel blocks and tracks the change in pixel movement within them. Despite the simplicity of the technology, the results were impressive from the very beginning, with the only caveat that FMF received data from the FSR upscaler and could not work without it.
3. What's New in AMD FSR 3.1
In FSR 3.1, AMD added an additional API for game developers to generate this data separately, so Fluid Motion Frame can be used with XeSS, DLSS, DLAA, and other image scaling technologies, allowing gamers to experiment with finding the optimal settings. According to AMD, version 3.1, when using the FSR + FMF upscaler simultaneously, is capable of increasing the overall performance level in games by 2x.
At the same time, the scaling system itself has been significantly improved compared to version 3.0. Thanks to reworked algorithms for processing high- and low-frequency signals during resolution changes, the visual quality of post-processing has improved, most of the unpleasant visual artifacts have practically disappeared, and the lag in quality from DLSS has been reduced to a minimum.
4. How FSR 3.1 performs in practice
After the announcement of version 3.1 in the summer of 2024, there were very few games with its support. Since then, many developers have managed to test and implement its support, and in some places, as in the case of Baldur's Gate 3, modders helped. Judging by most tests after optimizing the scaling algorithms in FSR 3.1, the difference in image quality between the original resolution and upscaling in most games is visible only with a magnifying glass. At least in FSR Quality mode.
In Balanced and Flow Rate modes, where the final output is scaled almost 2x, the difference can be more noticeable, the pixel grid can become more visible, and the anti-aliasing more intrusive. However, this is still a significant jump in quality compared to FSR 2.0. For example, Baldur's Gate 3 was impossible to play with FSR 2.0, which even in Ultra Quality mode blurred the picture so much that even in "cinematic" scenes, details lost all clarity.
In addition to the reworked sharpening filter, version 3.1 has reduced the level of flickering and ghosting. This is a visual artifact in which a visual object trembles, leaving a small trail when the camera quickly turns or the object itself moves. The blurring of objects in motion is now less noticeable than in the second version of FSR.
Now about the performance gain. The data on the FSR 3.1 upscaler's performance gain without using frame generation is quite scattered and depends on the implementation in a specific game. But if you average the numbers, you'll get something like this (this is without taking frame generation into account):
- Ultra Quality mode provides a small boost of 10 to 20%, focusing on preserving the original image quality. Often, the picture in this mode looks more pleasant than with the original frame filtering system, including the popular TAA (temporal anti-aliasing) method.
- Quality mode can add up to 30% to the FPS indicator, while the difference with the native resolution is almost imperceptible to the eye.
- The Flow Rate setting provides up to a 40% boost, but the picture may look less crisp than when using the Quality modes.
- Well, the Balance option speeds up the game by 50-60% on average, but at the expense of image quality.
Using Flow Rate and Balance modes makes more sense on portable consoles like the Steam Deck and ROG Ally, which have smaller screens and a less visible pixel grid. On PC, perhaps the best option is to use Quality mode, which, working in tandem with FMF frame generation, can provide a performance boost of around 80-100%. It all depends on the initial FPS, the selected resolution, and the FSR implementation in a particular game. For example, here's how you can liven up the old Radeon RX 580 using FSR and frame generation.
As you can see, in Last Of Us 2 the average FPS goes up from an unpleasant 27-32 to 55-60 FPS. In Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart the FPS goes up 2 times, and the gameplay looks less jerky. In Horizon Zero Dawn even with all the tricks the FPS goes up to 50, the smoothness increases slightly, but due to the small number of source frames for interpolation the result is less impressive. Well, in Todd "buy a new computer" Howard's masterpiece called Starfield the average FPS goes up, but visually the game looks almost the same. The thing is that the frame time (the time spent on rendering one frame) in the game does not change, and the large number of NPCs in the city puts a lot of strain on the processor.
In general, everything depends on the implementation of FSR in a particular game, and the system itself shows better results in movie-like games with smoother gameplay than in conventional tournament shooters with extremely high dynamics. To AMD's credit, they immediately warned about this, advising to disable the frame generator in Call Of Duty, Counter-Strike and other online shooters. Also, the result is more noticeable if the game with original settings produces 25 - 35 FPS. With a more stable indicator of 60 FPS, upscaling and frame generation in most cases do not have such a noticeable effect.
5. FSR Adaptability
Unlike the closed DLSS, AMD regularly makes the code of new versions of FSR publicly available, after which craftsmen finish various mods with optimization of scaling algorithms, refinement of the frame generation system, reduction of input lag, improved anti-ghosting, replacement of native FSR upscaling with DLSS algorithms and other similar useful things. For example, in the 11th version of Uniscaler, the author of the mod added the NVIDIA Reflex anti-lag system to FSR, which improved input lag and showed excellent results in many shooters, including Cyberpunk 2077.
The most popular mods for FSR are DLSS Enabler, Uniscaler and Optiscaler. They are all interesting in their own way and behave differently in different games, there is no one that is definitely better or worse, so if you decide to try it, be prepared to experiment. Also, be prepared for the fact that you will often have to tinker with downloading repositories from file sharing services or GitHub, as well as manually installing the mod. However, most mod authors upload video instructions to YouTube in the style of "copy this folder here."
6. Conclusion
What can I say, the FSR 3.1 technology suite has made a huge leap in quality compared to FRS 2.0. Although it is slightly behind DLSS in capabilities, it is free, supported by most modern video cards and works without problems even on popular, but still ancient GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 580 video cards. Another advantage of FSR is the flexibility of settings, the ability to combine different image scaling systems with the FMF frame generator, as well as support for third-party mods.
The only fly in the ointment is either laziness or crooked hands of many modern developers, who stopped caring about optimization and began to specify system requirements already taking into account FSR/DLSS. The mass transition of many developers to the extremely demanding, not particularly impressive in terms of graphics and unloved by many gamers Unreal Engine 5 does not add optimism. Just compare the picture in the recent Space Marine 2 and the upcoming Avowed with Cyberpunk 2077 from four years ago or Battlefield 4, released 11 years ago. However, forgive me for grumbling, UE5 is a separate conversation.
Articles, reviews, useful tips
All materials
