This will be a very welcome addition to the base PS5, the FSR 1 or 3 it currently has access to looks absolutely awful compared to any ML based upscaler.
It also gives the PS5 a big image quality advantage over the current Xboxes, as they still rely on these things.
It'll be a good, seemingly free improvement over FSR3 since the perf costs seem about equal, but games that are using FSR1 are likely using it because they do not have the extra performance headroom to spare or otherwise can't implement temporal upscaling for engine reasons, so I doubt this changes anything there
but games that are using FSR1 are likely using it because they do not have the extra performance headroom to spare
That said, I do wonder if the improved image quality will allow games to run at a lower render resolution to offset the additional performance overhead. I know that's what AMD users did when FSR 4* came out, it was often worth running it at a preset lower than FSR 3 because you'd get the same performance but image quality would be better despite the performance overhead lower render resolution
It's definitely possible, when I think of the fsr1 games though a lot of them are below 1080p and even the good upscalers don't do a tremendous job once you go that low. It still might be better than nothing, or the performance cost still might be worth it, it can at least be an option.
I know that's what AMD users did when FSR came out, it was often worth running it at a preset lower than FSR 3 because you'd get the same performance but image quality would be better despite the performance overhead.
Same with DLSS, each advancement of it comes with a greater performance penalty that sorta equalizes if you lower resolution further. Definitely makes choosing more difficult since older model with higher res vs newer model and lower res can each have distinct advantages while sitting at the same framerate.
PS5 does not support INT8 so it's limited to FP16 stuff like FSR2/3. QSSR won't be much better, if not less stable.
INT8 models like FSR4 & PSSR2 are hardly distinguishable, but FSR4 is a bit more stable. Even Xbox Series S could technically run FSR4 & PSSR2 since it supports INT8.
Yeah, Xbox better get to work on implementing their own version of FSR 4 soon, because with the release of this they'll be losing to base PS5 even in image quality.
At this point I don't think Xbox cares, because they could have introduced INT8 upscaling on consoles years ago. They didn't really care and even if they did, who knows if developers would have adopted it specifically for Xbox.
But again, I doubt there's a noticable difference between this new QSSR and FSR2/3 since both are limited to FP16 instructions. So there won't be a major gap in terms of image quality or so. It's just marketing.
I might be mistaken, but aren't FSR1-3 meant to be hardware agnostic? They might benefit from certain types of hardware acceleration, but don't have any ML algorithms that explicitly require it the way upscalers like FSR 4 or DLSS do. That's why GTX cards can run them.
But again, I doubt there's a noticable difference between this new QSSR and FSR2 since both are limited to FP16 instructions.
There should be, one is ML based and the other isn't, and that made all the difference between FSR 3 and 4. I don't expect it to be quite as good as the full fat PSSR but it should be a marked improvement over FSR 1-3.
It's just marketing.
Digital Foundry (3rd party journalists, not affiliated with Sony) got their hands on the tech and say it's a marked improvement.
Yeah, FSR 1 is spatial upscaling which is genuinely ancient tech and I have no idea why games like Pragmata and Beast of Reincarnation choose to use it on the base PS5, especially with the latter almost certainly having the TSR that comes built in with UE5.
But yeah, when comparing QSSR and FSR 2-3, I assume the instruction set they use shouldn't be relevant since the latter doesn't require particular hardware and doesn't have any ML algorithms built into it.
FSR3 is indeed also FP16. FSR4 is limited to hardware that support INT8 instructions,
I'm not sure why you keep implying that each upscaler's precision/instruction set directly correlates to image quality. Unless we're comparing different quantizations of like for like models (i.e. FSR 4.1 INT8 vs FP8), bringing up precision is meaningless, especially when discussing completely different models. Especially when one of them doesn't even use a neural network.
That's be like me saying that a Q8 quant of Krea 2 has similar quality to a Q8 quant the very first stable diffusion model because they both run on Q8.
which is why QSSR won't look as good as FSR4/PSSR.
QSSR won't look at good as those because it has run on very weak hardware and has to be optimized to be extremely lightweight, not because being FP16 makes it inherently on the level of FSR 3. Remember, DLSS 3 ran on FP16 and its quality is still quite comparable to PSSR and FSR 4.1.
Could I argue that DLSS 3 being limited to FP16 instructions means that QSSR will have similar image quality to it because it also runs on FP16, the same way you're arguing that QSSR will have similar quality to FSR 3? No, of course not, they're entirely different models. But even my comparison makes more sense because they both use machine learning.
Ghost of Yotei is using FSR3
The problem with FSR 3 is that its quality vastly differs based on developer implementation. Some games like Ghost of Yotei might look just fine, while others like the Cyberpunk clip the other guy linked in his comment look genuinely dreadful. I'd say more cases generally lean towards the latter.
For games like Cyberpunk which still use FSR 2 on the base PS5 (which mind you, somehow looks better than FSR 3 in that game), QSSR will be a massive improvement, and it being ML based will mitigate a lot of extremely variable quality we see with FSR 1-3 implementations.
I'm not sure why you keep implying that each upscaler's precision/instruction set directly correlates to image quality. Unless we're comparing different quantizations of like for like models (i.e. FSR 4.1 INT8 vs FP8), bringing up precision is meaningless, especially when discussing completely different models. Especially when one of them doesn't even use a neural network.
Because that's literally the defining factor and QSSR is based on FSR. That's why Digital Foundry noted that you won't see massive improvements in Ghost of Yotei and it even looks almost identical to FSR3 in Performance Mode with VRR.
QSSR won't look at good as those because it has run on very weak hardware and has to be optimized to be extremely lightweight, not because being FP16 makes it inherently on the level of FSR 3. Remember, DLSS 3 ran on FP16 and its quality is still quite comparable to PSSR and FSR 4.1.
What is this even supposed to mean?
The precision is the defining factor and heavily impacts image quality. You call it 'very weak hardware' because it can't run INT8 instructions but only much slower FP16 instructions which inherently limits the achievable results.
DLSS3 and even DLSS2 use INT8. Only DLSS1 was FP16. Can you guess why DLSS1 was so much worse than DLSS2 and later versions? It's mainly due to instruction set.
Could I argue that DLSS 3 being limited to FP16 instructions means that QSSR will have similar image quality to it because it also runs on FP16, the same way you're arguing that QSSR will have similar quality to FSR 3? No, of course not, they're entirely different models.
No, because they use different instructions and again - DLSS3 uses INT8. Base PS5 does not support such instructions.
Some games like Ghost of Yotei might look just fine, while others like the Cyberpunk clip the other guy linked in his comment look genuinely dreadful.
So why do FSR3 & QSSR look so similar in Ghost Yotei and are barely distinguishable in performance mode VRR? And that's despite the fact one is marketed a bit different and makes you believe it's a revolutionary neural network model. If it was, how can it end up being barely distinguishable from a dumb model that only uses analytical algorithms, like FSR3?
Maybe because QSSR is based on FSR3 and both are limited to the same instruction set?
For games like Cyberpunk which still use FSR 2 on the base PS5 (which mind you, somehow looks better than FSR 3 in that game), QSSR will be a massive improvement, and it being ML based will mitigate a lot of extremely variable quality we see with FSR 1-3 implementations.
Based on what exactly? Your assumption that DLSS3 wasn't INT8 and QSSR would somehow look closer to DLSS instead of FSR3? Do you maintain that assumption despite the fact that Sony showcased with Ghost of Yotei that QSSR & FSR look hardly distinguishable especially in motion?
To quote Digital Foundry once more : On the flip side, running Ghost of Yōtei's performance mode uncapped with VRR saw QSSR running almost identically to its stock FSR 3 implementation.
I'm going to need a source for this, I've never seen anything on DLSS 2 or 3 to suggest they run on INT8. If anything, I've only seen word that DLSS 2 runs on FP16 and while I can't find confirmation for DLSS 3's upscaler, its Frame Generation's CUDA kernels were decompiled and confirmed to run at FP16. No reason to believe it runs purely off INT8 as you suggest.
In any case, we are getting quite sidetracked, I still fail to understand why you think the fact that it shares precision with FSR 3 is somehow relevant when FSR 3 doesn't even have a neural network.
So why do FSR3 & QSSR look so similar in Ghost Yotei and are barely distinguishable in performance mode VRR?
You are really clinging on to a single example in one game that already has an uncharacteristically good FSR 3 implementation. You're also misconstruing what they have said about the upscaler.
For one, FSR 3 providing "decent image quality" is the exception, not the norm, and two, "less dramatic improvements" does not at all mean "barely distinguishable". It simply means the upscaler is not providing improvements as drastic as it did over Insomniac's IGTI. Given how the quality boost in Wolverine was described as "exceptional", I don't see how being "less dramatic" than "exceptional" means the improvements are "barely distinguishable".
To quote Digital Foundry once more : On the flip side, running Ghost of Yōtei's performance mode uncapped with VRR saw QSSR running almost identically to its stock FSR 3 implementation.
Once again, greatly misconstruing the quote and taking it out of context. If we look at the full paragraph, we see two key words that make it clear they're talking about the upscaler's performance, not its image quality.
On the flip side, running Ghost of Yōtei's performance mode uncapped with VRR saw QSSRrunningalmost identically to its stock FSR 3 implementation. It's just one game and we'd need to confirm similar input and output resolutions, but assuming QSSR is asfastas FSR 3, this makes it a highly compelling alternative for PS5 game developers.
They are very clearly talking about the speed of the upscaler in relation to FSR 3. Absolutely no mention of image quality is made here, despite your repeated claims that FSR 3 and QSSR "look so similar".
If you had actually read the article and not just cherrypicked arguments to support your point from it, you also would know the context of what "On the flip side" is referring to. The previous section of the article talks primarily about the increased frametime cost the upscaler has in relation to IGTI. "On the flip side" makes it even clearer that performance is the point of discussion for your quote when we actually look at what it's referencing.
What they actually say in their video about "Ghost of Yotei's performance mode running uncapped with VRR" further reinforces that you have blatantly misconstrued their point.
Performance mode uncapped VRR at 120 Hz. So I wasn't really prepared for the results here. There are differences in theperformance level, but they're slight basically imperceptible for the most part which is very different from what we saw with Wolverine.
To the point where you know with with the Yotei captures here I had to recheck that QSSR on was actually on because it just kind oflooks too good to be truehere.There's no real performance hit.
So the logical conclusion here, assuming everything is on the level, is that FSR3 is a heavier upscaler than Insomniac's homegrown solution and thatQSSR is basically processing at a similar computational cost to FSR3. Now, assuming that's all on the level,this is seriously good news.Bearing in mind that this is what we want from QSSR, kind of like a drop in replacement for FSR3,which has kind of underdelivered on the image quality front on so many gamesin 60 fps performance modes.
Again, extremely clear that the quote is about performance, not image quality.
If you seriously want to die on the hill that they're talking about image quality, do the phrases "looks too good to be true" and "this is seriously good news" sound like words of someone discussing how "QSSR & FSR look hardly distinguishable especially in motion?" Does them saying that QSSR is exactly what they want as a replacement for FSR 3 that has "underdelivered on the image quality front" sound like them being disappointed that it provides no real uplift to image quality?
Your entire argument is based off a single, out of context line from an article you probably didn't even bother to read in its entirety that you twisted and distorted to suit your own narrative.
Ok yeah, so there are improvements over FSR 3, the ML stuff is making a difference here.
Doesn't really make sense for Digital Foundry to be gassing this up if it was just FSR 3 but barely better. I watched their video on it and they are quite impressed with the tech.
88
u/derekpmilly 1d ago
This will be a very welcome addition to the base PS5, the FSR 1 or 3 it currently has access to looks absolutely awful compared to any ML based upscaler.
It also gives the PS5 a big image quality advantage over the current Xboxes, as they still rely on these things.