AMD makes significant progress with FSR 3.
It has been over a year since we have had AMD's FSR 3 technology, but it finally seems that the upscaling and frame generation tool is reaching its full potential.
The criticism towards AMD and its FSR 3 has been considerable in the past. Not because the tool is bad—in fact, it's quite good—but because for a long time it was absent in a large number of games. However, the situation has changed. In the past year, AMD has significantly expanded the compatibility of its upscaling and frame generation technology, in addition to refining the upscaling algorithm that forms the core of FSR. You may have, like me, formed certain assumptions about what FSR is capable of and where it can be used, but with the end of the year in sight, it is time to question those beliefs.
It is no secret that Nvidia's DLSS 3 is a key component in some of the best graphics cards on the market, and while AMD has released FSR 3.1, it does not reach the level of Nvidia's AI-powered technology. This reality has not changed, and I am not sure it will in the future. Nonetheless, based on the implementations of FSR 3.1 I have seen so far, AMD offers a useful tool in a wide variety of situations.
Let's recap events from just over a year ago. AMD launched FSR 3 in September last year, but initially only in two games: Immortals of Aveum and Forspoken. Both titles received mixed reviews and by the time FSR 3 was integrated, the general opinion about them was already established. Back then, the only reason to launch those games was to test FSR 3, not to enjoy their gameplay.
In the past year, two significant changes have occurred with FSR. First, AMD introduced FSR 3.1 in March during GDC 2024, although it officially launched in June alongside the PC version of Horizon Forbidden West. This release was much more successful in terms of support than the original FSR 3. However, the quality promoted by AMD for this new version took time to arrive. In the last six months, however, the situation has improved significantly. Now, according to PCGamingWiki, there are a total of 55 games that support FSR 3.1. Although not all are well-known titles, there are many notable games that include this feature since their release, such as Silent Hill 2, Marvel Rivals, Stalker 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops 6, Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2, and Final Fantasy XVI.
Furthermore, this list of 55 games only includes those that support FSR 3.1. If we consider support for frame generation in general—both FSR 3 and 3.1 provide this functionality—the list expands even more. AMD's official compilation features 76 titles with support for FSR 3. To put this in context, in February, when I was strongly criticizing FSR 3 for its limited support, it was only available in 12 games, many of them not very well-known. Now, most major PC releases include FSR 3.1 or support for FSR 3 from day one.
Although the quality of FSR has improved significantly, it still does not reach the level of DLSS. However, quality comparisons can lose context, especially when examining subtle details that do not make a big difference during gameplay. A clear example is the title Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2, where the differences between the performance modes of DLSS 3, FSR 3.1, and TAA can be seen. While DLSS always appears sharper and more stable, the evolution of FSR is worth noting. Since the launch of FSR 3, many games have implemented AMD's native AA mode, similar to Nvidia's DLAA, which offers superior quality over TAA. AMD's version is just as good, if not better.
On the other hand, there are games where FSR shines more than DLSS. Marvel Rivals is a good example, where FSR stabilizes shadows more effectively than TAA or DLSS scaling options. However, in other titles, like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, FSR 3.1 shows some instability, while DLSS maintains consistent quality. Although DLSS has more high-quality implementations, that doesn't mean FSR should be dismissed.
Despite FSR's disadvantages in scenes with intense motion and complex details, it has considerably advanced since its early versions. After more than a year, AMD has reached a level of quality that justifies the use of FSR 3, but it is important to remember that both tools, FSR and DLSS, are designed for different purposes. FSR seeks to optimize performance on lower-end hardware, while DLSS is focused on unleashing the potential of high-end graphical experiences.
In a personal experience, while playing Silent Hill 2 during a recent trip, I discovered how useful FSR 3 is on less powerful hardware. Although it isn’t ideal to play on a less powerful laptop compared to my RTX 4090 workstation, FSR 3 made it possible to enjoy the game anywhere, showcasing the impact of its broad compatibility and improved quality. In conclusion, while FSR 3 may never match DLSS in terms of capabilities, its utility as a viable alternative has grown, and it's exciting to think about how it will continue to evolve in the future.
