AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is not compatible with Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition

Written by Neil Soutter on Sat, May 1, 2021 3:00 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

4A Games recently revealed a PC Enhanced Edition of their most recent installment in the Metro games series, which brings a fully ray traced lighting system upgrade to the base game among other optimizations like DLSS. It’s officially launching next week on May 6th, but the developer notes also reveals something about AMD’s upcoming alternative to DLSS, known as FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR).

Ever since Nvidia released and updated their DLSS technology, a lot of games have started to implement it. Not only has it been a way for players to increase performance without sacrificing image quality much at higher resolutions, but it has also been a lifesaver when it comes to ray tracing.

But the tech is only available on Nvidia hardware, and so an alternative for AMD has been mentioned many times. The only problem is, it’s seemingly not compatible with Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition

In the official FAQ leading up to the launch of Metro Exodus PC Enhanced Edition, the developers were asked: “Will you be adding in AMD Super resolution later?”, to which they replied:

We will not be adding specific support for this, as it is not compatible with our rendering techniques. However we have our own Temporal based reconstruction tech implemented that natively provides the same or better image quality benefits for all hardware.

The interesting thing about that comment is not that AMD’s DLSS equivalent is seemingly incompatible, but that 4A Games apparently knows how the technology is going to work. The question has since been removed from the FAQ, suggesting 4A Games accidentally spilled the beans before AMD.

Rumors, speculation, and even official statements from AMD have led to a general idea that AMD’s FSR would be open source and cross platform. That means potentially any developer could implement the technology, and anyone with a powerful enough GPU could leverage it (even consoles!).

However, the comment above suggests this is not the case anymore, and that AMD has made a decision on how the technology will be implemented. It now sounds like it will be following in the footsteps of Nvidia by implementing the technology on a per-game basis, in a manner that is incompatible with 4A’s engine. That potentially means developers can’t just retroactively implement AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution either.

However, this is also the first case of how AMD’s Super Resolution technology actually works, and Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition could very well be an outlier in this instance. We still have no idea what the official situation is from AMD themselves, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

It is certainly interesting though, and could mean that FidelityFX Super Resolution is starting to come along and could be on track to launch by the end of this year.

What do you think? Are you excited for AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution? What does this say about their technology? What are your thoughts on this matter? Let us know!

Are you excited for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution

Would FSR incompatibility deter you from buying some games?

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
4
Offline
15:22 May-02-2021

Knowing AMD will make it compatible for many games. more than Nvidia eventually

0
Rep
76
Online
admin approved badge
19:14 May-01-2021

Yeah, I am still curious to see what they make. But with how late AMD is getting, they are going to be at huge disadvantage with how much work nVidia put into DLSS and its implementation. It really will hurt AMDs early success and they will have a lot of catching up to do. Unless they make it in a way that won't require game support, which would be miracle, but it would fix one big flaw.

0
Rep
76
Online
admin approved badge
19:16 May-01-2021

Still, hopefully AMD will catch up with support for FSR to match DLSS. As for game support, it won't deter me yet. But as we move on, DLSS and FSR could be huge and might eventually come to the point where it could be deciding factor. So as I said, AMD will have some catching up to do, same as with raytracing... But for now, we aren't at the point where either of the two would be required.

0
Rep
105
Offline
18:49 May-01-2021

And this is why i always go team green, they are just so far ahead AMD in the graphics department )being the software)

5
Rep
17
Offline
21:54 May-01-2021

Of course green team is "ahead" since they use old and not optimized software that they do not care of improving it, hell even Nvidia Control Panel is like a dinosaur software back from Windows XP days


Here is some benchmarks that show how much more CPU optimized AMD drivers are compared to Nvidia


Also AMD drivers are open source that's why I mostly choose AMD

3
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
22:44 May-01-2021

Yeah, but I'd personally have: CUDA, DLSS, RT, Tensor... And the NVCP/driver? It may not look pretty, but there's plenty of customization and it works. I guess it doesn't work perfectly for everyone, but even Linus (or was it Jay... don't wanna make a mistake here) admitted in a recent video that Radeon software is still pretty useless. Your mileage and opinions may vary, but you can't come in and say "it looks old" when it does everything it needs to do and does it well.

3
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
22:49 May-01-2021

As for those results - that's a bit of a loaded and moot comparison. Cycles? Premiere? That's running on the compute core, which will have different architectures and work differently. It is no secret that AMD, especially in that gen, was better for mining - that's because it worked better with that same core. The same goes in game comparisons - where Nvidia has higher fps - I'd also expect higher usage from the CPU, because it has to set up more frames for the pipeline. The rest could also be explained by the differences in game rendering.

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
22:51 May-01-2021

And I'm not saying that Nvidia drivers are faster than AMD or on-par - we can't possibly know that because they are driving different hardware, different feature sets, different settings in the driver itself. Perhaps low-latency modes make a difference in the CPU. Perhaps having access to Ansel and GeForce Highlights makes a difference (additional software running, basically), etc. This guy was comparing a washing machine to a fridge. It's illogical and proves absolutely nothing, IMO. Plus it makes almost no difference on good CPUs anyway...

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
22:57 May-01-2021

To me, that comparison looks like it comes from a person who does not understand any of the differences in software, drivers and GPUs themselves - the Cycles and Premiere tests, ironically, proved that (testing rendering applications with GPUs that are vastly different in architecture lmao). I'd say don't look into it too much as there's just no real way to ever fairly compare the drivers here, considering how vastly different they are to begin with.

0
Rep
17
Offline
01:37 May-02-2021

These comparisons is just for having relative idea of how each GPU with its own driver effecting rest of the system.
And yes you can argue that comparison is unfair since RX 480 is weaker than GTX 1060 etc. but when both cards finish at almost identical time (on test: "settings 2 + maximum depth/render quality - checked") while with AMD card CPU usage was at least 15% less you can see that there is at least some efficiency difference

0
Rep
17
Offline
01:43 May-02-2021

Don't get me wrong, Nvidia does make better graphics cards than AMD but when it comes to software and drivers AMD have some advantages.
Like having superior linux support thanks to open source and not locking down features on cards that could be easily supported like AHEM GPU pass through, radeon SW might lack few features that rarely are used but it does have plenty of new ones that are more useful like built in overclocking, game statistics for finding best settings...

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
02:15 May-02-2021

The "new and useful" features you mentioned we also have. I have a built-in OC and an OC tuner (scans the GPU at different frequencies and tests stability), latency and system monitoring, game optimization (although I prefer to do it manually) + filters (so you don't need reshade), Ansel for in-game photography, recording and streaming (with custom overlays), Nvidia Broadcast with AI voice and video cleanup (works like black magic!) etc. It's not like we live in the stone age, you know xD

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:46 May-01-2021

I saw that statement on Steam

0

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon R9 280 Gigabyte WindForce 3X OC 3GB Edition 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 4k
Core i9-10900K 10-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 3070 Gigabyte Vision OC 8GB 64GB
Core i5-3210M 2.5GHz Radeon HD 7500G 8GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 16GB
0% No [1 votes]