AMD's FSR 2.0 Even Worked With Intel Integrated Graphics

AMD’s FSR 2.0 Even Worked With Intel Integrated Graphics

Posted on


When AMD officially debuted it’s FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 technology last week in Deathloop, we were rather impressed. It’s more demanding than FSR 1.0, but image quality was worlds better, comparable even to DLSS — at least in this one game. We even tested it on some older graphics cards and found it could still boost performance by 20–25 percent. That’s potentially enough to make a game “playable” on hardware that otherwise would come up short. But what about on laptops running Intel integrated graphics?

Officially, AMD provides loose recommendations for what sort of GPU you should have in order to get the best results from FSR 2.0. For 4K upscaling, AMD recommends a Radeon RX 6000-series GPU. For 1440p, RX 5000-series and RX Vega cards should suffice. Finally, for 1080p upscaling, AMD suggests having at least a Radeon RX 590 or similar. Again, we’ve tested with lower tier GPUs already and found FSR 2.0 still worked and provided some fps gains. Now we’re going for minimum level hardware to see how it goes.

We pulled out a couple of laptops using Intel integrated graphics to find out. One is a Tiger Lake laptop from 2020, so not exactly old but also not brand new. It has a Core i7-1165G7 processor with Iris Xe Graphics — 96 EUs to be precise. Short of Intel’s new Arc Alchemist GPUs, this is basically as fast as Intel graphics get for the time being. It also has 16GB of LPDDR4x-4267 memory, which also matters.

The second laptop steps back one more generation, to a Core i7-1065G7 with Gen11 graphics. It still has 16GB of memory, but this time it’s LPDDR4x-3200. Not that it matters much with Ice Lake, which in theory is about half as fast as Xe-LP graphics. Even with 96 EUs, Gen11 isn’t going to do much with Deathloop.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

First, some disclaimers are in order. Deathloop itself warns that Intel graphics solutions are currently unsupported and may not work properly. We pressed onward, heedless of such trivial matters. Science must have answers!

Loading the game took several minutes, just to get to the main menu. Loading into a level felt like it too forever, even at very low settings and a 1280×720 resolution. (It was actually about 4.5 minutes.) At one point, I thought the game had simply crashed, but then I was greeted with actual working graphics. Yes, the game was working!

I proceeded to run some benchmarks, first at native 720p and very low settings, then with native but with temporal anti-aliasing (TAA) and FidelityFX CAS (Contrast Aware Sharpening) enabled, and finally with FidelityFX Super Resolution 1.0 as well as FSR 2.0, both using the “Performance” upscaling mode in order to provide maximum framerates. Screenshots are below, and FSR 1.0 looked quite awful, with a very blurry appearance plus sort of a “static” interference error that kept showing up, possibly from the falling snow. FSR 2.0 on the other hand was still quite serviceable.

Now granted, playing at 720p with 100% upscaling isn’t going to be ideal, but was it workable? Almost! I’d even go so far as to say FSR 2.0 looked better than native, at least using the default very low settings that disable temporal AA. But how did Deathloop perform?

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

So yeah, that’s actually not too bad! The starting point of 28 fps for Iris Xe was almost high enough to be playable, though with TAA+CAS that dropped to 26 fps. FSR 1.0 gave 22% more performance, averaging 34 fps — at the cost of image quality. FSR 2.0 helped a bit in framerates as well, to the tune of 16%, just clearing 30 fps. That’s the minimum we shoot for in order to deem a game “playable.”

Note that if we enable TAA and FidelityFX CAS, which was our baseline on dedicated GPU testing, FSR 2.0 provided a 22% bump in performance while FSR 1.0 provided a 28% improvement. Considering FSR 2.0 takes care of anti-aliasing as well as sharpening, that’s perhaps a better comparison point.

On the older Gen11 graphics, things weren’t quite so rosy. Baseline performance at 720p and very low settings was only 13 fps, and that was without TAA. With TAA+CAS, performance dropped to just 11 fps. FSR 1.0 Performance mode bumped that to nearly 15 fps, while FSR 2.0 Performance mode managed 14 fps. That’s a 28% improvement for FSR 2.0 (and 35% for FSR 1.0), though it’s a pretty meaningless gain as Intel’s Gen11 GPU is nowhere near playable still.

Image 1 of 4

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Arkane Studios)

Slight purple sparkles visible in this scene

Image 2 of 4

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Arkane Studios)

More purple sparkles here.

Image 3 of 4

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Arkane Studios)

Darker areas tended to be even worse on the purple sparkles.

Image 4 of 4

Deathloop FSR 2.0 Testing on Intel Graphics

(Image credit: Arkane Studios)

Often, all the textures and scenery would simply fail to render altogether.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *