AMD FSR 4 on RDNA 3: a double-edged sword

A resourceful Reddit user called “Virtual-Cobbler-9930” took the plunge: he activated AMD’s brand new FSR 4 on a Radeon RX 7900 XTX – an RDNA 3 card that does not officially support FSR 4. AMD had cleverly reserved the upscaling hammer exclusively for RDNA 4 GPUs – allegedly because of the AI/ML architecture. But even without official support, RDNA 3 shows interesting results: higher image quality and FPS in some cases compared to FSR 3.1, although hardly any native 4K performance.

The benchmarks – facts instead of marketing hype

Cyberpunk 2077 @4K, FSR Quality:

• FSR 4: 56.3 FPS
• FSR 3.1: 85.1 FPS
  The picture quality in FSR 4 was visibly better – but faster? Only in comparison to the original, not the previous version. RDNA 3 gains slightly in BQ, but loses massively in speed.

Oblivion Remastered:

• FSR 3.1 brings more frame rate, but artifacts. FSR 4 cleans up the image, but costs around 20-30% performance – if you want to smooth, you pay with speed (and can counteract this with “Balanced” or Frame Gen).
• Marvel’s Rivals (e-sports):
• FSR 4 = 41 FPS
• FSR 3.1 = 74 FPS
  HSR-typical: Quality yes, but with fast games like e-sports it comes at the expense of performance. RDNA 3 has a very hard time with FSR 4 – gaming is almost a capitulation to technology.

One user on Reddit sums it up correctly:

“…FSR4 Quality preset do gain additional FPS at 4k, compared to plain native…, but that gain could be almost nullified at lower resolutions like 1080p. Simply because RDNA3 can’t push higher fps with FSR4 due to architecture.”

Technical-strategic classification

FSR 4 is based on ML/AI – this is due to the architecture of RDNA 4. RDNA 3 lacks this dedicated AI core. FSR 4 therefore has to run in a roundabout way: less efficient, more load. It is reminiscent of a diplomatic capitulation – the technology is used, but incompletely. Users give the image a thumbs down, but the smell of the lack of AI is still noticeable. Strategically, AMD’s maneuver is clever and RDNA 3 users will be pleased, but it remains a double-edged sword. AMD is showing its FSR-4 potential on older hardware – generating hype. But at the same time it shows its limits: Native performance gains can only be achieved with the next generation.

For whom is FSR 4 on RDNA 3 worthwhile?

• Pro: Significantly better picture quality than FSR 3.1, visibly fewer artifacts.
• Cons: Massive performance losses compared to FSR 3.1, little added value on lower resolutions (e.g. 1080p).

If you’re chasing 4K with maximum BQ and are a patient hobby modder, you can take a chance on FSR 4 – but this is more of a diplomatic playground than a lean production solution. For ambitious gamers – especially with eSports or action-heavy titles – FSR 3.1 or the native performance remains the buttery-soft choice.

Source: Radeon, imgur