AMD Still Won’t Commit to INT8 FSR 4 for RDNA 2 and RDNA 3, Despite Community Proof It Works
AMD continues to hold the line on keeping FSR 4 officially tied to RDNA 4, even as the community has repeatedly shown that an INT8 path can run on older Radeon hardware like RDNA 2 and RDNA 3. The situation is not new, but the silence is getting louder because the technical debate is no longer about whether it can function at all. It is about whether AMD is willing to productize it, support it, and own the trade offs.
The key context here is that enthusiasts have already demonstrated FSR 4 running on RX 6000 and RX 7000 class GPUs through unofficial methods, including use of leaked files. The comparisons many users have shared between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 on older RDNA GPUs generally point to a meaningful uplift in image quality, even when performance overhead exists. In practical terms, players have been leaning on Performance modes to claw back frame rates while still benefiting from the newer reconstruction approach.
Hardware Unboxed attempted to cut through the speculation by going directly to AMD. In their coverage and outreach, they asked AMD about the status of INT8 FSR 4 for previous generation RDNA GPUs. AMD’s response was concise and noncommittal, saying it had no updates to share at this time.
From a platform strategy perspective, AMD’s position is creating a perception issue in the enthusiast market. The community argument is straightforward. RDNA 2 and RDNA 3 lack native FP8 instructions, so the FP8 implementation of FSR 4 is a non starter on those architectures. However, an INT8 route exists, and AMD itself previously shipped an INT8 DLL that enabled experimentation. That creates a credibility gap, because gamers see a workable path and ask why it is not being offered as an official optional toggle with clear disclaimers.
The counterargument AMD likely weighs is equally practical. Supporting an INT8 version on older GPUs could create a support burden, inconsistent performance experiences across different products, and messy messaging when some titles or configurations regress more than others. But NVIDIA has shown a different playbook: ship the feature broadly, and let users decide whether the trade offs are worth it on their specific GPU. That approach tends to build goodwill because it communicates that older hardware is not being artificially gated, even if the best results still land on newer architectures.
Right now, AMD’s silence does not just slow feature adoption. It risks reinforcing a narrative that modern rendering tech on Radeon becomes increasingly segmented by generation. In an era where gamers are already dealing with volatile GPU pricing and long upgrade cycles, perceived feature lockouts matter. If AMD wants to win mindshare, the cleanest solution is not a promise of perfect performance. It is an official INT8 option labeled clearly, supported realistically, and positioned as a choice, not a mandate.
If AMD released INT8 FSR 4 for RDNA 2 and RDNA 3 with a clear performance disclaimer, would you enable it for the visual upgrade, or stick with FSR 3.1 for stability?
