Question about frame generation.

[Vepar]

So, i was excited to see it, and while i can run the game on ultra without ray tracing, i thought i'll be able to do like medium RT with frame generation.

Nope...

The FPS counter is displaying 100+ fps, but the game is not only extremely blurry, but also looks like it's running at 30FPS with exaggerated motion blur.

Does this framegen thing do anything at all? Is it maybe because i'm playing on linux?
I have a Ryzen 5 5600g and RX 7800 XT, playing at 1440p.

How are your experiences? Does it look and feel smooth? Or not?
Cause for me it makes it worse.

[spk]

Ryzen 7 5800x and 7800 xt, 1440p - very similar experience, any kind of RT completely kills performance. Somehow its more choppy with frame gen and the FSR Quality preset on than with just FSR Quality and no generated frames despite my fps showing about double the fps.

[sintri]

Frame gen introduces extra latency period, that's just the nature of the tech. Frame gen requires a certain amount of fps to look decent, a typical bar that I find would've been playable anyways so why bother with frame gen in the first place. For CP it also disable Nvidia reflex which alone should mean don't run frame gen ever since reflex is responsible for alot of the responsive gameplay for CP.

[Vepar]

Originally posted by spk:

Ryzen 7 5800x and 7800 xt, 1440p - very similar experience, any kind of RT completely kills performance. Somehow its more choppy with frame gen and the FSR Quality preset on than with just FSR Quality and no generated frames despite my fps showing about double the fps.

Yup... Shows a lot of frames, looks worse. :/

Originally posted by sintri:

Frame gen introduces extra latency period, that's just the nature of the tech. Frame gen requires a certain amount of fps to look decent, a typical bar that I find would've been playable anyways so why bother with frame gen in the first place. For CP it also disable Nvidia reflex which alone should mean don't run frame gen ever since reflex is responsible for alot of the responsive gameplay for CP.

But what's the point then? If i can play the game with 75FPS (my monitor refresh rate), and i can without ray tracing, why would i enable frame generation, i already have all the frames i need. I'd need it if the FPS is below what my monitor can display.

So i can only use it if i can already play the game smoothly without it? That's kind of pointless lol.

[sintri]

The point was so gpu makers can go we win at making the most fps, or at the very least not lagging that far behind. Period.

Now some games I've found work decently enough, but also there we're speaking of already having 100+ fps and trying to squeeze another 50 fps out. For CP though it's a hard no, especially if you care about Nvidia Reflex or AMD Anti-Lag (which I assume operates the same with frame gen as Nvidia's but I could be wrong).

[spk]

Originally posted by sintri:

Frame gen introduces extra latency period, that's just the nature of the tech. Frame gen requires a certain amount of fps to look decent, a typical bar that I find would've been playable anyways so why bother with frame gen in the first place. For CP it also disable Nvidia reflex which alone should mean don't run frame gen ever since reflex is responsible for alot of the responsive gameplay for CP.

I understand the technology but the implementation is clearly poor - if I am getting a more consistent feeling fps with RT on and FSR 3 on Quality than with FSR 3 on Quality AND Frame Gen on (despite double the frames being recorded) then surely theres an issue, maybe with the frame pacing or some unknown other setting like variable refresh rate monitors not accurately adjusting.

Wouldn't say its a frame time issue - I have tried the previous iteration of frame gen builtto AMD Adrenelin and it feels different from a frame time issue - that was consistently 30-60ms when this is ~9-15ms

[Vepar]

Originally posted by spk:

Originally posted by sintri:

Frame gen introduces extra latency period, that's just the nature of the tech. Frame gen requires a certain amount of fps to look decent, a typical bar that I find would've been playable anyways so why bother with frame gen in the first place. For CP it also disable Nvidia reflex which alone should mean don't run frame gen ever since reflex is responsible for alot of the responsive gameplay for CP.

I understand the technology but the implementation is clearly poor - if I am getting a more consistent feeling fps with RT on and FSR 3 on Quality than with FSR 3 on Quality AND Frame Gen on (despite double the frames being recorded) then surely theres an issue, maybe with the frame pacing or some unknown other setting like variable refresh rate monitors not accurately adjusting.

Wouldn't say its a frame time issue - I have tried the previous iteration of frame gen builtto AMD Adrenelin and it feels different from a frame time issue - that was consistently 30-60ms when this is ~9-15ms

For me it kinda looks the same as when i enable ray-tracing with FSR on balanced. Slightly worse.

So all i get with frame generation is basically the FPS counter showing more frames, when in reality, the game plays the same or worse.

And if i need 100 FPS just to make it work, what's the point?

Also, wouldn't the fake 150 FPS on a 160HZ monitor also look worse or at least noticable, as the fake FPS looks on mine?

Idk... Pointless tech for me if it can't push the smoothness to a playable level. It should be used to save choppy gameplay and make it smooth, not make smooth gameplay also smooth.

[spk]

Originally posted by Vepar:

Originally posted by spk:

I understand the technology but the implementation is clearly poor - if I am getting a more consistent feeling fps with RT on and FSR 3 on Quality than with FSR 3 on Quality AND Frame Gen on (despite double the frames being recorded) then surely theres an issue, maybe with the frame pacing or some unknown other setting like variable refresh rate monitors not accurately adjusting.

Wouldn't say its a frame time issue - I have tried the previous iteration of frame gen builtto AMD Adrenelin and it feels different from a frame time issue - that was consistently 30-60ms when this is ~9-15ms

For me it kinda looks the same as when i enable ray-tracing with FSR on balanced. Slightly worse.

So all i get with frame generation is basically the FPS counter showing more frames, when in reality, the game plays the same or worse.

And if i need 100 FPS just to make it work, what's the point?

Also, wouldn't the fake 150 FPS on a 160HZ monitor also look worse or at least noticable, as the fake FPS looks on mine?

Idk... Pointless tech for me if it can't push the smoothness to a playable level. It should be used to save choppy gameplay and make it smooth, not make smooth gameplay also smooth.

Just done some further reading and found this on the CDPR website:

https://support.cdprojektred.com/en/cyberpunk/pc/sp-technical/issue/2728/amd-fidelityfx-super-resolution-3

Specifically "It’s recommended to run the game at a baseline of minimum 60 FPS before enabling Frame Generation for it to work properly. At lower frame rates visual artifacts might be more prominent, you might also experience frame pacing issues."

[AMD718]

Try this mod instead. It's much better than the official FSR 3 framegen CDPR f'd up - https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/14726

[Vepar]

Originally posted by spk:

Originally posted by Vepar:

For me it kinda looks the same as when i enable ray-tracing with FSR on balanced. Slightly worse.

So all i get with frame generation is basically the FPS counter showing more frames, when in reality, the game plays the same or worse.

And if i need 100 FPS just to make it work, what's the point?

Also, wouldn't the fake 150 FPS on a 160HZ monitor also look worse or at least noticable, as the fake FPS looks on mine?

Idk... Pointless tech for me if it can't push the smoothness to a playable level. It should be used to save choppy gameplay and make it smooth, not make smooth gameplay also smooth.

Just done some further reading and found this on the CDPR website:

https://support.cdprojektred.com/en/cyberpunk/pc/sp-technical/issue/2728/amd-fidelityfx-super-resolution-3

Specifically "It’s recommended to run the game at a baseline of minimum 60 FPS before enabling Frame Generation for it to work properly. At lower frame rates visual artifacts might be more prominent, you might also experience frame pacing issues."

But i already can run the game at 60FPS with FSR balanced and RT on. IT's just that, 60FPS on 75HZ refresh rate already looks kinda choppy, and framegen makes it somehow worse.

Maybe it's because of RT itself, idk. It says the7800 has 60 "RT cores" whatever that means, so maybe raytracing can't get any better than this. But it's unusable so why bother with adding 60 "RT cores" at all then, idk.

I guess i'll continue to play it without FSR, i can't see more than 75 HZ on my monitor, and if i can't get smooth RT with framegen and FSR3, then it's useless to me.

The game looks insane with and without RT so, not big deal lol.

Originally posted by AMD718:

Try this mod instead. It's much better than the official FSR 3 framegen CDPR f'd up - https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/14726

Thanks, i'll give it a go maybe!

[Vepar]

Oh... Also, quick question here so that i don't open up a new thread...

What does "FSR3 Native AA" mean? Because i get worse perfromance with this than with no FSR at all.

[spk]

Originally posted by Vepar:

Oh... Also, quick question here so that i don't open up a new thread...

What does "FSR3 Native AA" mean? Because i get worse perfromance with this than with no FSR at all.

So from what I have read I think its rendering at the resolution you have set your monitor to with no up scaling, but using parts of FSR technology to replace other anti aliasing technologies. According to an AMD page it has a moderate performance cost. I quite like the look of it personally - can't say I have noticed a significant fps change with it enabled.

[Nar!]

Native anti-aliasing, I assumed was the games own default AA which is TAA.
My experience with FSR3 and Frame Gen is exactly as you described yours. Shows a lot of FPS generated, but looks and feels like 30fps with a very blurry performance.
I turned it off completely and went back to fullscreen native.

On the other hand, strangely enough, my game was performing better at ultra without any scaling FG features. Which is kind of weird. I installed the latest GPU drivers and made necessary changes to my Windows 10 graphics settings and restarted my PC.
Kept an eye on my monitoring program and saw that my GPU used more VRAM this time and ran about 8 degrees cooler as well.

I had no issues loading any of my previous saves. Nothing broken. But my FPS was hovering between 60-65 fps when I'd normally experience between 52-58 fps at native resolution, ultra settings and high crowd density too.

But yeah, the FSR 3 was not doing me any favors what so ever. In fact, the Lossless Scaling app actually delivers much better results.
We'll see if CDPR hurries back with a fix or not.

Unfortunately, this patch also did not fix a single issue with the audio anomalies throughout the game. TVs still cut out as well as the pocket radio when walking around NC.

Been playing for about 3 hours now and I'm ready to take a break. The only good is my slight uptick performance when playing native res.

[Vepar]

Originally posted by spk:

Originally posted by Vepar:

Oh... Also, quick question here so that i don't open up a new thread...

What does "FSR3 Native AA" mean? Because i get worse perfromance with this than with no FSR at all.

So from what I have read I think its rendering at the resolution you have set your monitor to with no up scaling, but using parts of FSR technology to replace other anti aliasing technologies. According to an AMD page it has a moderate performance cost. I quite like the look of it personally - can't say I have noticed a significant fps change with it enabled.

Ah, so it looks different? I tested it out in the benchmark. It went from 80ish FPS native resolution to 50ish FPS with FSR3 Native AA.

I didn't really pay attention to the image quality, so idk what it did.

Weird lol. FSR3 Quality setting does improve the FPS though, so it's weird that the Native AA tanks it.

Originally posted by Nar!:

Native anti-aliasing, I assumed was the games own default AA which is TAA.
My experience with FSR3 and Frame Gen is exactly as you described yours. Shows a lot of FPS generated, but looks and feels like 30fps with a very blurry performance.
I turned it off completely and went back to fullscreen native.

On the other hand, strangely enough, my game was performing better at ultra without any scaling FG features. Which is kind of weird. I installed the latest GPU drivers and made necessary changes to my Windows 10 graphics settings and restarted my PC.
Kept an eye on my monitoring program and saw that my GPU used more VRAM this time and ran about 8 degrees cooler as well.

I had no issues loading any of my previous saves. Nothing broken. But my FPS was hovering between 60-65 fps when I'd normally experience between 52-58 fps at native resolution, ultra settings and high crowd density too.

But yeah, the FSR 3 was not doing me any favors what so ever. In fact, the Lossless Scaling app actually delivers much better results.
We'll see if CDPR hurries back with a fix or not.

Unfortunately, this patch also did not fix a single issue with the audio anomalies throughout the game. TVs still cut out as well as the pocket radio when walking around NC. :shonen_sad:

Been playing for about 3 hours now and I'm ready to take a break. The only good is my slight uptick performance when playing native res.

Yeah, same here. I get about 80 FPS in the benchmark on native resolution, and i limite the FPS to 75 anyway, so really, if i get 20 more frames with FSR i'm not gonna see them.

I just thought it would enable me to try out Ray Tracing, maybe see what that's about out of curiousity, but it actually made things worse lol, so i guess it's either the way it is, and i'll never get good RT, or the implementation of this tech is just bad.

We'll see if there's another patch. In the meantime, i'm gonna play like i did so far.
Like i said. The game looks amazing even without RT, so who cares lol. :P