Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
That's nonsense. Using framegen the performance is real. On a 144hz monitor, the quality is the same while the smoothness of the added framerate is real, expecially when used in conjunction with nVidia Reflex + Boost.
Looking at the games you've played, I can also understand you've never seen these techs in action, so please don't speak about things you obviously don't understand.
Seems like you only care about the FPS tho, so why not use Lossless Scaling, and use the x20 multiplier?
you basically play at whatever framerate isnt generated, so rn with DLSS 3.0 you play at half the actual framerate i.e. if you run it at 60 fps youre playing at 30 it just looks better.
Its only useful for fluidity at uber high framerates and uber high framerates are by default bad for power use etc etc.
The best use for frame gen is being able to release omega high fps benchmarks on testing websites so people buy your product.
Yeah, so is magic.
I use DLAA in fact, which is better than native rendering because it does temporal aa without temporal aa algorithms (TAA) which increase ghosting and it also reduces shimmering.
I do not only care about framerate, I just can afford higher specs than you. It's just a matter of requirements.
Rasterization is dead, a thing of the past. You call them "fake frames" without understanding that the whole rasterization is a fake simulation of physics while raytracing is a physically accurate computation. You don't accept "fake frames" but you want "fake rendering".
Dumb people.
Rasterization has nothing to do with physics. Raytracing is not a physically accurate. Its an approximation. Very approximate in fact. I like the tech and have used it in 3d renders not related to games and its much more accurate in things like architectural renders than the way its done in games but even then its an approximation of reality.
Also raterization is very much alive and kicking.
What is a temporal AA? Is it like a temporal bubble, or more like a warp drive?
THIS GUY KNOWS TOO MUCH
ENHANCE!
Buy Lossless scaling and use the beta branch, then tell me if you like the 20x mode they added. Its framegen, but Nvidia can only do 2x right now and up to 4x on their new GPUs releasing later this month, while Lossless Scaling can do 20x.
Enjoy.
Gpu's' just chillin at like 60% usage.