No frame gen are you kidding

[TofuStranger]

I can't believe they made the effort to update DirectX and add features like Raytracing and yet we don't have frame generation?

[deadscene]

frame get is a mess, i always turn it off cuz it's ruin everything lol

[Poor Bastard]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Frame gen sucks hard, why would anyone WANT it??

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

[JohnMac]

Originally posted by Poor Bastard:

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Frame gen sucks hard, why would anyone WANT it??

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

[Poor Bastard]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Originally posted by Poor Bastard:

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

If you don't like high fps because it's too smooth or whatever you can just leave it off.

[Pairy Henis]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Originally posted by Poor Bastard:

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

My fps is so high that I can suck off my manhood now

[OOFleming]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Originally posted by Poor Bastard:

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

The problem is games are advancing in power requirements faster than GPU's are able to keep up in terms of raw raster power and with the addition or RT there is a NEED for upscaling and/or FrameGen

[JohnMac]

Originally posted by OOFleming:

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

The problem is games are advancing in power requirements faster than GPU's are able to keep up in terms of raw raster power and with the addition or RT there is a NEED for upscaling and/or FrameGen

This is absolutely not true. Engines like unreal have made developers lazy, and instead of concentrating on optimization they completely rely on awful framegen.

[IFearSnowman]

OP, you are making a big mistake here, RT and Frame Gen have NOTHING to do with eachother.

RT is a heavy graphical effect

Frame Gen is there to "fill up" a high refreshrate monitor (240+)

pls do not attempt to use frame gen to make up for performance hits made by RT usage.
You want a minimum of 80 fps before even thinking of using Frame Gen


Apart form that, didnt Nvidia also add a driver level Frame Gen version like AMD did a while back witi AFMF ?

[﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽]

Originally posted by TofuStranger:

I can't believe they made the effort to update DirectX and add features like Raytracing and yet we don't have frame generation?

LOL I just downloaded and its true what's the point

[rckrz6]

Originally posted by IFearSnowman:

OP, you are making a big mistake here, RT and Frame Gen have NOTHING to do with eachother.

RT is a heavy graphical effect

Frame Gen is there to "fill up" a high refreshrate monitor (240+)

pls do not attempt to use frame gen to make up for performance hits made by RT usage.
You want a minimum of 80 fps before even thinking of using Frame Gen


Apart form that, didnt Nvidia also add a driver level Frame Gen version like AMD did a while back witi AFMF ?

id agree frame gen is useless unless the base frame rate is already high, its not meant to get your potato to 60 fps

[LeftoverAtoms]

(Postal Guy Voice) Frame generation is for [EXPLETIVE]

[Ren]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Frame gen sucks hard, why would anyone WANT it??

When the game runs barely at 60 fps on Ultra settings on decents GPUs. Sometimes frame gen is the only option to sustain high frame rates.

Are they fake frames? Yeah.

Does 120 real frames look better than 60 real and 60 fake frames? Yeah.

Does 120 fps w/ frame gen look better than native 60? Yes.

The choice is obvious tbh.

[Night Writer]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Originally posted by Poor Bastard:

Because 240 fps looks smoother than 80 fps.

Most people by far will barely tell the difference between 80 and 100, let alone 100 and 200. And i would just rather devs optimised their games instead of relying on fake frames that bring other issues like input lag.

Better to simply turn down your settings a little. People are too hard for huge FPS figures because its all about measuring manhood....

I hate to break it to you, but you sure as hell can tell the difference between 80 and 100 FPS and you sure as hell (again) can tell the difference between 100 and 200 FPS.

If I turn ray tracing on max in game my RX 7900 XTX runs the game at 4K at 112-120 FPS. With it off I hit the games engine cap of 162 FPS. and I can easily see and feel the difference in smoothness with only a 40+ FPS increase.

However it's important to note: I have 20/20 vision.
And I also have a monitor that can take advantage of the FPS increase.

If you are half blind and playing on a 60hz monitor, then no.. you wont be able to tell the difference for anything past that 60hz, because your monitor will only display at most... 60 FPS.

[DiätLiebhaber]

Originally posted by JohnMac:

Frame gen sucks hard, why would anyone WANT it??

Games like Dark Souls 1 can't be played without unlocked fps without the high fps causing some issues with the engine. So Framegen via Lossless Scaling is a godsend. Just to name a good reason for FG lol. Also it allows you to play console games via emulator, that are locked in 60fps with 4x the amount of fps. Feels just much better.

[Raiden85OCUK]

As a 4090 owner I like frame gen, so yes it would be nice to have as an option, at least it would help with the very crappy GPU usage in this version.