I always thought AMD fluid motion frames wasnt working.

[Guldo]

until i realised it was after turning on the overlay metrics. It looked so bad i couldnt tell the difference between 30 fps and 60.

The difference between lossless scalings frame generation and AMD fluid motion frames is like night and day.

what i wanna know is this. is Nvidias frame gen just as bad.

[the$silver]

were you using the right settings with motion frames?

You should use:

search mode: high
performance mode: quality

and you have to disable vsync both from in the game and in the amd software.

in my opinion fluid motion frames is better in latency but not in quality and in performance overhead, though LS has had better latency with the last update, and LS enables multi frame generation, but Fluid motion frames is really great if you don't own LS or you just don't want 3rd party software.

[Guldo]

Originally posted by the$silver:

were you using the right settings with motion frames?

You should use:

search mode: high
performance mode: quality

and you have to disable vsync both from in the game and in the amd software.

in my opinion fluid motion frames is better in latency but not in quality and in performance overhead, though LS has had better latency with the last update, and LS enables multi frame generation, but Fluid motion frames is really great if you don't own LS or you just don't want 3rd party software.

i was just told amd fluid motion frames doesnt work well with fps locked at 30 and thats why it looks bad.

lossless scaling seems to be the only frame generation that will let you do that.

[the$silver]

i didn't know that, well nice to know! Ty

[Xavvy]

Originally posted by the$silver:

were you using the right settings with motion frames?

You should use:

search mode: high
performance mode: quality

and you have to disable vsync both from in the game and in the amd software.

in my opinion fluid motion frames is better in latency but not in quality and in performance overhead, though LS has had better latency with the last update, and LS enables multi frame generation, but Fluid motion frames is really great if you don't own LS or you just don't want 3rd party software.

Naww. AFMF2 is just bad, I have an AMD rig.. AMD's FSR3/AFMF2 are just abysmal and I know how to set it up best.. They are just the worst versions of frame gen available.. I really hope Intel doesn't crap the bed like AMD did when theirs comes out. My Nvidia rigs vs my AMD rig(7900xtx).. the difference between DLSS FG and FSR FG is just night an day.. AMD has only two things going for it.. 1) it costs almost nothing.. which when you compare the quality.. it makes a lot of sense why.. it's just bad.. and 2) the input latency is marginally better than LSFG3 newest update..

There's a reason why AMD's is so cost-less and that's because cost = best visuals/performance and feel. I really hope AMD improves there methods but so far Nvidia's frame gen is a million miles ahead of the competition and Smooth Motion > AFMF2 by a massive degree. I have been so disappointed in AMD's tech lately.. yeah it's cheap.. but it's cheap for a reason..

Here's the things I've noticed about all three brands(AMD/Nvidia/Lossless) .. Lossless by far feels the best if you can run it as at least a 60fps for decent latency(if you're playing games that don't use perspectives that gives bad ghosting.. most games are fine now with the latest update.. but a few older third person games still suffer minor ghosting) it just looks and plain feels better than even DLSS4 FG.. DLSS3/4 FG.. It's honestly the best option on the market because it has enough of a latency advantage over LSFG3 that it's worth using over LSFG3 in games that support DLSS.

AMD has about the same latency as Nvidia but with the crappiest visual by a large margin compared to the aforementioned options. AFMF2/FSR3 don't play well with fps caps and look absolutely abysmal in the 30-60fps base threshold. I just won't use them. I use LSFG3 on my AMD rig. AMD just flat out needs to do a lot of work with there's.. it's still so bad and I hate the feel. It feels like sony's gaming TV frame gen.. it's just fuqqing bad.. get rid of it and start over. I love AMD's cost to performance but their frame gen just isn't it.

[the$silver]

well i really agree with you, i just don't have a 7000 series card, so i thought (watching youtube videos) that the op was just not using the right settings XD. honestly i like that amd fg is available for every gpu as well as fsr, but the graphical fidelity is not great if you are using lower than quality at 1440p. I replayed the last of us part 1 on my vega 64, and i tryed the first chapter with fsr balanced and amd fg enabled, but man does it look bad... with fsr balanced i can maintain a base of 50-60 fps with optimized settings (i play on 1440p ultrawide) the look is nowhere near dlss, but it's playable and with ls i can play at 120 fps with x3 fg and fps capped at 40 for gpu overhead, and wow does it look way better... the artifacting is less noticeable even.

[Xavvy]

Originally posted by the$silver:

well i really agree with you, i just don't have a 7000 series card, so i thought (watching youtube videos) that the op was just not using the right settings XD. honestly i like that amd fg is available for every gpu as well as fsr, but the graphical fidelity is not great if you are using lower than quality at 1440p. I replayed the last of us part 1 on my vega 64, and i tryed the first chapter with fsr balanced and amd fg enabled, but man does it look bad... with fsr balanced i can maintain a base of 50-60 fps with optimized settings (i play on 1440p ultrawide) the look is nowhere near dlss, but it's playable and with ls i can play at 120 fps with x3 fg and fps capped at 40 for gpu overhead, and wow does it look way better... the artifacting is less noticeable even.

Yeah. I love AMD but they need to get their act in gear. For having superior driver software they sure have been crapping the bed in features that matter. Frame gen has come a long way and has become a staple feature in PC gaming along side good upscaling solutions and AMD needs to catch up.. like I'm sorry but even their upscaling is quite far behind Nvidia/Intel.. Which leads me to believe that Intel's first iteration of frame gen is probably going to release better than AMDs current frame gen right out of the gate LOL.. Like it was funny. FSR2 was around for a good while and then XeSS released it's first version and it was immediately better after one update. LOL

Like for me, frame gen is a game changer because for high end rigs in games where you can easily run 90-120fps base.. being able to x2-4 that on a 240-480hz monitor is literally mind boggling. You can get good input latency with a 90-120fps base and have the look and feel of 240-480fps. It's nuts.

Obviously most recent games would struggle in this but I find even in new releases with optimized settings and a 60-90fps base you can get A LOT from good frame gen like DLSS4 and LSFG3. I pretty much always run frame gen now. Like for me in most games unless it's Valorant or something.. I don't need more than 60-120fps input latency.. so with frame gen it's all about better look and feel and good frame gen gives you that. Being able to play the end of last gen releases in 240fps where even with todays best hardware wouldn't be possible.. feels amazing. Been playing Borderlands 3 in 4K max settings at 240fps lately lol. Such a good smooth af experience.