![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Everything about that game made me want to stay away when they announced it, saying that we would get SEVEN playable characters. I mean half the fun of Lego games is having the hundreds of characters to choose from (at least in free play mode)
You always have to pay to train somebody.
Actually, modern Nvidia FG implementations use very little CPU time. Almost all processing is done using the GPU's Tensor Core's, hence the reason why FG is a very effective way to overcome CPU bottlenecks.
Of all the games NJ Tech tested, it was just Oblivion Remastered that lost 2 fps, and Last of Us Part 2 that lost 1 fps. In other games it's a positive increase with Dead Space Remaster being a massive 26% increase. All you gotta do is install NvStrapsReBar mod. AMD has done the same thing with their older GPU's, where mods have increased FPS for GPU's that weren't meant to have ReBar. If Nvidia was interested in genuine performance increase, then something like ReBar for old cards would be better.
Well this is the theory, the reality is you won't always get a performance boost with ReBar enabled, running DLSS or DLSS FG you'll always get a performance boost and the artifacting issue is way overblown. With ReBar enabled 'and' DLSS and DLSS FG performance could be even better.
Like I said and what Hardware Unboxed said, you don't get a performance boost using frame generation. It's a placebo performance increase. Bigger frame rates without the benefits of bigger frame rates.
You get a Smoothness boost. Not a performance boost.
Our metric for measuring performance is FPS, FG increases FPS - Therefore, by definition, you get a performance boost no matter what some tech tuber born yesterday may believe. That performance boost makes FPS feel smoother as you're getting...More FPS.
This is literally a scarecrow argument while taking things to the extreme. Naturally a 15fps base isn't going to scale well to 60fps using FG, everyone knows that - if this is the best argument you can muster, it's an epic fail.
Which is more of a crap game problem than specifically a FG problem. Basically, you can't polish a turd.
We gain a sense of smoothness as a result of more fps (naturally, assuming the base fps is adequate). More fps = more performance, therefore we gain performance and even overcome CPU bottlenecks as a result of FG - Ignoring tech tubers born yesterday looking for clicks using rage bait, once you use the technology it's actually quite impressive and improving all the time.
Yes, and we all know it's BS, therefore scarecrow is scarecrow to the extreme.
Nvidia would be thrilled if that were true—yes, with ReBAR, they bypass some CPU calculations.
Which is, as stated, a crap game problem and in no way a FG problem. Once again, as stated, you can't polish a turd, and no one here is arguing the game isn't a turd. At the end of the day, ever increasing vram requirements are also being used as a crutch by shitty devs to make up for optimization, meaning hardware is just becoming more and more expensive as a result of developer marketing decisions and outright laziness.
And when used correctly on a game capable of the required minimum fps including FG overheads, FG increases 'real world' performance. Once again, you're attempting to spin the problem as a FG problem, when it's blatantly obvious the problem is a shitty game problem.
I think that fact's so well known within the tech community it's hardly worth mentioning. Once again, your example is a shitty game problem, not a FG problem. When used correctly on a game capable of the required minimum fps including FG overheads, FG is a very effective performance booster, especially where CPU bottlenecks are a problem, especially considering high refresh rate monitors.
You're talking about a shitty game, I'm talking about FG. We all know 15fps can't scale to 60fps using FG, it's not even a point worth mentioning - but the issue highlighted in the Lego game isn't an inherent FG problem, this is a shitty game problem. You appear to be hellbent trying to spin the issue as a FG problem when it's obvious to anyone with half a clue it's not a FG problem at all.
I ran 2 x 6800GT's in SLI, 2 x GTX 275's in SLI, 2 x GTX 570's in SLI and 2 x GTX 670FTW's in SLI - They all performed great in the day. Most people trying to claim SLI was ineffective are usually so young there was literally no way they used the tech first hand in the day, so they quote inaccuracies and misconceptions while claiming them to be the truth because it's what they want to believe - Really no different to DLSS and FG today, this thread is evidence that certain members are making the same claims based on second hand misinformation and rage bait tech tube video's intended solely to rack up clicks - they haven't used DLSS or FG at all, making their opinion largely moot.
I'm not sure how accurate the AI's response is, but:
Essentially, we're not talking about 15 > 60 FPS due to poorly optimized games and extreme CPU bottlenecks here. We're talking about 60 FPS > 120 FPS to match the refresh rate of one's monitor.
I'm talking about artifacts (glitches in the game) that appear, not about how many FPS will be generated.
What was unclear? It's visually preferable for some people or solving another issue like VRR flicker. Padding frames to the monitor isn't making the program run any faster unless I've missed something?
Except, this is exactly what the Lego game wants you to do.
Firstly, I do have Nvidia cards. They're just not used in my main rig. Also, they're not RTX cards. The fact you keep mentioning this as an excuse to ignore my claims is amazing honestly. Not just my claims but what Hardware Unboxed is claiming. Second, this doesn't change the fact that ANY frame generation technology is going to increase input lag and create blurry images with artifacts. Doesn't matter if you're using AMD's, Intel's, or any other version of Frame Generation. You can argue that Nvidia has the best implementation, but it's still a flawed technology. You are making sacrifices for using it. KazeoHin words it best, it's a Smoothness boost.
Calling yourself "gamers" is a stretch. Go ahead and use fake frames and gain that input lag while I use real frames and gain the upper hand with lower input lag. Remember, low input lag is king when it comes to gaming.
Go ahead, but don't expect gamers to enable this to gain a stable 30 or even 60 fps, like in that Lego game.
See this is the problem with tech tubers and clickbait video's. The artifacts are exaggerated on a still frame captures like the one in your example, with comments like "yikes" and "does this matter?" to generate clicks. Actually playing the game and viewing more than a single frozen frame (or frame and a bit), such artifacting is rarely visible. I use FG where needed and I certainly don't experience such artifacting in the case base fps is adequate considering FG overheads.
I didn't state it was unclear, I stated it was nonsense.
And that's a dev/game problem, not a FG problem.
So you cannot use native FG, therefore you're really in no position to comment on it's effectiveness. Posting click bait video's apparently highlighting a problem via still frames or less than ideal situations (like when base fps is too low for FG to be used effectively) doesn't change the fact you've never used NV FG. Based on your own admission that you actually don't have an Nvidia GPU capable of FG, any claims from this point forward that you've used the tech firsthand are going to be met with extreme scepticism.
Except in cases where base fps is adequate considering FG overheads, you're really sacrificing nothing. "Smoothness" is obtained by boosting real world fps, it's that simple. Therefore, FG is an FPS booster.
Personally I'd say the stretch is having such a forceful opinion on a technology you've never used based on second hand clickbait opinion pieces. As stated, if you want PB RT with all the eye candy turned up to max at an fps that matches high refresh rate monitors, you're gonna be using either DLSS, FG, or Ray Reconstruction - likely you'll be using all at once. In relation to input lag, the one video you posted supposedly highlighting this massive problem was downright questionable and an outright joke - The fact is, using FG 2x and Nvidia Reflex, it's been shown that latency barely changes compared to the supposed pure render path the tech tribe expect.
No one in this thread has made such a claim.
Not going to bother refuting it then?
I already have.
I think I've essentially covered all arguments against NV FG as a technology, especially as someone that actually makes use of it where needed. If you don't like it, don't use it and try to stick with rasterization under the belief it's pure, even though titles are starting to be released that only support Ray Tracing. At this point I'm gonna nope out as people are just rehashing the same tired old arguments with evidence based on tech tubers baiting for clicks.
Pointing out YouTubers does not change the information.
Artifacts and input lag not something you see does not mean it's not there. Also, when did we ignore image quality? Whatever happened to scrutinizing companies who screwed with the image quality of games, like with ATI's Quake 3 Quack situation?
This maybe the future of frame generation technology, as a method for developers to reach frame rate goals without having to do any actual optimization. You see it as a way to reach 240Hz, while developers see it as a cost effective way to reach 30 and 60 fps.
If you don't own the hardware then you can't have an opinion, is a pretty stupid statement. What about Hardware Unbox's opinion on the matter? Do we just ignore his claims because he's a YouTuber?
Give it time, you will. If you ever played competitively online, then you won't be using something like frame generation. This is why I've said for nearly two decades that something like cloud gaming will never work, because of the latency and decreased image quality. Frame generation technology does the same thing, but instead pushes frame rates to the hundreds. Keep in mind I'm not just criticizing DLSS 4.5 Frame Generation, but AMD's, Intel's and even the Lossless Scaling you can buy for $7.
I'll take it a step further...Tech tubers looking for clicks are the problem. Although that could be YouTube themselves monetizing such content...Or Google....Or Alphabet.
Yep.
If this is just a problem in our minds, then why is it visible in the screenshots too?
Firstly, I never stated the issue was in our minds. Secondly, once again, the OFA and Tensor cores aren't pushed frames from the CPU in relation to FG, all additional frames are generated by the OFA and Tensor cores on the GPU itself.
Yes, I had similar issues with the 9800x3D + 5090 simply because I was using a very old Windows configuration—it’s always better to reinstall the system for new hardware, especially with this stupid Windows 11 (it just keeps the old configuration).
I play marvel Rivals with FG 2x enabled and I finish at or near the top of the ladder with Nvidia Reflex enabled because my latency is lucky to exceed 10ms according to MangoHud. What ever minuscule latency FG adds, Nvidia Reflex effectively takes away. In many cases latency running FG + Reflex enabled can be as good as latency running with FG + Reflex disabled assuming adequate base fps considering FG overheads.
Yeah, cables FTW!
Yes, lets add more input lag. That'll show those kiddies.
Problem is I've seen Doom Dark Ages get much lower frame latency than mid 20's, like in the teens. Pretty sure I've linked videos on this in previous posts here. With Doom, when you turn up the Ray-Tracing then the frame latency is going to be high regardless of what you do. Compared to Doom Eternal where you could have frame latency as low as 3.5ms.
Elden Ring needs this. People with high network latency needs to be banned.
The graph clearly shows that with DLSS set to Quality and with FG 2x enabled, latency is 25ms at 193 fps - Which is 1ms higher than native.
| Real FPS | Fake Frames Added | Perceived FPS |
|---|---|---|
| 30 FPS | 1 fake frame | 60 FPS |
| 40 FPS | 1 fake frame | 80 FPS |
| 60 FPS | 0 fake frames | 60 FPS |
| Aspect | Real Frames | Fake Frames |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Rendered by the GPU | Generated by software/hardware |
| Motion Accuracy | 100% accurate | May introduce artifacts or “soap opera effect” |
| Input Lag | None | Can increase input lag |
| GPU Load | High (real rendering) | None (generated by dedicated hardware) |
| Perceived Smoothness | Smooth | Smoother (but not always better) |
Smoother Motion: Reduces stuttering and makes gameplay feel more fluid. Higher Perceived FPS: Improves the gaming experience without requiring more GPU power. Better for High Refresh Rate Monitors: Useful for 120Hz+ displays where real FPS might not reach the monitor’s limit.
Artifacts: Can introduce visual glitches, ghosting, or the “soap opera effect” (unnaturally smooth motion). Input Lag: Adding fake frames can increase latency, which is bad for competitive gaming. Not True Performance: Doesn’t actually improve the game’s real performance (e.g., physics, AI, or loading times). Hardware Dependency: Requires specific hardware (e.g., NVIDIA RTX 40-series for DLSS 3, AMD RX 7000 for FSR 3).| Use Case | Recommended? | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| Single-player games | Yes | Smoother visuals improve immersion. |
| Competitive gaming | No | Input lag can hurt performance. |
| High refresh rate (120Hz+) | Yes | Helps reach the monitor’s refresh rate even if real FPS is lower. |
| Low-end hardware | Yes | Boosts perceived performance without overloading the GPU. |
| Cinematic experience |  Maybe | Can make games look too smooth (like a soap opera). |
| Technology | Developer | How It Works | Hardware Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| DLSS 3 (Frame Generation) | NVIDIA | AI-generated fake frames + DLSS upscaling | NVIDIA RTX 40-series GPUs |
| FSR 3 (Frame Generation) | AMD | Spatial upscaling + frame interpolation | AMD RX 7000, RX 6000 (with update) |
| Intel XeSS Frame Generation | Intel | AI upscaling + frame interpolation | Intel Arc GPUs |
| NVIDIA Reflex + DLSS | NVIDIA | Low-latency rendering + upscaling | NVIDIA RTX GPUs |
| AMD Fluid Motion Frames | AMD | Frame interpolation (no upscaling) | AMD RX 7000 GPUs |
| TV Motion Interpolation | TV Manufacturers | Frame interpolation for movies/TV shows | Modern TVs |