More DLSS...

[Chief Blur Buster]

So multiframe gen kind of sucks unless you have a good base framerate.

Depends. Not always wasted. If you have an OLED and use Transformer, then the benefits:drawbacks ratios may flip, if you get more motion sick from motion blur problems or motion sick from low frame rates. 30fps upconverted to 120fps with a little help of Reflex2 lagless mouse look, can be a reasonable compromise for path traced solo games.

Depends on game and situation. Has pros/cons, it's not a strong preference threshold.

I am an advocate of high base framegen rates such as 100fps.

And using 10:1 framegen to get 4K 1000fps path traced sample and hold.

That is 90% display motion blur reduction without flicker-based technologies.

Combinations can be done (Yep, XoR_ it's a good idea -- I want people to do it with the CRT sim, it's not in LSS yet sadly). This is a great balanced compromise people who are okay with BFI, such as using framegen to get framerate=stroberate on their display, since Cyberpunk 2077 has a hard time reaching the min Hz strobe rate of their display.

So that's valid too. But some want a pure framerate-based blur reduction.

Sadly, framegen is too frequently being used as a band aid by game companies with a 30fps base rate.

Cyberpunk 2077 + OLED is, for better or for worse, now the new reference reviewers should benchmark framegen versus on.

 

[XoR_]

Is DLSS 4 Multi Frame Generation Worth It?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_fGlVqKs1k

OMG, look at around 9:34 how MFG algorithm at 4x didn't move part of the road surface because frame to frame in the original image the pattern on the road moved in such a way to be in the exactly the same place visually.
This is exactly the nonsense I immediately noticed with normal FG on 4090 - anything with a repeating pattern is subject to this kinds of effects - be it no frame to frame movement or even when pattern moves in other direction FG will interpolate movement in other direction making it very confusing visually.

Also at ~7:53 the amount of artifacts around character's head is way too much. Not to mention at disoccluded places there is way too much flickering/artifacts e.g. ~7:55.

And I still don't know what they improved between FG on 40 series.
It maybe is better than it was before - can always check with older DLLs if there is any improvement.
Either way I don't see much point to this technology except to max out frame rate to avoid VRR flicker. If I would need to e.g. use 60Hz v-synced because game has terrible frame pacing then I might just as well use 120Hz. Other than that I don't really like how FG feels or how it looks.

 

[polonyc2]

I heard that you need a 240 Hz or higher monitor to really take advantage of the new Multi Frame Generation feature

 

[MistaSparkul]

I heard that you need a 240 Hz or higher monitor to really take advantage of the new Multi Frame Generation feature

Correct. You need a pre FG frame rate of at least 60 which then gets multiplied by 4 to give you 240fps. Running FG with a starting point of less than 60 is going to feel awful because you now have extra latency on top of the sub 60fps input latency which already sucks so using MFG to do something like 30fps to 120fps is going to feel like dog water. If you have a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor then you have no need for MFG at all because the 2x mode provided by the 40 series is enough to boost you to 120/144fps with a pre FG frame rate of 60 or 77.

 

[rhcliff]

OMG, look at around 9:34 how MFG algorithm at 4x didn't move part of the road surface because frame to frame in the original image the pattern on the road moved in such a way to be in the exactly the same place visually.
This is exactly the nonsense I immediately noticed with normal FG on 4090 - anything with a repeating pattern is subject to this kinds of effects - be it no frame to frame movement or even when pattern moves in other direction FG will interpolate movement in other direction making it very confusing visually.

That's funny because I can't tell what you're talking about even after looking at it three times. Guess whether to use FG or not also depends on how good your eyes are at catching the FG artifacts.

 

[rhcliff]

Correct. You need a pre FG frame rate of at least 60 which then gets multiplied by 4 to give you 240fps. Running FG with a starting point of less than 60 is going to feel awful because you now have extra latency on top of the sub 60fps input latency which already sucks so using MFG to do something like 30fps to 120fps is going to feel like dog water. If you have a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor then you have no need for MFG at all because the 2x mode provided by the 40 series is enough to boost you to 120/144fps with a pre FG frame rate of 60 or 77.

The thing is that FG doesn't always boost to 2X base framerate. In Alan Wake 2 at 4k with a 4090, without frame gen, it's right around 60 fps in the forest. With FG on, it's about 100fps. The added latency is about 10 ms. AW2 is pretty sluggy in latency even without FG. It's around 40-50 ms in some areas, even without FG>

 

[XoR_]

That's funny because I can't tell what you're talking about even after looking at it three times. Guess whether to use FG or not also depends on how good your eyes are at catching the FG artifacts.

I watched video and immediately noticed that pattern on the road started moving along with the car. It is very noticeable.
Same as when I enabled FG myself I immediately noticed that moving horizontally FG algorithm would confuse vertical lines like electric poles on background of the sky. It happened single minutes after enabling the feature and such details are fairly often. Something pops up here or there - it does not resemble playing at frame rate shown by fps counter.

In fact to me it just removes cool cinematic effect that lower frame rate creates.
Heck, I would say it would make more sense to use this multi-frame gen tech to add very high quality motion blur.
I mean make it subtle and make game look like it was shot on real film. In this case any artifacts would be much less visible and game would appear smoother but in different way.

Then again cool cinematic looking motion blur effect would not get Nvidia to claim 5070 has 4090 performance or other nonsense like that.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

OMG, look at around 9:34 how MFG algorithm at 4x didn't move part of the road surface because frame to frame in the original image the pattern on the road moved in such a way to be in the exactly the same place visually.
This is exactly the nonsense I immediately noticed with normal FG on 4090 - anything with a repeating pattern is subject to this kinds of effects - be it no frame to frame movement or even when pattern moves in other direction FG will interpolate movement in other direction making it very confusing visually.

That's why I am an ardent big time advocate of base frame rates above flicker fusion threshold, for this type of artifact.

There's much less time for deviations + the oscillation between rendered and estimated frames oscillate to simply extra persistence blur (ghosting effect when warping vibrates too fast to see like a fast vibrating guitar string) = extra ghosting.

Given larger base rates (100fps, or a number well above flicker fusion), the artifacts visibility fall like a cliff.

And people say there's now less ghosting with the Transformer model + large ratios + high base framerate. Makes sense.

In many cases on the 5090+transformer I noticed there is now still less blur / distractions (stroboscopics) than non-framegen. On OLED the pros:con ratio shifted by a giant amount towards the pro side -- it is a fast moving target.

- The bigger blur busting of large ratios
- The reduced blur worsening of better upscaling (spatial)
- The reduced blur worsening of better framegen (less distorts)

This results in a larger blur busting upgrade of better framegen.

Mew benchmarking methods of quality:artifacts ratios is sorely needed, that penalizes both framegen and nonframegen artifacts.

What is true however, is that the ratio has greatly improved with the Transformer model. We need to figure out a new scientific measurement method for this...

In ways, it is a Pandora Box that has been nuked open.

I wish it was a MIT open sourced box, tho. These algorithms are still very black box.

 

[MistaSparkul]

The thing is that FG doesn't always boost to 2X base framerate. In Alan Wake 2 at 4k with a 4090, without frame gen, it's right around 60 fps in the forest. With FG on, it's about 100fps. The added latency is about 10 ms. AW2 is pretty sluggy in latency even without FG. It's around 40-50 ms in some areas, even without FG>

That's because there is a performance cost to using FG. You are going from 60fps without FG down to 50fps in order to use FG and then it doubles from 50fps to 100fps. So again there is a performance penalty for turning on FG.

 

[XoR_]

60fps is already plenty smooth.
It maybe have sample&hold motion blur but I don't remember playing 60fps games on console and being like "there is motion blur" or "its not fluid".
It is something immediately noticeable but not when you actually play the game.
We have brain which can retrain itself in real-time and compensate for such things.

I don't know you guys but I ain't teaching my brain to compensate for BS caused by feature that lowers my effective frame rate and adds sheetload of artifacts and all it does is make games look smoother.
I can play smoother games that runs bazzilion fps without FG and from using 60fps if it comes to it no harm will happen to me. It is called "cinematic experience".

Nvidia claimed the tech works miracles.
I think it does not.

From new DLSS so far only SR and RR are good. And like really really good. Especially improvement on RR is from terrible to very good.
Maybe FG will in time get improved to the point of being usable. Imho it won't happen when it works by interpolating frames. That is BS approach.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

In fact to me it just removes cool cinematic effect that lower frame rate creates.

I use Hollywood Filmmaker Mode and 24fps for all my movies.

Remember I used to work in the Home Theater industry, having had past contracts involving classical high end home theater equipment RUNCO, Key Digital, and Faroudja.

I released the world's first open source 3:2 pulldown deinterlace algorithm in year 2000, for dTV/dScaler, Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

However, one size does not fit all. For immersive interaction, with our 45" ultrawides instead of 15" CRTs, we get motionsick with motion blur or flicker -- and better framegen can save the day like strobing is (for VR).

Everybody has different motion sickness sensitivities, including from motion blur.

For super-immersion, you don't want extra blur above and beyond real life, motion blur and/or flicker are known simulator sickness triggers other than vertigo. 60fps on sample and hold = 1/60sec shutter worth of motion blur during fast pans/scroll/turns/etc even with GPU blur turned off.

User choice FTW

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

Imho it won't happen when it works by interpolating frames. That is BS approach.

Disambiguation required.

What they call "interpolation" in 2025 is very different from 2010-era "interpolation".

I don't like Grandpa's Sony Motionflow TV interpolation but the Transformer model with framegen is about 0.1% of the artifacts of 2010-era TV interpolation.

More ground truth is fed into the engine, from the game engine, rather than a black box in the middle -- the interpolation now has to do far less faking than before.

Parallax infills is now done partially by AI, which is getting better and better, with what looks like 10x less ghosting than DLSS 3.5. It's not perfect but it finally made me turn on DLSS in more games when the benefits:drawbacks ratios justified. Far better than UglyTAA.

Definitely no good for esports (not anytime soon) but perfectly fine for me for CP2077, for a replay through. I have not yet played the new add on DLCs so this is a perfect time for me to replay with framerate based blur busting...

I will never use it for my retro gaming but I am enjoying it for OLED Cyberpunk 2077.

I do try to make my base pre-framegen framerate above ~60-80fps so I dial back settings... and suddenly the ghosting ceases to be problematic (for solo + for my personal preferences). Some settings make it blatant though, but at least it's much easier to make 90% of that disappear than DLSS 3.5.

User choice FTW, it's a pick poison trade off.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

Different humans are sensitive to different artifacts.
Whether by pickness, by preference, by biology, by training & skills, and/or by comfort.
And different lineitems are minor or major to others than you, etc.

• Tearing? Turn on VSYNC and tolerate lag.
• Minimum Lag? Use VSYNC OFF + ultrahigh framerate.
• Display Blur? Use strobing or extra framerate, unless bothered more by flicker than blur (woe is you if you get nausea from both)
• Stutters? Reduce detail and/or increase framegen and/or use VRR etc.
• Warping? Upgrade and tweak till it's no longer noticeable; or don't use old framegen.
• Other artifacts? Tweak/disalbe/enable till okay.
• Simply distracted from an artifact? Tweak to preference; sometimes framegen fixes certain artifacts better than other options (as long as you are more distracted by low framerate/stroboscopics/flicker/etc than your framegen engines' own artifacts).
• Eyestrain from flicker? Turn off strobing and use alternate.
• Motion sick? Tweak till your motion sickness triggers are fixed.
• Try CRT sim
• Try strobe.
• Try framegen.
• Etc, etc, etc.

Same old
Same old strawmen
Same old betterforyousplaining

Again...
Your personal ratio of "bothered by this:bothered by that" ratio changes with (asymmetric) improvements to "this technology" versus "that technology"

User choice FTW

(Except those ugh opaque proporietary algos + marketing sheningians multiple companies are doing. Sigh.)

 

[ZeroBarrier]

Wait, we got people from this forum trying to peep artifacts from a YouTube video? C'mon man, of course the YouTube video is going to be riddled with artifacts. This isn't reddit, we should have smarter people than that.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

Wait, we got people from this forum trying to peep artifacts from a YouTube video? C'mon man, of course the YouTube video is going to be riddled with artifacts. This isn't reddit, we should have smarter people than that.

Even if 90% less than DLSS 3.5, I also confirm this too, that DLSS 4 Transformer+framegen doesn't fully fix warping or ghosting but yeah the YouTubers are starting to zoom and slomo it to convert the thinner/smaller halos of ghosting (incrementally minor) into individual big frames of warping (show it worse than your eye). It's a "Try For Yourself" tech.

Too few are acknowledging the need for high pre-framegen base rates to make it a vastly reduced artifact.

It needs to be compared against the realtime ground truth of absence of frames (stutter, blackout flicker, low frame rate, reduced detail). And a specific human's tolerance to each -- not everybody is equal in display preferences.

The natural flicker of CRT is amazing in killing blur but remember it was a side effect of using an analog phosphor method of clearing the CRT tube face for a new refresh cycle, given the limited technology of the era.

So even greybeard engineers just thought CRT was natural when real life does not flicker.

Just because I released CRT simulator does not invalidate the per-person overall pros:cons ratio superiority (to some) of certain other approaches.

It's simply because I play all blur busting games, to give additional choice. Some compromises are obviously superior to some. And everybody's preference threshold of this:that compromises will change with asymmetric changes to this:that technology (tearing? stutter? flicker? blur? framegen artifact? lag? other artifact? etc).

It's far more nuanced than that, alas.

Worth repeating:

Your personal ratio of "bothered by this:bothered by that" ratio changes with (asymmetric) improvements to "this technology" versus "that technology"

So on that note, I'll bow out of the way, with all this new factual information provided, to give more space for y'all to debate.

Now that I have added fierce new fuel to the flaming Pandora Box Dumpster Fire

 

[MavericK]

Wait, we got people from this forum trying to peep artifacts from a YouTube video? C'mon man, of course the YouTube video is going to be riddled with artifacts. This isn't reddit, we should have smarter people than that.

View attachment 706378

The FG artifacts are obvious to me, even with YouTube compression. It's a completely different thing.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

I apologize for bumping one more time, but I need to add yet another famous Blur Busters referee call-out.

I watched video and immediately noticed that pattern on the road started moving along with the car. It is very noticeable.
Same as when I enabled FG myself I immediately noticed that moving horizontally FG algorithm would confuse vertical lines like electric poles on background of the sky. It happened single minutes after enabling the feature and such details are fairly often. Something pops up here or there - it does not resemble playing at frame rate shown by fps counter.

Is it apples vs apples though?

The youtubers are having to use bigger zoom ratios. Smaller/thinner the distortion halos during improved framegen -- can simply look like extra persistence-blur halos for pre-framegen framerates above flicker fusion threshold. At 80-100fps+ base pre-framegen framerates, the distortion halos vibrate so fast that it's typically extra persistence blur, like a slight blur halo (ghosting) around parallax situations (moving objects in front of backgrounds).

It's useful to highlight the cons of framegen, but it's also important to measure the relative magnitudes of artifacts (at same enlargement ratios) between older + newer framegen.

Basically try comparing 100fps DLSS 3.5 versus 300fps DLSS 4 (Basically push preve-gen GPU versus current-gen GPU as much as you can), played at the same video enlargement ratios & speeds, for a more apples-vs-apples artifacts comparison.

Ideally in multiple ways:
...Slo mo mode (to show how much surface area is being warped)
...Realtime mode (though YouTube's 60fps will be very limiting in showing the human-vision integrated individual 300fps frames, you can temporally integrate 300fps into 60fps via alphablending, for an improved approximation of human perceptuals)

What Youtubers are doing are useful, but it's important to understand the honest nuances.

Yesterday's people was trying to push RTX 4090 as much as they can, and today's consumers will push their RTX 5090 as much as they can -- we want to know the improvement ratios of a real-life situation.

It applies to video capture of all artifacts:
Things likes tearing is often more visible in youtubes than in real life, especially if you have a 240-480Hz display. Same thing, too.

Just because DLSS 4 still has the ghosting halos around foreground objects, doesn't mean it's as big as it was in DLSS 3.5. It's much thinner and much less distortion in DLSS 4 + transformer, than was for DLSS 3.5.

Framegen wasn't a good enough blur busting technology until recently when the pros:cons ratios started quite noticeably exceeding, in more and more situations. Not all of them to be sure, and not everyone likes it -- oh boy -- but the holy wars? It shouldn't be as political as red and blue, because it's true science. Hey, I'm a Canadian after all, but this is simply a motion perceptuals issue when everybody sees different -- with all the real honest stuff of varying level of sensitivities to every line item.

So if Youtubers have to zoom even further and slomo even further, to show the distortions as big as DLSS 3.5, then those bigger enlargement ratios and slomo ratios is not necessarily apples vs apple 3.5 vs 4+Transformer. Ohhhh, and the cherrypicked settings, like low-quality DLSS 4 framegen settings versus high-quality DLSS 3.5 framegen settings... Remember, users can... eh.... y'know... tweak settings. Gasp!

You may still hate it (or only for a few more generations), but everybody's threshold of this:that is a fast moving target with rapid improvements to OLED display Hz and framegen ratios and better models, etc, relative to the speed of improvements in strobe tech, and other techs. You choose, user choice. No problem. But it is helpful to understand the user choice aspect.

First, I'll say it out loud: DLSS 4 framegen isn't good enough for everything. 100% agree.

But that's not mutually exclusive to it being good enough for some kinds of content for some people, where framegen solves other bigger artifacts for them (as read above). I'm using vastly less weasel words here than some of the video editing, buddy. That said, most of the youtubers are doing superlative jobs and are still acknowledging that Transformer+framegen definitely is a big improvementt (with bigger superlative words said, if they were using an OLED -- notice the pattern).

Final fuel for today's Flaming Pandora Dumpster Box fire of the framegen cesspool. I'll bow out of the way now to give airspace for debate -- and avoid monopolizing this thread. I know I've made so many replies today.

/beams-up-to-ufo

 

[rhcliff]

That's because there is a performance cost to using FG. You are going from 60fps without FG down to 50fps in order to use FG and then it doubles from 50fps to 100fps. So again there is a performance penalty for turning on FG.

So is it better to have 60 "real" fpg? Or frame-gen 100 fps?

 

[MistaSparkul]

So is it better to have 60 "real" fpg? Or frame-gen 100 fps?

That's probably just going to come down to personal preference. For me it depends on the game but in most cases I'd rather take the 100fps with FG rather than 60fps "native".

 

[Flogger23m]

Is DLSS 4 Multi Frame Generation Worth It?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_fGlVqKs1k

Multi frame generation looks quite awful, and pointless. Of course I have not yet tried it but that video makes me think it will be almost useless. When you don't need it (have decently high FPS) it works better; when your FPS is low it has worse results. To me the downsides of frame gen are more apparent than DLSS up scaling Quality. Frame generation always has some tearing as seen in the video, which is more distracting to me than the occasional trailing and noise issues DLSS up scaling brings. Seems like the issue will worsen with 3x or 4x frame generation. Considering the high base frame rate required it seems almost pointless.

The bit of the video that mentions it will have higher latency than native, even if the frame rate is higher, is also problematic. It is one thing if it looks like 200 frame rates but plays like 80 frame rates, but seemingly it will look like 200 frame rates and play like 60 or so frame rates. That is... probably worse overall.

 

[elvn]

Point of clarification to some of my previous comments.


According to nvidia, their current DLSS+framegen does get some vector and depth information from the game engine. They use a mixture of game engine vectors, optical flow field, and the sequential game frames.

I was still under the impression that the game vectors themselves were solely inferred from comparing prior frames. That is apparently not the case, at least not in the latest versions, from the way nvidia's press is describing the game vectors facet.

Even if apparently so, that Catanzaro interview was discussing how they are hoping to integrate DLSS+FrameGen more with major game engines to improve accuracy.

. . . .

Nvidia is currently saying it does use some kind vector information from the game engine.

They use a mixture of

game engine vectors

optical flow field, and

the sequential game frames.

. . . .

According to nvidia's site:

"Whereas the Optical Flow Accelerator accurately tracks pixel level effects such as reflections, DLSS 3 also uses game engine motion vectors to precisely track the movement of geometry in the scene. In the example below, game motion vectors accurately track the movement of the road moving past the motorcyclist, but not their shadow. Generating frames using engine motion vectors alone would result in visual anomalies like stuttering on the shadow."

"For each pixel, the DLSS Frame Generation AI network decides how to use information from the game motion vectors, the optical flow field, and the sequential gameframes to create intermediate frames. By using both engine motion vectors and optical flow to track motion, the DLSS Frame Generation network is able to accurately reconstruct both geometry and effects, as seen in the picture below."

 

[rhcliff]

Multi frame generation looks quite awful, and pointless. Of course I have not yet tried it but that video makes me think it will be almost useless. When you don't need it (have decently high FPS) it works better; when your FPS is low it has worse results. To me the downsides of frame gen are more apparent than DLSS up scaling Quality. Frame generation always has some tearing as seen in the video, which is more distracting to me than the occasional trailing and noise issues DLSS up scaling brings. Seems like the issue will worsen with 3x or 4x frame generation. Considering the high base frame rate required it seems almost pointless.

The bit of the video that mentions it will have higher latency than native, even if the frame rate is higher, is also problematic. It is one thing if it looks like 200 frame rates but plays like 80 frame rates, but seemingly it will look like 200 frame rates and play like 60 or so frame rates. That is... probably worse overall.

But looking like 240, while playing like 60, is a plus in some scenarios. For example, Street Fighter 6 is locked at 60 fps. I messed around with 4X FG in Lossless Scaling and surprisingly the game looked so much better while not playing any worse. Like, I didn't feel my input was any worse than before. But I'm also not an advanced player so maybe I'm just not good enough to make a difference.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7Zc3CS4vg

This clip is interesting. The guy being tested isn't fond of frame generation and claimed that he could always tell when it's on. But surprisingly, he was wrong on FG being activated a few times. He also ended up admitting that frame gen actually made the game look and play better in certain scenarios.

 

[KickAssCop]

I am pretty sure I can spot DLSS and FG artifacts but do I care for them vs the fps gain is the real question. In stalker 2 I turned off all DLSS because everything was causing artifacts. But in BO6 it is a very subtle difference. So it really does depend game to game. Same for FG it depends on the game. Some work really well while others don’t.

At the end of the day the 30% raster is meaningful for me and that is why I will get the card whenever it’s possible. FG will be icing on the cake.

 

[elvn]

Multi frame generation looks quite awful, and pointless. Of course I have not yet tried it but that video makes me think it will be almost useless. When you don't need it (have decently high FPS) it works better; when your FPS is low it has worse results. To me the downsides of frame gen are more apparent than DLSS up scaling Quality. Frame generation always has some tearing as seen in the video, which is more distracting to me than the occasional trailing and noise issues DLSS up scaling brings. Seems like the issue will worsen with 3x or 4x frame generation. Considering the high base frame rate required it seems almost pointless.

The bit of the video that mentions it will have higher latency than native, even if the frame rate is higher, is also problematic. It is one thing if it looks like 200 frame rates but plays like 80 frame rates, but seemingly it will look like 200 frame rates and play like 60 or so frame rates. That is... probably worse overall.

I think, like people were saying, frame gen will eventually get us to 480fpsHZ on future 480Hz OLED monitors, and even higher in the long run, especially when at 100fps+ native.

I don't think it will be worthless to breach a native fps threshold and then potentially get up to 4x the frame rate, especially when we get 4k OLED monitors that fast, at least in my opinion. It's not impossible to achieve 100fps+ average native at 4k in different games depending on the game and settings, and 5000 series gpus and then 6000 series gpus power wise will be available in the next few years too.

People trying to amplify low frame rates in the current tech might be disappointed because of the input lag , and maybe to a degree because %accuracy of it is from operating on frames and entity positions that have changed more over larger time gap. So to some, it may seem worthless to amplify a weak rate beneath a certain native fps threshold. I don't feel like that makes frame gen itself worthless. It may end up like (in the days before dllss+frame gen specifically for purposes of this example) - having a 120hz or 240hz screen, yet not being able to get more than 60fps in VRR. You have the potential to get a lot more out of that (screen) technology with a much better picture-in-motion delivered if you had more performance from your game+settings to pair with the tech, despite how things like that may be marketed.

Very high Hz OLED screens will eventually come out where using frame gen won't be like comparing to already getting 100fps on a 120hz monitor, for example. Frame gen will get more accurate as it advances as well though, and they are definitely trying to figure out ways to reduce input lag (especially at lower native fps).




. . . .

It is one thing if it looks like 200 frame rates but plays like 80 frame rates, but seemingly it will look like 200 frame rates and play like 60 or so frame rates

Maybe, if what you are saying is true, frame gen could be operating on the bottom of your frame rate average's graph, (for a more consistent foundation?), perhaps cutting off the top and then multiplying that base.


. . .

120fps average native graph might be something like

100fps << 120ps >> 140fps plus or minus depending on the game

that would have input lag along the lines of the frames in ms

10ms <<< 8.3ms >>> 7.1ms

. . .

100fps average native graph might be something like

80fps << 100fps >> 120fps plus or minus depending on the game

that would have input lag along the lines of the frames in ms

12.5ms <<< 10 ms >>> 8.3ms

....
....

80fps average native might be something like

60fps << 80fps >> 100fps plus or minus depending on the game

that would have input lag along the lines of the frames in ms

16.6ms <<< 12.5 ms >>> 10ms

. . .

60fps average native


40fps << 60 fps >> 80fps plus or minus depending on the game

that would have input lag along the lines of the frames in ms

25ms <<< 16.6 ms >>> 12.5 ms


. . .

 

[KickAssCop]

Very good review type video to show the latency reduction compared to native when using MFG


View: https://youtu.be/O6t5t8E4DMs?si=2xBXWLqc6gRqmoez

 

[kalston]

Latency reduction? You mean the improved base framerate from DLSS upscaling... But without MFG it would be even lower latency.

 

[LukeTbk]

Very good review type video to show the latency reduction compared to native when using MFG

Outside some yet to be available to test Reflex2 type tech, I really doubt it is a good review type if that its conclusion...

Quick look, that seem to show latency reduction using DLSS...

 

[LukeTbk]

People trying to amplify low frame rates in the current tech might be disappointed because of the input lag

Here there can be also a lot of talking over each other head about this.

When LTT did a blind testing when DLSS 3 started, the scenario were people thought frame generation subjectively added the most to have it on was the 35->60 fps one, sentence like higher native frame is better is trivial, sentence like 60 fps when DLSS FG is still terrible latency has well, but all those people would not accept playing at 30issh native either.

 

[rhcliff]

I am pretty sure I can spot DLSS and FG artifacts but do I care for them vs the fps gain is the real question. In stalker 2 I turned off all DLSS because everything was causing artifacts. But in BO6 it is a very subtle difference. So it really does depend game to game. Same for FG it depends on the game. Some work really well while others don’t.

At the end of the day the 30% raster is meaningful for me and that is why I will get the card whenever it’s possible. FG will be icing on the cake.

Like Chief Blur Buster said, it's all about prioritizing what matters to you most and choosing what to compromise. If you want the best motion clarity, then it's not going to be the best picture quality, at least right now. Even in 5 years, I doubt that there will be a GPU that can run maxed out Alan Wake 2, Cyberpunk at 4K240 without any upscaling or frame generation.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Even in 5 years, I doubt that there will be a GPU that can run maxed out Alan Wake 2, Cyberpunk at 4K240 without any upscaling or frame generation.

And that is what some people do not seem to realize. If you want to enjoy those games at high frame rates today, then upscaling + FG is simply the only way to do so. If you want to play those games at high frame rates through sheer brute force of pure CUDA cores alone then it it's going to take a very long time, so long that those games would probably even become mostly irrelevant by then. I'm personally glad that we at least have an OPTION to play path traced games today and even if it's not perfect, the AI solution does work for many. If AI doesn't work for you then hey you get to save a ton of money by skipping a few generations until you can brute force path traced games at high frame rates 3-4 gens from now. But for those of us who AI does work out for then we can enjoy those games today, of course if we do enjoy FG then for some reason we get labeled as copers .

 

[polonyc2]

is frame generation even really a necessary feature?...couldn't Nvidia just continue to build on DLSS without adding FG?...DLSS is great but the more you add these 'new' features on top of it, the worse the image becomes and the more flaws are noticeable

 

[ZeroBarrier]

is frame generation even really a necessary feature?...couldn't Nvidia just continue to build on DLSS without adding FG?...DLSS is great but the more you add these 'new' features on top of it the worse the image becomes and the more flaws are noticeable

And be left with whatever AMD is offering this generation?

I say, let them cook. People tried to tear down DLSS at first, and look how far it has come in a relatively short time. This will be no different. A couple of versions down the line this tech will be likely be the way forward.

 

[TheHig]

Well maybe FG isn't the only way to push things forward but raster seems to be getting pretty hard to keep improving upon right now. So they are doing other things to push forward. Also Nvidia tends go go in proprietary directions that only work on Nvidia hardware so with that in mind why push only DLSS as competitors start catching up in upscaling when you can introduce an entirely different way of doing it that somehow works best on your cards? Then you get in bed with all the Devs and get games that work best with your features. Its the Apple play. Also these cards are so compute heavy for other stuff besides gaming these features use the rest of the GPU that otherwise is doing boo for gaming. Just spit balling here.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

Multi frame generation looks quite awful, and pointless. Of course I have not yet tried it but that video makes me think it will be almost useless.

Just a reminder that we're looking for alternative ways of framerate-based motion blur reduction.
I'd like more ideas of non-framegen based methods of motion blur reduction!

Assuming GtG is as close to 0 as possible (e.g. OLED)
4x framerate = 75% motion blur reduction
10x framerate = 90% motion blur reduction

Strobing and BFI becomes unnecessary when you have enough framerate & refreshrate to reduce motion blur strobelessly (Ergonomic FlickerFree!). For many, it is quite amazing to witness strobeless blur reduction of enabling just a few toggles that suddenly increases framerates 4x-8x without needing to dial back Ultra settings. The problem is that framegen is one of the few methods of successful framerate-based motion blur reduction.

So the pickpoison ratio (vs dark non-HDR strobe modes) is really shifting in unexpected ways, in terms of bothered by "this:that" when "that" technology improves more dramatically than "this" technology... When the DLSS4 distortion halos are much thinner than DLSS3.5, some people are choosing a different artifact over others listed.

Depending on an individual human's sensitivity; In *certain* games DLSS4 ghosting halos are now less noticeable than tearing to some people, now that they're much thinner than for DLSS3.5 and some youtubers have to zoom more into them & slowmo them more. Or noticing stutters/blurs (of nonframegen) more than the artifacts (of framegen). Etc. Everybody notices different artifacts.

What is your opinion on some observations below:

The youtubers are having to use bigger zoom ratios. Smaller/thinner the distortion halos during improved framegen -- can simply look like extra persistence-blur halos for pre-framegen framerates above flicker fusion threshold. At 80-100fps+ base pre-framegen framerates, the distortion halos vibrate so fast that it's typically extra persistence blur, like a slight blur halo (ghosting) around parallax situations (moving objects in front of backgrounds).

Even some people in reddit /r/FuckTAA is complimenting DLSS4

To acknowledge that I don't want NVIDIA to be the only one having all the fun -- I would like to see XeSS and FSR optional versions of multi-frame framegen become available too.

And I want non-framegen high-framerate pathtracing methods to become available too if possible.

</flaming-pandora-dumpster-fire>

 

[elvn]

. . . . . . . .

Trying to educate myself a little on modern DLSS+FG development, in an overview that is, from what documentation I could find on it so I can get a better idea on what it's doing.


I'm glad to see how much the game engines are reporting information to DLSS+FrameGen. There is definitely game engine vector and depth data being hooked in the game engines. I'm not certain but it may be that the game engine vector informtion is being recorded into the buffered frame for a more detailed template to predict from, rather than live vector data pathing so to speak.. Either way it's a 2 native frame dynamic so may be irrelevant to the %accuracy whether the cart is put before or after the horse.. I think it's also tracking movement trends too like the optical flow field tracking pixel changes, plus the sequential frames being compared by inference too.


. .

Nvidia's pages said they use

...game engine vectors

..optical flow field, and

..the sequential game frames.


Their dev guides say

.. "DLSS requires depth, motion vectors, render-res input color and final-res output color buffers."
.. "pass in the appropriate constants, camera matrices, and input resources in your post-processing pipeline".
.. "tagged buffers are used during the Swapchain:: Present call."


["Swap chains are an integral part of how you get rendering data output to a screen. They usually consist of some group of output-ready buffers, each of which can be rendered to one at a time in rotation. In parallel with rendering to one of a swap chain’s buffers, some other buffer in the swap chain is generally read from for display output."]




. . .

https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-game-dev-dlss/how-to-successfully

If you’re looking to do an integration within your own custom engine, Streamline 2.1 greatly simplifies the manual API hooking for all necessary components needed for DLSS 3. Streamline is an open-source cross-IHV framework that simplifies the integration of features like DLSS 3.


Instead of manually integrating the DLSS Frame Generation libraries, you identify which resources (motion vectors, depth, and so on) are required for the desired plug-in and then trigger when to execute the plug-ins in the rendering pipeline. Here are the necessary steps to ensure that your integrations take full advantage of DLSS 3:

1. Integrate the Streamline 2.1 SDK: To add Streamline to your application, follow the Streamline Manual Hooking guide. Integrate without any features and focus on tasks such as manual hooking and resource state tracking.
2. Perform a security check: Verify the NVIDIA and Streamline dual signatures on sl.itnerposer.dll before loading the DLL. Follow the verification process within the Security section of the programming guide.
3. Check for system support: The DLSS 3 components (Super Resolution, Frame Generation, and NVIDIA Reflex) all have varied system requirements. Check for hardware and software system support and show appropriate error messages based on reported support.
4. Integrate DLSS Super Resolution through Streamline: Pass in the necessary input resources and set up the upscaling pipeline. Follow these integration steps before all other post-processing.
5. Evaluate integration: Validate and confirm image quality and performance benefits from DLSS Super Resolution.
6. Integrate NVIDIA Reflex through Streamline: Add Reflex and its sub-features to the rendering pipeline. Make sure to place Reflex markers in the appropriate location or where your application should sleep.
7. Confirm system latency reduction: There are three primary ways to check that input latency was reduced:
   
   • NVIDIA FrameView SDK
   • GeForce Experience in-game overlay
   • The Reflex latency analyzer
8. Integrate DLSS Frame Generation through Streamline: Follow these integration steps and pass in the appropriate constants, camera matrices, and input resources in your post-processing pipeline. Pass in all the input resources marked for DLSS Super Resolution (for example, hudless and UIColor Color with Alpha). Disable DLSS Frame Generation when appropriate, such as when in-menu or for scene transitions.
9. Validate DLSS Frame Generation inputs: Use the sl.imgui plugin to validate inputs (camera matrices, depth, MVEC, color, and so on). We recommend using ICAT to validate image quality and FrameView to validate latency. Lastly, buffer visualization using the development DLLs.
10. Swap to production DLLs: After image quality and performance benefits from DLSS Frame Generation are validated, replace the watermarked DLLs with non-watermarked, production-ready DLLs from NVIDIA.

For an integration checklist and the most asked questions for DLSS Super Resolution, Frame Generation, and NVIDIA Reflex, see Streamline Getting Started (registration required). To learn more about the new DLSS plugin in Unreal Engine 5, see the Unreal Engine page.


Game developers can find additional free resources to re-create fully path-traced and AI-driven virtual worlds on the NVIDIA Game Development page.

. . . . . .

4.0 TAG ALL REQUIRED RESOURCES​

DLSS requires depth, motion vectors, render-res input color and final-res output color buffers.

// IMPORTANT: Make sure to mark resources which can be deleted or reused for other purposes within a frame as volatile

// Prepare resources (assuming d3d11/d3d12 integration so leaving Vulkan view and device memory as null pointers)
sl::Resource colorIn = {sl::ResourceType::Tex2d, myTAAUInput, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};
sl::Resource colorOut = {sl::ResourceType::Tex2d, myTAAUOutput, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};
sl::Resource depth = {sl::ResourceType::Tex2d, myDepthBuffer, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};
sl::Resource mvec = {sl::ResourceType::Tex2d, myMotionVectorsBuffer, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};
sl::Resource exposure = {sl::ResourceType::Tex2d, myExposureBuffer, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr};

sl::ResourceTag colorInTag = sl::ResourceTag {&colorIn, sl::kBufferTypeScalingInputColor, sl::ResourceLifecycle::eOnlyValidNow, &myExtent };
sl::ResourceTag colorOutTag = sl::ResourceTag {&colorOut, sl::kBufferTypeScalingOutputColor, sl::ResourceLifecycle::eOnlyValidNow, &myExtent };
sl::ResourceTag depthTag = sl::ResourceTag {&depth, sl::kBufferTypeDepth, sl::ResourceLifecycle::eValidUntilPresent, &fullExtent };
sl::ResourceTag mvecTag = sl::ResourceTag {&mvec, sl::kBufferTypeMvec, sl::ResourceLifecycle::eOnlyValidNow, &fullExtent };
sl::ResourceTag exposureTag = sl::ResourceTag {&exposure, sl::kBufferTypeExposure, sl::ResourceLifecycle::eOnlyValidNow, &my1x1Extent};

// Tag in group
sl::Resource inputs[] = {colorInTag, colorOutTag, depthTag, mvecTag};
slSetTag(viewport, inputs, _countof(inputs), cmdList);

.

DLS-G, DLS-FG are framegen, DLSS-SR is super resolution/upscaling

5.0 TAG ALL REQUIRED RESOURCES​

Buffers to tag​

DLSS-G requires depth and motion vectors buffers.


If DLSS-G needs to run only on a subregion of the final color buffer, hereafter referred to as backbuffer subrect, then it is required to tag the backbuffer, only to pass in backbuffer subrect info while optionally passing in backbuffer resource pointer. Refer to Tagging Recommendations section below for details.


Additionally, for maximal image quality, it is critical to integrate UI Color and Alpha or Hudless buffers:

• UI Color and Alpha buffer provides significant image quality improvements on UI elements like name plates and on-screen hud. If your application/game has this available, we strongly recommend you integrate this buffer.
• If UI Color and Alpha is not available, Hudless integration can also significantly improve image quality on UI elements.
• Extent resolution or resource size, whichever is in use, for Hudless and UI Color and Alpha buffers should exactly match that of backbuffer.

.

Depth:

- Same depth data used to generate motion vector data
- sl::Constants depth-related data (e.g. depthInverted) should be set accordingly
- Note: this is the same set of requirements as DLSS-SR, and the same depth can be used for both

.

Motion Vectors:

- Dense motion vector field (i.e. includes camera motion, and motion of dynamic objects)
- Note: this is the same set of requirements as DLSS-SR, and the same motion vectors can be used for both

.

IMPORTANT
Please note that DLSS-G will always present real frame generated by the host but the interpolated frame can be dropped if presents go out of sync (interpolated frame is too close to the last real one). In addition, if the host is CPU bottlenecked it is possible for the reported FPS to be more than 2x when DLSS-G is on because the call to Swapchain: Present is no longer a blocking call for the host and can be up to 1ms faster which then translates to faster base frame times. Here is an example:

• Host is CPU bound and producing frames every 10ms
• Up to 1ms is spent blocked by the Swapchain: Present call
• SL present hook will take around 0.2ms instead since Swapchain: Present is now an async event handled by the SL pacer
• Host is now delivering frames at 10ms - 0.8ms = 9.2ms
• This results in 109fps getting bumped to 218fps when DLSS-G is active so 2.18x scaling instead of the expected 2x

. . .

 

[XoR_]

I don't think it will be worthless to breach a native fps threshold and then potentially get up to 4x the frame rate, especially when we get 4k OLED monitors that fast, at least in my opinion.

FG is not worthless because it has its use cases and some people like it.
It just isn't something most people use or are excited about because it doesn't improve gameplay that much if at all.
Then it is hard to imagine MFG 4x will change this. Improvements to FG are there but not so massive as to change how the tech fundamentally works and to mitigate its major flaws.

If on your "5070 | 4090 performance" you get like 40fps on DLSS Performance you won't have all that good time using MFG 4x to get 120fps flat for your OLED screen.
I am sure however there will be this guy who will use such configuration and will claim he does not feel any issues with lag or artifacts

To me it is worthless because between increased lag and performance impact to raw frame rate I would need to be pushing even more than 120fps to boost to e.g. 360Hz (and even more for 4x mode for 480Hz monitor) to not be bothered by lag or artifacts and in this case what is the point?
I mean 100+fps to me is buttery smooth and even for games with wonky mouse handling* like Cyberpunk 2077. If I need even more fps to offset frame rate loss by using FG and even more to offset the need to display additional in-between frame before it displays real frame then we are talking 140-150fps...
...now what would I need FG for if my game already runs above 140fps?

*) CP2077 always felt strange at times. It is mostly okay at given frame rate but at times mouse feels off. Maybe it is just lower frame rate, higher GPU load or somehing, not sure. It does however improve with frame rate as I lower DLSS quality level - though in this case I get more and more CPU limited so...
Anyways there are games with better or rather more consistent lag and/or mouse handling which run fine even below 60fps. Again: CP2077 feels good/optimal most of the time and its only at times it feels like mouse is lagging so for the purpose of testing FG/MFG it is okay. Actually its even better because it kinda tests best and worst case scenarios all at once.

 

[rhcliff]

There is one side benefit of using frame-gen on OLED that people don't really talk about. And that's reducing VRR flicker.

On my 4K 240HZ OLED monitor, AW2 flickers quite a bit when the framerate is around 60fps. But when frame-gen bums it up to 100+ fps, the flickering is mostly gone. I think it's due to the monitor having poor LFC but keeping the FPS around 100fps stops the triggering of LFC. It's why I miss hardware G-Sync. On my previous OLED monitor with hardware G-Sync, the monitor was so smooth even when going below 40 fps.

 

[elvn]

what would I need FG for if my game already runs above 140fps?

You'd need it for 240fpsHz and eventually 480fpsHz.

It also could eventually eliminate the need for vrr which is a tech mostly used to navigate very starved frame rates in low graphs that shutter up and down like a seismograph or a noise sound graph. That because with multiple frame gen you could exceed the peak Hz of even a high Hz screen e.g 120x4 , even 100x10 eventually, and since you or perhaps the system itself could cap the fpsHz below your now very high framerate minimums, as far as your monitor was concerned your fpsHz would never vary. For example, 100<<120fps>>140fps x 4 cap at under 400fpHz, x5 to x10, cap under peak hz of display (e.g.480fpsHz) or under 1000fpsHz when we get over 100fps native FG x10 on oleds that fast.

OLED gamma as I understand it is set at 120hz or more, so when using erratic frame rates running on low band averages, and perhaps especially at low rates much farther from that native gamma set point, VRR flicker happens and is more noticeable. So like rhcliff just said, it may also eliminate OLED flicker caused by VRR as a side effect of running very high post FG frame rates in itself, as well as potentially eliminating the need for vrr when achieving very high fpsHz + caps.

Very high fpsHz on OLED provides huge reduction in blur - excellent motion clarity without suffering the downsides of BFI flicker fatigue, stoboscopic artifacts, and especially that BFI dims the screen which is bad for HDR. Very high fpsHz will also greatly increase the motion definition/articulation/pathing and animation states and cycles.

Sample and hold blur, aka image persistence, affects the entire game world when moving your FoV in 1st/3rd person games mouse-looking, movement-keying, controller panning.
Increasing the fpsHz (feeding a higher Hz monitor enough fps), reduces sample and hold blur considerably. (It is also limited by a screen's response time, and overdrive setting's performance if any.)
At 60fps, the viewport is smearing blur when moving the viewport around at speed.

Pursuit camera recordings give a good representation of how much sample and hold blur you'd see at different fpsHz rates.

This is a pursuit camera of a 60Hz screen at 60fps+ compared to higher fpsHz rates.
Remember that when moving a 1st/3rd person viewport around at speed, the entire game world full of high poly objects, high detail textures and depth via bump mapping, architectures and geography, fx, etc will be blurred, not just a cell shaded cartoon like ufo icon.

This is a pursuit camera image of a 480Hz OLED at 480fps, by Mark R of blurbusters.com.

Higher fpsHz also provide more motion pathing articulation and even increased animation state stepping, like an animation flip book filled with more unique animation states, with the book flipping faster.

While you may be "fine" with 60fps gameplay, there are a lot of us that demand and would enjoy way higher, 480fpsHz and even 1000fpsHz gameplay aesthetics. So personally I utterly disagree with that kind of take .. "60fps is fine for non competitive games", "we don't need 120hz monitors", "I don't need more than 144Hz", "why would I ever want more than 120fps", "I don't need more than 150nit brightness, hdr will sear my eyeballs out. No-one needs it", "No-one needs (1080p,1440p.. then 4k) gaming, your frame rates will be trashed".

I feel like there may be a paradigm shift in the next few gens of gpus and monitors, while many people at the moment are thinking what can this do for me right now on my current monitor in the current state of things, I get the feeling that, even if the price of a first class ticket for admission might end up be being above 100fps rather than trying to squeeze blood from a stone groveling in low frame rate sludge patched with VRR - that the lid is going to be blown off in the foreseeable future as I outlined above, and as frame gen tech continues to advance.

 

[XoR_]

elvn
There is too much waiting in FG the way it is currently done.
Instead Nvidia should make FG based on time warp and reprojection and forego real frames and generate all fake frames.
That said IMHO this is going to happen eventually and then I might use the tech.

Interpolating frames is imho totally unusable because no matter the frame rate it will always feel worse than native. Personally I don't care about smoothness that much because all it does is remove 'cinematic' effect.
If I get 5090 it won't be for MFG but raw performance.

 

[jobert]

I keep seeing this claim over and over saying that DLSS 4 can run at performance and look just as good as it did on DLSS 3 at quality. Maybe that's true in most of the games they are testing but I tried it in the Last of Us part 1 and even balanced looked like pure shit in movement. Like the area I was testing in I could actually see shimmering and a line being drawn anytime I used below quality DLSS 4. Going back up to quality completely cleared up that line that was being drawn in front of me walking and removed 90% of the shimmering.