• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Upscaling and Frame Generation Usage Poll

Do you use upscaling and/or Frame Generation when available?

  • No / Supersampling - I'll take 8K at sub-60 (crazy)

  • No / Native Resolution - Upscaling is the Devil!

  • Yes / Quality Upscaling - I'm a reasonable gamer

  • Yes / Balaced or lower Upscaling - I need all the frames I can get

  • No / No Frame Generation - Frame gen is the Devil!

  • Yes / Frame Generation as needed - I don't mind it at all

  • Yes / Frame Generation all the time - I love dem AI framez and extra time it takes to get them

Results are only viewable after voting.
T4rd

T4rd

Fully [H]
2FA
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
21,153
Just curious as to how many in this community use upscaling and/or frame generation routinely now that it's so ubiquitous and standard in games. We know Nvidia reported 80% DLSS adoption rate in January last year, but that could be very skewed in games where it is enabled by default and many users don't care to disable it.

Personally I default to DLSS quality everywhere it's available unless I'm already pushing 120+ FPS average at native res and max IQ settings. I generally find it to look as good as or better than native and any other AA method that isn't DLAA. And if I'm staying around or above 60 FPS maxed out with DLSS balanced or quality, I will also enable frame generation to get over 120 FPS at least or maybe near my 240Hz panel target with MFG if I can't perceive the extra latency (I generally can't if it's still under 50ms or so). This is at 1440p ultrawide with a 5080.

Of course this generally applies to newer and more demanding games like many UE5 titles. And I'm keeping this vender agnostic as well so it applies to everyone. I was tempted to add FG/MFG into the poll, but don't want to skew the metrics too much with that or enable
 
Native res/framerate if I can, then quality or lesser upscaling if needed, then framegen if still I can't hit my monitor's freesync range/around 60 FPS from there (48 FPS is the monitor/freesync range floor)
 
Native only, I'll turn down settings first and prefer quite a few off anyway. I've only had a single use for frame generation so far, padding 1% lows in VR when the game stuttered without it.
 
I do use frame generation in some games. It really depends on the implementation. Some games I can hardly notice the input lag, others its miserable. 2x I find works fine most of the time I actually feel its needed. 4x on the other hand is normally too much.
Prince Valiant said:
Native only, I'll turn down settings first and prefer quite a few off anyway. I've only had a single use for frame generation so far, padding 1% lows in VR when the game stuttered without it.
Click to expand...
I refuse to turn down settings unless its absolutely necessary. Fortunately, it rarely is.
 
I handle this on a case by case basis depending on the type of game and how I play it. I'd be more likely to go with things like Frame Generation if it's a single-player game. If it's a competitive multiplayer game then hell no. I don't normally use up-scaling unless the game is too demanding to be played at native res.
 
kram182 said:
Yeah I only ever use 2x, never more.
Click to expand...
I've used 3x on Cyberpunk and it works well. That is so far the only game I've had where FPS is low enough to warrant it on a 240Hz monitor. I think it depends on the kind of game, speed of your monitor, and also 1st vs 3rd person how much will or won't work. Also individual tastes, of course.

When the time comes that I can get a higher refresh monitor, I'll be interested to try it at higher settings. I suspect 3x would be usable in most games that are doing 80-100fps base on a 360Hz monitor. However if I'm playing a game like that, I'll keep 2x because I'd rather have the higher base FPS than have to cap things.
 
I prefer native/DLAA, but if the FPS isn't high enough (below 160–200), then I enable FG; if that doesn't help, I lower some graphics settings; if that still doesn't help, I enable and DLSS Quality/FSR.
But yes, DLSS + FG sometimes cause a lot of artifacts, and to fix the problem, I have to restart the game or the PC, or clear the NVIDIA cache for the game.
 
I just fired up Witcher 3. 4080 super, 5700x3d.

65fps at max settings with hairworks OFF at 1440p ultra wide.

Frame gen is a must, brings it up to 125fps. I can't believe how much a 10 year old game tanks my system.
 
i turn all the knobs on. have yet to notice a downside(not nickpicky for the sake of it).
 
I strongly prefer native and run it wherever possible, but I have been using upscaling/frame gen in particularly demanding titles, and it's generally fine provided I have a sufficient baseline.
 
Dan_D said:
I do use frame generation in some games. It really depends on the implementation. Some games I can hardly notice the input lag, others its miserable. 2x I find works fine most of the time I actually feel its needed. 4x on the other hand is normally too much.

I refuse to turn down settings unless its absolutely necessary. Fortunately, it rarely is.
Click to expand...
Motion blur and other distortion settings are an instant off for me. I go off how noticeable an improvement is, if it is, for other settings. Ray tracing I've seen up to now has been noisy, smeary, or is barely noticeable.
 
Prince Valiant said:
Motion blur and other distortion settings are an instant off for me. I go off how noticeable an improvement is, if it is, for other settings. Ray tracing I've seen up to now has been noisy, smeary, or is barely noticeable.
Click to expand...
With later versions of DLSS, any distortion created by framegen is barely noticeable. I suppose it would be more noticeable in some games, but its not really been a big issue in anything I play. Granted, I don't use framegen very much.
 
If it's a competitive multiplayer game I do not. I just turn down the settings until I get a good frame rate. Upscaling is usually the last thing I will enable, but I'm willing to use it. Frame gen is not something I want to use in a competitive game.

If it's a singleplayer game I like having the option for both and I'm more than willing to use them if it means higher quality visuals.
 
To preface, I'm primarily a single player gamer. Although I do still play some Star Citizen now and then.

DLSS quality upscaling has gotten a lot better than it was when it first came out, and can be just about as good as 4K native (some say better because of the sharpening applied), so I'll often use it to reduce the GPU power draw a little while keeping the same visual fidelity.

Frame generation can be more of a mixed bag due to the artifacts introduced. In some games with 4X MFG, I barely notice artifacts at all other than with floating markers (Cyberpunk 2077), and in others it becomes way too distracting (Expedition 33). I find 2X frame generation typically doesn't bother me, as long as the base framerate is high enough.

With that all said, I still lament that game developers are getting lazy and not optimizing their games to run better. Instead, more and more reliance is placed on DLSS and frame generation to get to a playable state. Ah well, at least some Indy studios are starting to show the big studios what's up.
 
The poll is lacking in options IMO. I prefer native with DLAA, when I get reasonable frame rates, then some light tuning if I am close to the frame rates I want at native res. I will use upscaling when I don't get the frame rates that I want and upscaling looks better than turning down settings. Personally I would have selected "No frame gen / Upscaling when needed".

Usually not that picky about frame rates for SP games, so for most games 1% lows around 50 and 65 or so average is generally OK for most FPS games, but fast FPS games I generally want around 80 average. Other types of single player games can often be fine with average in high 50s.

For FPS MP I play with a minimum average of 100 and turn down settings a lot to get good frame rates and upscale where needed. Basically whatever gives the lowest possible input lag. Most FPS MP games I run 200-600 fps range, especially when they do not feature sub-frame mouse input sampling. Without sub-frame sampling, you can usually only hit where the game renders your crosshair so if you click mid- way between 2 frames, your mouse input will typically be placed on the next rendered frame's position of your mouse. On low frame rates, there will be large gaps on fast mouse movement where you will not hit your opponent, unless to the game uses trickery to "manufacture hits". E.g. spastic LG in Quake Champions worked like that as people hit if their mouse had passed over the model, even if the crosshair wasn't on target when the LG tick triggered.

I have tried quite a few games with frame gen, but I eventually end up preferring just upscaling from a slightly lower base resolution as I am quite sensitive to mouse input lag. I have yet to encounter a game where I can't get framerates I want, without frame gen, where the added latency of frame gen is accetable by gaining the slightly smoother looking rendering.
 
No/No for me. I tried it, didn't like it. I get headaches from it. It also poses a conundrum. Paying a premium for a software utilization for hardware that I don't want or use, that takes up VRAM in the age of RAMpocalypse, and some software developers tell their customers to use rather than optimizing their game. Give me raster and optimization for cheaper cards and games.
 
evhvis said:
The poll is lacking in options IMO. I prefer native with DLAA, when I get reasonable frame rates, then some light tuning if I am close to the frame rates I want at native res. I will use upscaling when I don't get the frame rates that I want and upscaling looks better than turning down settings. Personally I would have selected "No frame gen / Upscaling when needed".
Click to expand...

You should select the "yes - quality upscaling as needed" then. Otherwise you can select the "No - native.." (which DLAA is) option if you usually do that.

I'm trying to see how many would rather turn down IQ settings than run upscaling to get their preferred performance. You can use that logic to decide as well.
 
Last edited:
T4rd said:
You should select the "yes - quality upscaling as needed" then. Otherwise you can select the "No - native.." (which DLAA is) option if you usually do that.

I'm trying to see how many would rather turn down IQ settings than run upscaling to get their preferred performance. You can use that logic to decide as well.
Click to expand...
There is no "yes - quality upscaling when needed" option, only "Yes / Quality upscaling - I am a reasonable gamer" which has a very different meaning. The quality upscaling option contradicts "No / Native Resolution - upscaling is the devil" and I generally prefer native resolution, but I will use upscaling when needed so neither option makes sense for me to check.

If your goal was to see the habits of people, then it would have made much more sense to make straight forward poll that was more open ended. The current on has "cool" answers that are quite locked and where some are essentially mutually exclusive.
 
I try to play native whenever possible, but sadly it's rare these days that a game would run at playable FPS without scaling. And playable to me means 45 FPS.

Second option is Quality upscaling. I despise it wholeheartedly I feel dirty using it, if it wasn't for input lag, I'd rather choose framegen+native over any kind of upscaling.

Third option, there is no third option, if a game is not playable at DLSS quality I'd rather not play it at all, the visual quality is already barely tolerable at the best setting, anything less and it seems like I'm watching a stream.

Also 8K at sub 60? What fantasy is this, you're lucky if you can get 24FPS at 8K.
 
DLSS, quality level as needed, but mostly on Quality. DLAA if I have frames to spare. Frame gen when needed.

DLSS is better than any TAA or TSR implementation I have seen. Native is nice when there is SMAA and its implementation is good, but nobody uses SMAA anymore. Not using post-process AA is not an option with how dependent modern games are on shaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top