Lego Batman is advertising 60 FPS, but it's really 15 FPS. Frame generation is supposed to make good performance better, not hide the fact that a game is running poorly. Lego Batman's spec sheet just crossed that line.
Frame Generation Doesn't Fix Bad Performance!
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Yeah FG never fixes bad performance, 100% correct but the technology can be useful to increase fluidity, mostly usable with high refresh rate monitors as you need 60 fps minimum before enabling it.
Hence why you need 120 Hz as bare minimum pretty much.
60 base fps + FG = Around 120 fps, and with a 120 Hz panel, it for sure will both look and feel more smooth than 60 fps. People that claim otherwise, have not tried it. Or tried some crappy form of FG.
Tons of people use 144 Hz or higher these days. Even 240 Hz is pretty common.
I'd say 120-144 Hz is bare minimum for any gamer these days. Even for work I can't stand 60 Hz. 75 Hz makes no difference. Dell, Lenovo and many other brands are also pushing 100+ Hz for work monitors these days. Feels much easier on the eyes. Things are actually somewhat smooth at 100 Hz instead of being jaggy at 60-75 Hz. Gamers should aim for higher than 100 Hz - 120-144 Hz or higher for that.
FG will never fix 15 fps, or 30 fps for that matter. FG don't work well when performance is crap to begin with. Too much latency but it will improve on performance that is already decent, making it very good instead of decent and improve the smoothness even further.
I am talking about proper FG here, that being DLSS FG. Not simple interpolation like Loseless Scaling but you will find many people that say it works good too. DLSS FG is many times better tho.
Even FSR FG is much better than LS but even FSR trails DLSS FG by a big margin overall. Hopefully AMD will improve FSR FG like they improved FSR with version 4.
So yeah, FG can be good, if you know what you are doing. Just like upscaling, even tho this is easier for people to understand how to use (at least till we start mentioning the different presets, dll versions etc.)
Hence why you need 120 Hz as bare minimum pretty much.
60 base fps + FG = Around 120 fps, and with a 120 Hz panel, it for sure will both look and feel more smooth than 60 fps. People that claim otherwise, have not tried it. Or tried some crappy form of FG.
Tons of people use 144 Hz or higher these days. Even 240 Hz is pretty common.
I'd say 120-144 Hz is bare minimum for any gamer these days. Even for work I can't stand 60 Hz. 75 Hz makes no difference. Dell, Lenovo and many other brands are also pushing 100+ Hz for work monitors these days. Feels much easier on the eyes. Things are actually somewhat smooth at 100 Hz instead of being jaggy at 60-75 Hz. Gamers should aim for higher than 100 Hz - 120-144 Hz or higher for that.
FG will never fix 15 fps, or 30 fps for that matter. FG don't work well when performance is crap to begin with. Too much latency but it will improve on performance that is already decent, making it very good instead of decent and improve the smoothness even further.
I am talking about proper FG here, that being DLSS FG. Not simple interpolation like Loseless Scaling but you will find many people that say it works good too. DLSS FG is many times better tho.
Even FSR FG is much better than LS but even FSR trails DLSS FG by a big margin overall. Hopefully AMD will improve FSR FG like they improved FSR with version 4.
So yeah, FG can be good, if you know what you are doing. Just like upscaling, even tho this is easier for people to understand how to use (at least till we start mentioning the different presets, dll versions etc.)
Last edited:
Subset6
Posts: 200 +246
Yup, base stable real frames of 60fps and not only that but the frame-times also need to be stable. FG does not like floating frame rates. Happy to see that in most newer games have options of locking the frame rate in game or offing a half v-sync option when in a 120hz container. Just saves me another step of using RTSS to lock it down.
Resolution scalers is another thing I love to see in modern games, really allows one to dial in that sweet spot specific your build, particularly the ones with very fine controls such 1-5% bumps. Never been a fan of auto dynamic scaling however as it never seems to do a good job in my experience.
Resolution scalers is another thing I love to see in modern games, really allows one to dial in that sweet spot specific your build, particularly the ones with very fine controls such 1-5% bumps. Never been a fan of auto dynamic scaling however as it never seems to do a good job in my experience.
Last edited:
amghwk
Posts: 1,859 +1,873
So called frame-generarion is the latest scam....
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 2,263 +4,564
What are you smoking? You speak only lies!
FG is what gamers want! Ask Nvidia. They make this crap and stupid people gobble it up because they can now run a game with RT (which initially tanks performance by upwards of 50%) and slap on upscaling (DLSS/FSR/XeSS) and now they're happy because they have an image getting taken down in resolution and reimaged to a non-native resolution to give the illusion it is native....
Even with upscaling in play, sometimes you're just not hitting your magical FPS and need a little extra help so Nvidia gave you Frame Generation! It creates a frame that wasn't there, but now is! Oh, so you have latency issues now? We've a fix for that, too! Run a fourth piece of software called Reflex!
Done!
A game you once played that looked good at 120 FPS, now has some slightly changed lighting with RT, upscaled imaging, FG and latency reduction to give you a performance of around that 120 FPS. All these other things have done is introduced ghosting, blurriness and latency. But that's okay, right? You can now stand at a window or puddle and see your reflection because RAY TRACING! YEAH!
All joking (sort of) aside, maybe one day we'll get there without needing to have all this extra crap running, but until then, they can keep it.
FG is what gamers want! Ask Nvidia. They make this crap and stupid people gobble it up because they can now run a game with RT (which initially tanks performance by upwards of 50%) and slap on upscaling (DLSS/FSR/XeSS) and now they're happy because they have an image getting taken down in resolution and reimaged to a non-native resolution to give the illusion it is native....
Even with upscaling in play, sometimes you're just not hitting your magical FPS and need a little extra help so Nvidia gave you Frame Generation! It creates a frame that wasn't there, but now is! Oh, so you have latency issues now? We've a fix for that, too! Run a fourth piece of software called Reflex!
Done!
A game you once played that looked good at 120 FPS, now has some slightly changed lighting with RT, upscaled imaging, FG and latency reduction to give you a performance of around that 120 FPS. All these other things have done is introduced ghosting, blurriness and latency. But that's okay, right? You can now stand at a window or puddle and see your reflection because RAY TRACING! YEAH!
All joking (sort of) aside, maybe one day we'll get there without needing to have all this extra crap running, but until then, they can keep it.
Not all Unreal Engine 5 games run like garbage (e.g. Assetto Corsa Rally runs great) only ones where management have forced the game out the door before it's finished.
Don't buy this garbage until it's patched and / or on sale
Don't buy this garbage until it's patched and / or on sale
I like the Lego game series, but I also like 120+ FPS without FG.
Maybe by the time Batman hits $5 on steam, I'll have a RTX 7080 to run it.
Maybe by the time Batman hits $5 on steam, I'll have a RTX 7080 to run it.
60 will WORK, but the latency issue doesn't really go away until you hit at least 90. I'm not really anti frame gen, but its downsides don't really go away unless you're already getting good performance and unfortunately, 60 fps isn't what it used to be. Due to game engines like UE5, 60 FPS has a higher latency than older games running at 60 FPS.
arrowflash
Posts: 737 +987
I was always against upscaling and frame generation since they were first introduced. They were supposed to be optional features intended to extend the useful life of very low-end hardware and make iGPUs viable for AAA gaming. But the writing was on the wall. I knew from the start that they would be used as crutches by lazy, incompetent or just deadline-pressured developers to sh*t out extremely unoptimized games that would include upscaling and framegen as targets even on midrange hardware. Setting them as targets for high-end performance is a first though.
Alright, Tim. I haven't played AC Rally, but let me guess, it's another UE5 game that actually only uses the UE4 feature set? This has been the case with the vast majority of UE5 games that run well.
People often say it's the devs fault, but when all UE5 games that use the default out of box features run like garbage, there's definitely a problem with the engine. Other engines don't have this problem.
I know you're joking but sadly this is what's hapenning. In some gaming communities I'm in, it's staggering how many people are playing their games with all this crap turned on. I don't have a problem with upscaling in quality modes, but the number of people I see using framegen makes me facepalm.
Alright, Tim. I haven't played AC Rally, but let me guess, it's another UE5 game that actually only uses the UE4 feature set? This has been the case with the vast majority of UE5 games that run well.
People often say it's the devs fault, but when all UE5 games that use the default out of box features run like garbage, there's definitely a problem with the engine. Other engines don't have this problem.
I know you're joking but sadly this is what's hapenning. In some gaming communities I'm in, it's staggering how many people are playing their games with all this crap turned on. I don't have a problem with upscaling in quality modes, but the number of people I see using framegen makes me facepalm.
This is misinformation. 60fps base, 120fps with frame gen will look smoother, it will not feel smoother. People like you are completely wrong about frame generation. Frame generation is for top tier hardware already capable of high frame rates, for the sole purpose of taking advantage of monitors with really high refresh rates.
Finally, someone gets it! Frame gen is for top tier hardware that is already capable of high frame rates, for the sole purpose of being able to take advantage of monitors with really high refresh rates. Frame gen was never meant for low frame rates like 60fps.
I always wait for the Lego games to go on sale, and they have all been pretty fun on PC via Steam.
Just simple mindless fun for me, plus I like the achievements hehe.
I bought the newer star wars ones last summer and played a little bit of one of the newer ones it was pretty good.
I did notice they were getting a little more demanding, visually look great though and no issues with performance.
The subheading is incorrect.
It says, "Lego Batman Is Advertising 60 FPS, But It's Really 15 FPS"
It's actually advertising 30 FPS and really 15 FPS. Not that that's good either, but still it's worth correcting.
It says, "Lego Batman Is Advertising 60 FPS, But It's Really 15 FPS"
It's actually advertising 30 FPS and really 15 FPS. Not that that's good either, but still it's worth correcting.
FG is for people that want to fill in their FPS counter to justify having ultra high refresh rate monitors without actually running the game at said speeds.
The tech is absolutely worthless for fixing performance issues and it isn't usable in multiplayer either. Honestly it seems like the ultimate e-peen tech. "Look guyz, I'm getting eleventy billion frames!!1!!!1" meanwhile you're frame pacing is worse then a console. Good job there.
The tech is absolutely worthless for fixing performance issues and it isn't usable in multiplayer either. Honestly it seems like the ultimate e-peen tech. "Look guyz, I'm getting eleventy billion frames!!1!!!1" meanwhile you're frame pacing is worse then a console. Good job there.
You're right, I got too carried away.
airbornex
Posts: 627 +858
So the minimum spec is basically: here's your 635p image, upscaled to 1080p, with fake frames on top, running on a GTX 960. Traveller's Tales telling themselves and everybody else, sure any potato will do!
Yes it will. The end result is what matters and 120 fps with FG will be prefered by 99% of people if the alternative is 60 fps and the display is 120 Hz.
CPU speed means more than people think, when talking FG. This is what will assure high minimum fps, which will make latency hit as low as possible.
FG never was the savior for people with dated hardware. If your CPU and GPU is garbage, FG is not the answer.
FG won't fix stuttering in badly optimized games either. It can improve it tho, but if minimum fps is garbage it will be a problem still.
DLSS FG is by far the best form of FG and people who don't have experience with this, should not speak. FSR FG is not even close overall and Loseless Scaling is literally trash in comparison to even FSR FG. Yet you see many people praise LS on Steam and actually paid for it.
Tried them all.
LS is just simple frame interpolation. Should not be compared to DLSS FG whatsoever. Night vs day really.
Last edited:
And this is why this feature is mostly for people with high refresh rate monitors.
I would not call 60-90 fps good performance but that is subjective I guess. I don't really play games below 200 fps, using 240 and 360 Hz OLEDs and I am talking about 1% lows here.
Average fps is worth nothing. Minimum fps is what matters, and the only fps number that actually matters.
60 fps is the new 30 fps in my eyes. Also, 60 Hz monitors = dumpster worthy. I don't own a single panel that is not 120 Hz minimum.
For FG to really work well, you also need a top tier gaming CPU, like AMD X3D, that is capable of delivering great 1% lows and the best part about FG is that 1% lows are doubled as well, part of the reason why game looks and plays much smoother. Use a crappy CPU, like a dated Intel one, and FG will be crap, due to bad 1% lows. Latency issues.
People are in denial about FG, just like they were in denial about upscaling.
Most that complain, never actually tried the good stuff.
Tons of AMD GPU owners hated upscaling, till they tried FSR 4 too.
Both upscaling and FG is here to stay. It won't go away. It will only improve.
People with dated hardware, have no say. And these are the people that will complain about new tech the most, while holding on to their 10 years old hardware, about to say puff.
Last edited:
While I agree with most of that, I think people are ignoring the growing latency problem. When games weren't doing much on the back end, average FPS was all that really mattered. The game engine wasn't doing stuff that was causing dips. Then the late 2000s and early 2010s came around and 1% lows started to be useful when measuring performance as games were doing more on the back end. In the last few years game engines have started doing so much more that you can be getting 100ms+ from input to display and I think in the next few years latency will become the new 1% lows. In today's environment you can absolutely be getting 300FPS while having 100ms+ of latency.
Latency can for sure be a problem with FG, never claimed otherwise and it will never fix performance if performance is crap to begin with.
FG makes good even better but don't apply to people using less than 120-144 Hz which is also bare minimum for gaming, if you ask me. 240 Hz is like the sweet spot these days.
Nvidias marketing is stupid. That I agree with. But FG is not useless. I used it plenty of times, in multiple games and the alternative, meaning FG off, was not better. Why would I enable it then?
Also, depends on game. In many games, you will never feel those added miliseconds but FG might allow for vastly better graphics, that you for sure will notice.
Like upscaling, FG is a tool. You can use it wrong.
I honestly think 30FPS is fine, for most games. Honestly, people played on consoles for DECADES that did 30FPS.
But the article is spot on, 15FPS + frame gen is not 30FPS, and the latency would be hot garbage at that point. The latency frame gen'ing 30FPS to 60FPS will also not be all that great. I do also suspect the frame pacing will be hot garbage if they're having this much trouble maintaining playable frame rates on fairly high end hardware.
But the article is spot on, 15FPS + frame gen is not 30FPS, and the latency would be hot garbage at that point. The latency frame gen'ing 30FPS to 60FPS will also not be all that great. I do also suspect the frame pacing will be hot garbage if they're having this much trouble maintaining playable frame rates on fairly high end hardware.
Here's an off-the-wall suggestion: review sites could quit reviewing and reporting on games' frame rates using any upscaling or frame generation technology. Let people know how badly games are being "optimized" at release so that consumers will avoid those studios (ahem, Epic Games) who release software that just won't run on machines that require crutches. We have special olympics for disabled athletes - we don't give them scooters or mechanical exoskeletons or outboard motors and have them compete against unassisted athletes, then compare their records against each other. If consumers want to know what games designers are capable of delivering, stop reporting on their slop and hold their feet to the fire for the stuff the actually are putting out.
If Lego Batman can only deliver 640p at 15 fps on the minimum hardware, so be it. Report that as the number. Same with their "Top Tier". If that's 1440p at 30fps on a 4070, welp, that's what they delivered as far as their software. I get that development is hard, and that the crunch is real. So are reviews that show the true picture. Thanks to you and some other sites, this is a (small) step in the right direction.
If Lego Batman can only deliver 640p at 15 fps on the minimum hardware, so be it. Report that as the number. Same with their "Top Tier". If that's 1440p at 30fps on a 4070, welp, that's what they delivered as far as their software. I get that development is hard, and that the crunch is real. So are reviews that show the true picture. Thanks to you and some other sites, this is a (small) step in the right direction.
Last edited:
I agree in principle to what you're saying here about only reviewing frame rates in their native state. The problem I see though, is you would need to extend this testing philosophy to cover other aspects of game testing eg. CPU overclocking, RAM overclocking, GPU overclocking etc, to ensure a pure native testing result. This kind of testing methodology would give people a baseline performance indicator. It would also make testing a lot easier for reviewers.
Similar threads
