Frame Generation Doesn't Fix Bad Performance!

[Gravitytr1]

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.

When critical software like engines are written by AI and inexpensive devs, the result will always only be shoddy.

 

[Watzupken]

I don't like frame generation and mostly do not use it as I am aware of the increased in latency. But I did experiment with it just to understand it better and I concluded that if base FPS is decent but below 60 FPS, FG makes the game look less juddery. But users need to decide whether switching FG is worth it depending on the latency introduced. There will also be a hit to image quality, though I think that is getting better over time.

 

[poohbear]

I thought Nvidia themselves emphasize a game should run at a native 60fps for Frame Generation to work properly? I have a RTX 5070ti, and any game under native 60fps with Frame Generation on becomes a stutter fest, so not sure why this developer is going against what Nvidia recommends BEFORE turning on Frame Generation. Guess they're just tryna sell more copies with misinformation. Also, without a high hz (120hz+) monitor, FG is pointless because the monitor's limit will nullify any benefit to the increased FPS.

Another factor is how much money Nvidia is throwing around to these developers. Due to AI GPU sales, they are literally the richest company in the world today (market cap of an astounding $5.7 trillion, #1 in the S&P500), so throwing a few million dollars here and there to developers to support their features is less than pocket change to them.

 

[bloomsun]

You know what? I disagree completely with that whole argument. "Frame generation is useless below 60 fps!" It's just not true. I played Cyberpunk in 4K DLSS Balanced and path tracing on my 4080 Super. Yes, of course I used frame generation and it was glorious. It was a game changer. It made a game playable and fluid. Do not tell me what I have to like and how things have to be seen. Do not talk for me. Simple as that.

I generally use frame generation in newer titles to get a fluid image. Currently, for example, in Directive 8020. With my 4080 Super I get 40-60 fps with path tracing and frame generation. And the game is totally playable with that.

People have different experiences and preferences. Frame generation is the way forward when it doesn't add too much latency, and Nvidia has done a great job there.

I find we really need to get away from this "only native!!!11" or "Fake frames!!11". Wake up, times of massive raw compute gains are over. Those gains now come in the form of AI, and there is a lot of potential still, and it's the way to go.

And even in the case of this game, I won't claim it's my preferred solution. 15 fps sits right on the threshold, probably even below it. But look at it this way: this is simply an extension of how requirements have always worked. Before, a higher GPU tier was the gatekeeper. Now, a specific feature set is. That's all that changed. The performance target remains the same; only the path to reach it differs. Would you have complained if they had simply demanded a more expensive card instead of frame generation?

 

[bloomsun]

I thought Nvidia themselves emphasize a game should run at a native 60fps for Frame Generation to work properly?

No, they never did. That's just so often repeated that everybody believes it.

https://github.com/NVIDIA-RTX/Streamline/blob/main/docs/ProgrammingGuideDLSS_G.md

Not a single mention of any minimum FPS. It's a made-up claim by websites like these and others. You can play absolutely with less than 60 FPS base, I would go well below that.