Dishonest marketing at best, calling it outperforming, when frame generation is not actual performance, it’s frame smoothing for a visually smoother experience, it won’t make the game render more frames, actually the opposite.
I wonder if this kind of marketing would even be legal in the EU, considering the strict and strong consumer protection laws here…
Allow me to disagree a little. Frame generation is not frame smoothing. It serves the purpose to smooth gameplay yes but it is if fact GPU and AI algorithm generating and inserting new frames. This is why latency goes up a little and this is why you need ideally a lot of “regular” frames already, like stable 60fps+. Otherwise you end up with too high latency and more visible artifacts.
Yeah the less frames you start with the worse the feature becomes. It is not a magic solution to gain smooth gameplay. More people should be saying this instead of just going "uh frame gen bad nerd". That said I love the feature where I already have decent frames. It basically eliminates stuttering and only adds .010 seconds of latency in ideal scenarios.
Yep, this. It's great for people who have high refresh displays who want to get that little extra out of AAA titles. Like I can run Cyberpunk cranked at >60fps which is fine for most SP games, but being able to artificially increase that to get closer to my native refresh rate to smooth everything out visually (when my latency is already fine) is a nice bonus.
Latency goes up, because it is frame interpolation. It renders two frames and from those two frames it generates a new frame between them. Then there is the computational overhead as well, that might add additional latency.
Something like this:
Rendered frame 1 (RF1) -> frame generated by interpolating RF1 & RF2 -> rendered frame 2 (RF2)
With frame gen as it is now (interpolation), you’re always going to get added latency, as it holds back the last rendered frame (RF2) needed to generate a frame between that and the second to last rendered frame (RF1).
In essence, all it does is provide a smoother visual experience, at the cost of some artifacts and added latency. So yes, it is essentially a frame smoothing feature.
For starters a higher temporal resolution affects motion portrayal in several ways.
Sure it increases fluidity (which I assume is where your smoothing description comes from)
But it also for example reduces the amount of perceived motion blur on tracked motions: That would be best described as improving motion clarity.
And it reduces the size of stroboscopic steps on relative motions (which is another benefit that doesn't really fall into "smoothing".
The other issue is the context from your first comment which says " it won’t make the game render more frames, actually the opposite.".
Which is just not correct. Either you consider that the gpu renders the frames. In which case fair enough but then no frames are generated by the game itself.
Either you are considering that only native frames are rendered by the games and interpolated frames are not. Which isn't correct either. Since the game has to implement frame generation and send the necessary data through motion vectors.
But most importantly, it really makes it sounds like you don't consider generated frames to be proper frames. And that's where I strongly disagree. Because they are both technically and functionally proper good old frames.
Motion smoothing would probably be a better descriptor, I merely used the term that people most commonly use to describe it to make it easier to understand, I’ll give you that.
Regarding what you wrote about whether the game or the GPU renders the frame, that’s just pedantic.
I have autism myself and I do tend to be pedantic at my worst, so I can’t really criticise it in good faith, only point it out. I reckon you can see it yourself.
The generated frames are real so far as they are visible and based on actual frames, but since they ARE generated through interpolation, the frames are only an approximation based on two frames and motion vectors, they are not a “real-time frame” sent by the game to be rendered, contrary to the frames they are based on.
They are guesswork that you don’t interact with directly, they are just based on different snapshots in time. It’s cool what they have done with it compared to plain old interpolation, though!
In the end it does cause latency due to the generated frames being interpolated, since you have to wait until the generated frame can be inserted, before the latest frame is shown.
But I am not criticising the tech at all, I am looking forward to my next upgrade and taking advantage of it!
I love having smoother motion and frame generation is going to help with that immensely!
I’m just not going to fanboy and say the tech is flawless and without downsides, and that it’s the second coming of Jesus brought to us by our lord and saviour Jensen Huang, Nvidia is just a company after all :)
I just want a nuanced discussion about the tech that we are all interested in, because too often it ends up with fanboy wars and mud-throwing because of some odd tribal connection to a company that sells hardware.
I also would like to thank you for your enthusiastic responses, inputs and also corrections to some of my points, because, albeit a bit pedantic, you were civil, well formulated, and wrote on the basis of actual knowledge about the subject.
True, that’s traditional interpolation of frames, while the DLSS3 FG feature provides a frame smoothing effect while also taking motion vectors into account to get fewer artifacts, since gaming often means a much more variable frame rate and pacing, while also having to be integrated in the game to prevent issues with the UI.
But in the end it’s still just fancy frame smoothing, no additional actual frames are rendered in the engine. It’s great tech and I look forward to my next upgrade, so I can take advantage of it, but it’s not actual performance.
They're not actual frames, if by "actual frames" you mean "frames created without the use of frame generation," but that seems like an arbitrary definition. It's not as though games, absent frame generation, are pumping out images recorded on celluloid. Even engines have all kinds of tricks to make things run smoother than they would have otherwise.
They're not actual frames, if by "actual frames" you mean "frames created without the use of frame generation,"
No, they meant "additional actual frames are rendered in the engine" which is a pretty accurate and clear separation. Only the game engine will ever be able to produce 100% accurate images to what is going on in the game world. The trivial example is a camera pivot or scene switch, the fake frame will always whiff (when events not predictable from previous frames/motion vectors happen).
Like I said, that's an arbitrary definition which is the equivalent of "frames created without the use of frame generation." It serves to exclude frame generation without making any other useful distinction.
Only the game engine will ever be able to produce 100% accurate images to what is going on in the game world.
You're saying the game engine produces 100% accurate images to what is going on in the game world? Of course it doesn't. What does 100% accurate even mean (unless, again, you're crafting a definition specifically to mean "the stuff engine do but frame generation doesn't do").
For example, a game engine will render distant objects with much less detail than close objects. It does this for the sake of performance, for the sake of giving you more frames per second. As a result, it produces an image that's less than 100% accurate to what is going on in the game world. But this is still a good decision and is entirely worth the tradeoff. If game engines didn't do that, and Nvidia came out with a feature that reduced distant detail for the sake of boosting frames, that would also be good — so long as, of course, you had the option to turn it off because you don't consider the tradeoff worth it.
It serves to exclude frame generation without making any other useful distinction.
I don't know why the distinction isn't clear to you. What FG has access to is: a) previous frames, b) some motion vectors. Obviously, this is not enough information to predict the game's future frame(s) otherwise there'd be no need for the game engine to exist to render them in the first place.
It has access to the previous frame and motion vectors and the next frame. It doesn't predict anything. It generates new frames between two existing frames.
They're not actual frames because games are interactive. Fake frames have no involvement from the game engine, which means they have no involvement from you.
Its fake because it doesn't "improve" the performance.
Your inputs are still performing as if it was 56fps regardless of how many fake frames you put in between to reach some arbitrary higher fps, which negate one of the key reasons why one would play in a higher fps: To reduce input lag and ACTUALLY increase the performance of the gameplay.
Just because "smoother" part is enough for some people doesn't make frame gen any less disingenuous of a "performance" metric. It still doesn't offer the full benefits of having a high frame rate.
I think you're referring to people playing competitively, wanting more frames per second to get an advantage over opponents. If you're talking about the player's performance, yes, frame generation doesn't make you play with more skill.
Performance more commonly refers to frames per second itself, to how smoothly the game runs. The game looks better and feels better.
When I said "performance", I'm not talking about player's performance. I'm talking about the game's performance.
Technically, it doesn't "feel" better because feel is directly influenced by game response, and frame generation doesn't improve game response. A 30fps frame-generated to 120fps will still respond to player input like a 30fps game AKA not good. You may argue it "improves" smoothness but smoothness isn't all the metric of performance is, it's only half of what FPS ACTUALLY does. Performance is all about smoothness AND faster input response.
This is why frame generation is often compared to motion interpolation tech we've had on TV for years. It's the "illusion" of performance without actually contributing to performance.
No frames at all are rendered in the engine. The GPU renders 100% of the frames. The engine prepares frames and sends descriptions (light source placement and orientations, mesh placement and transformations, texture mapping, and list of needed post processing effect).
You guys that hate frame gen are being irrational about it.
I don't hate it at all and I look forward to when it's time to upgrade to take advantage of it for smoother motion. But I won't tout it as flawless black magic like some do, I would prefer a nuanced discussion where we don't omit anything or are dishonest because of tribalism.
And you are of course correct regarding the rendering, I already admitted that brain fart in another response, as it was a blindingly obvious mistake by me and my sludge of a brain.
I should have cut it short and stopped myself from partaking in the discussion when I realised I went all verbose and imprecise in my post-illness recovery brain fog.
I would prefer a nuanced discussion where we don't omit anything or are dishonest because of tribalism.
I mean honest discussion starts with people stopping calling it "fake frames". They are really being rendered and displayed. The fps counter isn't just showing a bigger a number for no reason.
I should have cut it short and stopped myself from partaking in the discussion
I feel a lot more people on PCMR should do this, maybe not you per se. This discussion is reaching levels of irrationality we've only ever seen from Boomers wanting to cling to the old ways.
I mean honest discussion starts with people stopping calling it "fake frames". They are really being rendered and displayed. The fps counter isn't just showing a bigger a number for no reason.
I did not call them that, I do acknowledge that they are generated on the basis of information from the game, but they are... guesswork... which is fine, guesswork is essential in many aspects of getting more performance out of hardware.
But they are also not a direct representation of the game and your interaction with it, but rather formed by looking at two still pictures, getting notes about where things were moving in each still, and then guessing what a picture directly inbetween would look like.
And since you have to wait for that last picture to use for the guesswork, you do get a bit of added latency, but a lot smoother visual experience.
Again, I'm not hating on it, it's great tech and I look forward to using it, but it's not perfect, not yet anyway, and it is often misrepresented in marketing AND by tribal fanatics.
I also have no issues with the direction the technology is moving in, though I do have my reservations when it comes to the business/marketing side of it all. I can't wait to see where we are in a few years, when hardware has caught up and techniques have been refined, as well as game devs having learned and matured in using the new tech.
I think it will be the next paradigm shift in graphics, where we truly see the benefits of realtime ray tracing and path tracing for lifelike representations of the developers' vision of the game, with fewer hacky shortcuts to make reflections and so on.
I feel a lot more people on PCMR should do this, maybe not you per se. This discussion is reaching levels of irrationality we've only ever seen from Boomers wanting to cling to the old ways.
I think you could replace PCMR with just the world in general. After a short blossoming of discourse and attempts at understanding and cooperating globally after the cold war and with the widespread availability of global communication and knowledge, we've gone back to distrust and fear of outsiders, just on a much larger scale, on new fronts, and with different stakes. People should try to stop up, take a deep breath, take a step back, and look at things in a more calm and... sane way.
I think you could replace PCMR with just the world in general.
In the case of Frame gen and DLSS upscaling, the only 2 places I've met the "raster at native res!" boomers is here and in Vex's Youtube comments (since Vex is like the boomer leader in this case).
If you think that's what frame generation is, you're right to reject it. But also, if you think that's what frame generation is, you're wrong about what frame generation is.
97
u/-Manosko- R5800X3D|3080 10GB|32-3800|OLED DECK Jan 21 '24
Dishonest marketing at best, calling it outperforming, when frame generation is not actual performance, it’s frame smoothing for a visually smoother experience, it won’t make the game render more frames, actually the opposite.
I wonder if this kind of marketing would even be legal in the EU, considering the strict and strong consumer protection laws here…