Support NeoGAF

[Soodanim]

The only Triangles you should trust

These and Babybel are fucking rancid and I feel so strongly about it that I don't respect your right to an opinion on this one

 

[Senua]

I’m fine with 60 on console. On PC, aim for 90fps minimum.

Yep 90 feels excellent. My sweet spot usually.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

These and Babybel are fucking rancid and I feel so strongly about it that I don't respect your right to an opinion on this one

Hey hey hey..

I agree, Babybel are shite.

 

[Hudo]

Spoiler

I stole this from reddit but it highlights very effectively how stupid people sound with these new RTX 5000 cards

I, too, like Apples more than Oranges.

 

[hangdang69]

I'd prefer more raw raster performance but if it does a good enough job that it feels good and I can't see artifacts, what's it really matter to me?

 

[The Janitor]

The problem with framegen is:

-It only works with games that support it
-It produces artifacts
-It does not reduce input lag like real frames do

Until all of these things are adressed it should never be considered as real performance.

 

[Crayon]

Perhaps you'd like another cup of cope.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

This comparison makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates that there truly are apologists for every busted piece of tech out there.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Silly comparison, these are maps that made games look 100% better, and an artist still has to create them by hand.
Same with lightmaps, you know how long it took me bake some lightmaps? You gonna call that “fake" too?

 

[64gigabyteram]

Eventually, AI cards are the future, and with luck, make gpus considerably cheaper.

LMFAO


you drank 15 gallons of the kool aid w this one

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

Joke is a little over my head since I don't follow the GPU scene. Is this in response to those dismissing frame generation?

I think youre confused. Frame gen isn't real.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

I'd prefer more raw raster performance but if it does a good enough job that it feels good and I can't see artifacts, what's it really matter to me?

The real frame rate is always better, but this DLSS FG technology really makes me think I'm playing at much higher framerate, so it improves my gaming experience.


1440p TAA native, psycho RT - 73fps, 28ms latency measured by Nvidia experience APP (top right corner of my monitor screen)

DLSS FG 124fps, 37ms

My performance went from 73fps to 124fps and the difference in latency was just 9ms. I can also run this game at real 120fps with DLSSQuality, but that difference between generated 120fps and real 120fps is surprisingly small on M+K, and on gamepad it's literally the same experience. I expect Sony to use similar technology in the PS6, as the 120fps generated by AI would offer much better experience.

I always enable DLSS FG because this technology improves smoothnes and motion quality (higher fps improve motion resolution) and the additional latency (close to placebo) is small price to pay. Some people in this thread mentioned artefacts, but even when I looked for them it's very difficult to notice them. I noticed artefacts during text scroling in Alan Wake 2, but not during actual gameplay. I can easily notice LSFG artefacts, but not DLSS FG artefacts.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The real frame rate is always better, but this DLSS FG technology really makes me think I'm playing at much higher framerate, so it improves my gaming experience.


1440p TAA native, psycho RT - 73fps, 28ms latency

DLSS FG 124fps, 37ms

My performance went from 73fps to 124fps. I can also get real 120fps with DLSSQuality, but that difference between generated 120fps and real 120fps isnt that big and especially on gamepad. I expect Sony to use similar technology in the PS6, as the 120fps generated by AI is perfect for gamepad.

I always use DLSS FG bcause this technology works so well. DLSS FG improves motion quality (on sample and hold displays, higher fps improve motion resolution) and the additional latency (close to placebo) is small price to pay. Some people in this thread mentioned artefacts, but even when I looked for them it's very difficult to notice them. I noticed artefacts during text scroling in Alan Wake 2, but not during actual gameplay. I can easily notice LSFG artefacts, but not DLSS FG.

But you are comparing a wrong PC latency in image 1 - it should be just 13.6ms for 73fp - and then comparing to one that is worse but not three times worse like it would be if comparing with a correct optimised native 73fps double buffered latency

 

[Pegasus Actual]

For the average GAF use-case I really don't see how framegen isn't a total win. And at higher frame rates a) shit will be more accurate, i.e. as frame rate trends towards infinity you'll trend towards perfect 'fake frames' and b) the latency penalty gets smaller and smaller. So even for a competitive games I could see framegenning up to say a 500hz or 1000hz as being a viable option. Yeah better latency = faster response = better gameplay but at the same time more frames = better tracking = better gameplay, there will definitely be a crossover point where the frames are worth it.

We all played OoT at 15fps too. Just look at people bitching about 30fps today and its latency (usually just 16ms more). Multiframegen adds more than 16ms even. It's going to be the same sort of complaints about 30fps vs 60fps. Some don't like the increased latency.

I pretty much skipped OoT because of its shit frame rate and blurry graphics. I mean I got a Voodoo3 around the time I tried OoT at a friend's house. Dude was obsessed with it and wanted me to play the whole game and sorry but that was gonna have to be a no from me dawg I got Half-Life at 1024x768 on a nice clear PC monitor to play what are we even talking about?

Mario64 was actually legit impressive the first time I saw it, but tech moved fast in those days, and Zelda having worse performance didn't help at all.

Why are more people acting as if 60 fps isn't good enough nowadays? I've seen people say 120 fps or bust.

Because not everyone is playing Sony MovieGame on gamepad. 90-120fps is a great target for most single player things.

The only Triangles you should trust

Never seen those but I like these:

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

I’m fine with 60 on console. On PC, aim for 90fps minimum.

60FPS feels like a slideshow.

Thanks to G Sync anything above 75FPS feels good to me.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Ah man I used to run 2001 way later than it was relevant because I liked seeing those tests get maxed out lol, nostalgia

Very nice. Does 3Dmark 2001 run well on Windows 11? The last time I tried it I had some compatibility issues. I also remember getting much better results in Windows XP, even on the same hardware.

 

[Knightime_X]

LMFAO


you drank 15 gallons of the kool aid w this one

I guess you didn't see the "with luck" part. XD

 

[64gigabyteram]

I guess you didn't see the "with luck" part. XD

thats a lot of luck then. Jensen would need a random Persona 5-style change of heart before he even thinks of lowering prices

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Never seen those but I like these:

Holy crap, I need those! I never knew such a glorious thing existed!

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably for the same reason people began to act like 1080p sucks too. They got new 120hz displays and anything else became "unplayable". Harder, better, faster, stronger.

This just sound nuts. It sometimes feels like people care more about the tech in video games, than the content of video games.