• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD FSR 3.0 has exposed the ugly truth about most PC gamers

Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
31,815

Very good article imo.

It's obviously great getting more choice and people who don't have the latest greatest gpus getting new tech to play with and improve their gaming experience but it really does just highlight the hypocrisy that goes on especially by these bigger tech youtube channels like HUB, obviously they do it to get the views thus more money but I'm sure they could take a more neutral stance and still do well i.e. like Daniel Owen on the FG topic.
 
lol, what a load of tripe that article is. Oh boohoo people are mean to poor Nvidia.

Are the points he made wrong though?

This summed it up perfectly for those who don't want to read the full article and it's not even neccasrily a nvidia/amd thing, it is just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Well, we all know why a lot of PC gamers picked their pitchforks. It wasn’t due to the extra input latency and it wasn’t due to the fake frames. It was because DLSS 3 was exclusive to the RTX40 GPU series, and most of them couldn’t enjoy it. And instead of admitting it, they were desperately trying to convince themselves that the Frame Generation tech was useless. But now that FSR 3.0 is available? Now that they can use it? Well, now everyone seems to be happy about it. Now, suddenly, Frame Generation is great. Ironic, isn’t it?
So yeah, the release of the AMD FSR 3.0 was quite interesting. And most importantly, the mods that allowed you to enable FSR 3.0 in all the games that already used DLSS 3.0. Those mods exposed the people who hadn’t tested DLSS 3 and still hated it. Hell, some even found AFMF to be great (which is miles worse than both FSR 3.0 and DLSS 3). But hey, everything goes out the window the moment you get a free performance boost on YOUR GPU, right? Oh, the irony…
 
The funny thing is there is quite a lot of negativity around FSR and places like HUB called AMD out on the state it was released.

I don’t like FG and that goes for Nvidia and AMD. Upscaling eventually came good from both, so I am open to changing my mind at some point.
 
I don’t think it’s cheating, it all comes down to how it’s marketed. It’s a clever feature with obvious benefits just like so many others than have come before it.
 
I'm sure they could take a more neutral stance and still do well i.e. like Daniel Owen on the FG topic.

Daniel_Owen_native_res_does_produce_the_best_output.png
 
From comments like “I don’t want fake frames“, we went, in the blink of an eye, to “My RTX2060 lives again, FSR 3.0 doubled my performance“. And this right here exposed the ugly truth about most PC gamers.
maybe this gamer always dreamed of using fake frames, But couldn't afford an RTX4000 GPU?? Or maybe it's a different person??
 
i been using AMd fluid motion for a week & tbh its been great, even on a 7900XTX, i can now play games at greater settings & feel far smoother

EG before
RDR2 High - 1440p UW with FSR - 120fps or no FSr 60FPS

Now
RDR2 ULtra - playing at 1600P with VSR - 160FPS solidno fsr needed looks far better

ALL GTA settings maxed 1440p - 165FPS
 
Really, what is it with this forum and people who love to take things out of context to suit narrative, it literally goes against the very things you deem as being "fanboy", "having bias" and so on or is it literally just baiting/trolling? In which case, maybe read the stickied post at the top of this sub forum.


A video about upscaling in reply to a comment on specifically "frame generation"? Lets look at another video of his about upscaling and play the "out of context" game:

nrjLIgY.png


See how easy it is.....

Maybe see this:

In which case, maybe read the stickied post at the top of this sub forum.

Keep to thread topic.

maybe this gamer always dreamed of using fake frames, But couldn't afford an RTX4000 GPU?? Or maybe it's a different person??

It's in reference to people who stated about DLSS 3 being fake/**** because of it having unusable input lag, UI issues, ghosting, artifacts and so on and being a way of cheating to then getting to use frame gen with FSR 3 and proclaiming it as the best thing ever, even though as shown, it has all those issues but worse than dlss 3 i.e. hypocrisy:

Well, we all know why a lot of PC gamers picked their pitchforks. It wasn’t due to the extra input latency and it wasn’t due to the fake frames. It was because DLSS 3 was exclusive to the RTX40 GPU series, and most of them couldn’t enjoy it. And instead of admitting it, they were desperately trying to convince themselves that the Frame Generation tech was useless. But now that FSR 3.0 is available? Now that they can use it? Well, now everyone seems to be happy about it. Now, suddenly, Frame Generation is great. Ironic, isn’t it?
So yeah, the release of the AMD FSR 3.0 was quite interesting. And most importantly, the mods that allowed you to enable FSR 3.0 in all the games that already used DLSS 3.0. Those mods exposed the people who hadn’t tested DLSS 3 and still hated it. Hell, some even found AFMF to be great (which is miles worse than both FSR 3.0 and DLSS 3). But hey, everything goes out the window the moment you get a free performance boost on YOUR GPU, right? Oh, the irony…
 
Really, what is it with this forum and people who love to take things out of context to suit narrative,
My example isn't out of context, he's generalising native is better, which was the intended point.

The same as Tim@Hub states 'I wouldn't say DLSS looks better than native in general' which is similar to my preference on the whole matter be it upscaling/FG on the whole.


nrjLIgY.png


See how easy it is.....
A picture tells a story, however, he's stated 'here' DLSS looks better in that instance, as in-one game, it's plain old English mate that's how easy it is.
 
Not to say upscaling/FG doesn't have it's uses, it's great for boosting frame rates at the cost of an overall IQ hit and can help visually with smoothness but most of the time doesn't match up to the 'feel' of the game.

Both of them however are like enabling cheat engine to gfx pipelines to achieve a goal.
 
Whilst FG / Upscaling etc hasn't appealed to me (as I try to keep my cards relevant to the games / FPS I want to drive them at) I can see why people would be against the tech (of which purpose is to extend older cards life) gatekept to cards that are brand new.

I can then see why they would be more open to the technology when it becomes available / relevant to them.

I think it's more that , rather than fanboism from any particular team, especially when the first card owner the article refers to is a team green owner (2060).
 
My example isn't out of context, he's generalising native is better, which was the intended point.

The same as Tim@Hub states 'I wouldn't say DLSS looks better than native in general' which is similar to my preference on the whole matter be it upscaling/FG on the whole.



A picture tells a story, however, he's stated 'here' DLSS looks better in that instance, as in-one game, it's plain old English mate that's how easy it is.

The thread/article is about pc gamers being hypocrites i.e. this

Well, we all know why a lot of PC gamers picked their pitchforks. It wasn’t due to the extra input latency and it wasn’t due to the fake frames. It was because DLSS 3 was exclusive to the RTX40 GPU series, and most of them couldn’t enjoy it. And instead of admitting it, they were desperately trying to convince themselves that the Frame Generation tech was useless. But now that FSR 3.0 is available? Now that they can use it? Well, now everyone seems to be happy about it. Now, suddenly, Frame Generation is great. Ironic, isn’t it?

So yeah, the release of the AMD FSR 3.0 was quite interesting. And most importantly, the mods that allowed you to enable FSR 3.0 in all the games that already used DLSS 3.0. Those mods exposed the people who hadn’t tested DLSS 3 and still hated it. Hell, some even found AFMF to be great (which is miles worse than both FSR 3.0 and DLSS 3). But hey, everything goes out the window the moment you get a free performance boost on YOUR GPU, right? Oh, the irony…

Not necessarily about frame gen and certainly not about upscaling being better/worse than native.

Maybe you need to watch that video then as he even said in that video you refer to "frame gen is for another video":

AOYYRvJ.png


The entire video is about upscaling vs native.....

It's pretty obvious what your post is intending to do:

f6tKWct.png


So best to drop it and keep to the topic.









As for my take on the whole thing, I've never had a problem with any of the technologies in order to achieve better performance. Loved checkerboarding on the ps 4 pro with the exclusives, at the time, the PC had nothing close to this so it's great to see new technology that is surpassing checkerboarding methods and the normal method on consoles which is adaptive resolution in order to maintain fps targets. Frame gen is another step in achieving a more efficient method of increasing performance.

At the end of the day, MLID is somewhat true and until there is another breakthrough, we have to embrace new ways of doing things or simply accept that you'll have to run lesser fps or/and lesser graphical settings.

It's the end result I care about, couldn't care less how things are done as at the end of the day, every single frame in a "game" is "fake" and I imagine we'll see more things like this in the future. AMDs frame gen/FSR 3 is in a much better spot than FSR 2 as shown, with fsr 3/fake frames, it is nigh on impossible to pick them out compared to issues introduced by poor TAA methods or/and fsr upscaling issues in certain games, which plague "every" frame. Nvidias frame gen is ahead but then they use hardware and are ahead of the game here with time but it also suffers the same issues which fsr 3 does i.e. UI, latency, needing a good base fps and so on. Whilst the tech for frame gen is usable now by both camps somewhat, it will be the next gen where it will be much more viable imo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Still never going to be happy that Fake/Generated Frames are being sold as an added feature to justify perf/cost stagnation, but I do realise that in effect Moore's Law really is dead and that being "clever" is the way to go.

I would have preferred to see that "clever" being a company cracking chiplets (especially if going chiplet was done with the wide and slow approach to keep power usage at bay, but cost per mm² of wafer space has made that approach very unlikely now with almost everything coming pre overclocked).

I'm still concerned about any latency, but for certain game engines fake frames = more CPU cycles for other things.

Specifically, I was surprised about this thread over on AT:

Basically, forced FG in Skyrim allowed the OP in that thread to spawn more NPCs, which was a suprise to me. I'd guess, getting frames for "free" allowed Bethesda's engine to give more CPU cycles to NPCs and possible scripts. Lots of engines wouldn't work like that, but like I said I was surprised that FG could do anything positive there at all.
 
When I see videos like this:


Then articles like this.


Yesterday, “fake frames” was meant to refer to classical black-box TV interpolation. It is funny how the mainstream calls them “fake frames”;
But, truth to be told, GPU’s are currently metaphorically “faking” photorealistic scenes via drawing polygons/triangles, textures, and shaders. Reprojection-based workflows is just another method of “faking” frames, much like an MPEG/H.26X video standard of “faking it” via I-Frames, B-Frames and P-Frames.
That’s why, during a bit of data loss, video goes “kablooey” and turns into garbage with artifacts — if a mere 1 bit gets corrupt in a predicted/interpolated frame in a MPEGx/H26x video stream. Until the next full non-predicted/interpolated frame comes in (1-2 seconds later).
Over the long-term, 3D rendering is transitioning to a multitiered workflow too (just like digital video did over 30 years ago out of sheer necessity of bandwidth budgets). Now our sheer necessity is a Moore’s Law slowdown bottleneck. So, as a shortcut around Moore’s Law — we are unable to get much extra performance via traditional “faking-it-via-polygons” methods.
The litmus test is going lagless and artifactless, much like the various interpolated frame subtypes built into your streaming habits, Netflix, Disney, Blu-Ray, E-Cinema, and other current video compression standards that use prediction systems in their compression systems.
Just as compressors have original knowledge of the original material, modern GPU reprojection can gain knowledge via z-buffers and between-frame inputreads. And “fake it” perceptually flawlessly, unlike year 1993’s artifacty MPEG1. Even the reprojection-based double-image artifacts disappear too!
TL;DR: Faking frames isn’t bad anymore if you remove the “black box” factor, and make it perceptually lagless and lossless relative to other methods of “faking frames” like drawing triangles and textures

I think frame gen is going to be a far bigger deal than upscaling.

But obviously combining both upscaling and frame gen will net the biggest improvement when used together.
 
Back
Top Bottom