Frame creation on AMD – some confusion around performance and responsiveness
Frame creation on AMD – some confusion around performance and responsiveness
Why are you using a 60Hz monitor? For generating frames, it's best not to rely on bitrate if your native frame rate is low—like achieving 120fps with 60fps as an example. This gives smoother motion, though you'll still notice some input lag at 60fps. At least the visuals will appear better. On a 60Hz display, I wouldn't recommend it at all. If you're struggling below 60fps but using frame generation, it might work for certain games, but the result can look and feel less smooth. On the other hand, if you naturally achieve 120fps or higher on your own, using a 60Hz monitor isn't necessary since you're already within a solid frame rate range. It's mainly useful for specific scenarios like certain indie titles or spasms where you have enough baseline FPS. Frame generation can then boost it further to around 120 for a smoother experience on a lower refresh rate screen, but the lag will still be noticeable. Ultimately, opt for a good monitor and consider using free sync technology.
Ah, that detail is crucial. I've already seen that the Game engine maintains its "native" framerate, which explains why adding Frame Generation raises input latency due to the delay between what you see and the engine's response. The internal FPS remains unchanged without it, but the visuals appear smoother as long as lag isn't noticeable. By default, Radeon Anti-Lag stays on when AFMF is enabled (without FSR 3). Some people also mention that latency increases if your monitor's refresh rate is closer to the actual rate, which I'm not entirely clear on technically. Are you correct? Also, how does this change if you're using a VRR monitor with FreeSync compared to a fixed-rate display?
It's a pleasant IPS display paired with a versatile soundbar that you can adjust; it runs at 1440p, which I also use for tasks like work. There are many good reasons for this setup. I own it for years and still find value in it, even though it isn't the best choice for gaming nowadays. I took your feedback into account—if I'm not hitting over 60 FPS, I shouldn't worry about FSR or frame generation unless it helps save power or reduce heat. Some titles do require FSR, but at 1440p it can be challenging, especially with graphics like Cyberpunk 2077 without ray tracing. My main interest was to grasp how frame generation affects input latency, particularly when your monitor doesn't meet the 60Hz standard or your VRR monitor falls short compared to these cases when you're just reaching the target frame rate. Additionally, I wanted to clarify what "frame generation lag" means in the performance metrics.
Modern monitors are now quite affordable, even with high resolutions like 1440p at 144Hz. Beyond the FSR, the frame generator essentially smooths motion by interpolating between frames, effectively doubling the frames per second and improving fluidity while keeping the lower frame rates' input delay. Enabling AFMF adds extra lag as a side effect.
Thanks for the clarification. If my display were in poor condition, I’d have thought about it, but I usually spend a lot of time checking reviews before buying. I prefer buying items that offer good value. My next monitor will likely be FreeSync, though I’m curious whether it will be a 4K model. I wonder if this will push buyers toward very costly GPUs, since 1440p already demands significant power.
What you observe becomes smoother only when the display can actually render those frames. If your system runs the game smoothly at 60 frames per second on a standard 60 Hz screen, simply adding interpolated frames to reach 120 fps won’t improve fluidity because you can’t see the extra images. The main drawback is longer input delay. Anti-Lag doesn’t eliminate the lag entirely—it reduces it somewhat. So while it lessens the impact of latency, it still leaves a higher overall delay than ideal. AFMF works best when the game itself supports frame generation, as it uses completed frames to create smoother motion. In-engine FG benefits from motion data like vectors, allowing interpolation even before the HUD appears, unlike AFMF which relies on post-processing. Using AFMF makes sense only if the game doesn’t natively support FG. VRR aligns the monitor’s refresh rate with the GPU’s output, rather than matching it to a fixed frame rate. You’ll see it on displays capable of 144 Hz or higher. If your machine can run at 60 fps natively, the monitor will match that speed. When frame generation pushes you to 120 fps, the display would boost its refresh to 120 Hz, letting you witness the extra frames and notice the fluid improvement. Otherwise, the same limitations remain. This approach only works if the visual gain is actually perceptible, which depends on the monitor’s capability to reach that refresh level. If the max refresh is 144 Hz and the GPU can hit 144 fps without frame generation, boosting to 288 fps won’t help much—frame generation would only raise it to 288, but you’d still miss the benefit.
Sure, it's curious how some still rely on two-digit Hz screens. They've been quite affordable for a while, especially with entry-level models. It really depends on your PC specs—higher-end systems can handle 1440p at 144Hz or more comfortably, making the difference even clearer compared to 4K.
Hehe, yeah, a Ryzen 1st gen is fine. Money isn’t the main concern, though maybe I’m just being frugal. You’re right about the monitor—really impressive IPS tech. I wouldn’t want to keep it just because it works; I’d prefer one monitor for my home setup. My current PC still handles a lot, and swapping parts hasn’t made it very useful for me. I don’t just play games on it anymore. I’ve built better machines for friends, even with 144Hz displays, so I know what I want but...
If your frame rate exceeds your monitor’s refresh rate, turning off VSync and switching to FSR would likely reduce latency significantly. I’m not sure about the exact AMD version for FSR though.