Isn't the input lag going to be insane if the game runs at, say, 10 fps? This would have to come with some kind of new render pipeline where the simulation can somehow still run at a higher framerate.

Are you saying that the 50-60% lower framerate is with with 6x framegen on?

I want to make sure I understand this right. The 6X here means that for every one real frame generated by the GPU, the next six frames that follow will be AI generated?

I don't really get how frame generation works, but at what point are you extrapolating so much that it gets out of sync with the gameplay? Surely there's a limit...

AI frame generation makes sense on lower hardware but to turn your games into slop? Why the hell? Why not enhance the 3d rendering or ray tracing with this ** crap.

DLSS5 looks bad, but after using for a little while frame generation does have some use cases. It requires a high refresh monitor to be worth anything first and foremost to ensure there’s space for the interpolated frames between a high base frame rate. I use a 144hz monitor, so with 2x frame rate I still get a perfectly playable 72fps based latency.

I found it to be good while playing Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 because it let me turn up the other settings while consistently looking smooth. It’s a slow enough game that the increased latency isn’t noticeable.

It’s especially helpful for CPU bound games like Helldivers 2 and Victoria 3 because the interpolation happens after the main rendering. I could not get HD2 above ~90fps with my CPU, but with frame gen on the CPU only had to render 72fps. [EDIT: The latency was actually worse than 72fps for the reasons Juki listed below] It also meant I could turn DLSS scaling off, which meant the generated frames were based on native renders and everything looked better. Victoria 3 went from a painful 20-30fps to a much more tolerable 4-60.

All that said it does have serious issues. The increased latency means I’ll never use it for a reaction time based shooter like Enlisted or Deadlock. A few games just don’t look good with it. Star Wars Jedi Survivor had poor performance anyway, but turning frame gen on both makes it feel like it plays worse while also adding terrible ghosting effects and artifacts.

I’ve been interpolating movies and tv shows since 2015, so I think I was better able to set my expectations for the downsides of interpolation.

Wasn't the original premise of DLSS to add performance and now they even falling on that?

I'm not as familiar with it, but from what I understand DLSS was switching rendering to a lower resolution then used algorithms to upscale the video to make it look as if it is high res.

Just generate more fake frames with a second 5090!

Nvidia's new SLAI technology!

No the games have to look like real life don't you get it? Nevermind that fortnite and Minecraft, the two biggest games out there have cartoonish graphics and literal pixelated cubes no! We need to be able to see the reflection in a drop of sweat! And more AI!

Games should have "style" and "performance"? Bah. What poppycock I say, another billion to the AAAA games! For the investors! /s

I'm playing 10 year old games that go for realistic graphics, and they look just fine.

They don't look like a film, they look like generated graphics. It's not really a problem for immersion anyway.

Yeah, Same here honestly

You can make black people look white in your games.

Wonder if it could also make female protagonists look like men, might be useful for the sort of people who complain that a game is woke when there is a women

Yes, their only point is that it looks better "in their minds", as you say. This feature in particular isn't meant to improve performance.

Personally I think the more subtle application of it can look pretty good, but it seems hard to control and does more harm than good. And that is even ignoring the massive performance impact that almost guarantees it to be unusable. Nvidia published some performance numbers that looked impressive, but that was using pretty agressive upscaling and 6X frame gen which is stupid because for frame gen to be decent you need a high base frame rate, which they didn't get on anything other than the 5090 and arguably the 5080, or by pairing the GPU with a lower resolution that doesn't really make sense for them (like you wouldn't normally buy a 5070Ti for 1080p).

If only a certain country and their president didn't cause the prices of GPU and RAM to skyrocket, maybe it'd be more affordable. That's not AIs fault, that's capitalisms fault. Inb4 China comes out with RTX GPUs for a fraction of the price and leads to a democratization of AI technology. But "it's unaffordable" is how all new tech feats always start, that's how the shiniest new tech has always been. Were people complaining about this when Half Life 2 was being released with all its DX9 bells and whistles? No, because a brand new "512mb GPU" at that time was cutting edge and less affordable, but at least people were being paid enough to make that expense. Now that capitalism has destroyed our economy, people are blaming the prices and not the capitalism. It's silly.

Releases the first working Fusion Reactor "This is terrible because it's too unaffordable. I don't benefit from any of this because my country can't afford it right now."

Like, I’m playing Bully. Render the locked 30, barely consume any power and shut up

I am getting older and honestly only recently came to appreciate 60fps, it blows my mind to hear people say shit like "doesn't do 120fps, unplayable." ...like wtf?

in some cases only 1% of pixels are actually rendered.

Not anytime soon since gamers are still overwhelmingly indicating they will pay out the nose for the latest graphics.

Yeah, life has infinite graphics and it's a 3/10 at best.

That's if you even consider AI generated frames to be "good graphics".

I love beautiful graphics. I'm not picky about them and don't insist on photorealism only (Valhala is a beautiful game and uses this strange mix of high and low fidelity graphics), but I do love me some good photorealistic rendering.

I'm not interested in this "AI tries to predict the pixels between actual rendered ones". It's just a push towards average, like everything else big data, when it works well. And maybe this one does work well but I still dgaf because I don't want slop frames.

And I suspect that's a reason you don't see true frame to frame comparisons between AI upscaling and that same frame fully rendered at the higher resolution. It's difficult for random reviewers to get the exact same frame rendered like that so I mostly see frames taken from the same viewpoint, but you can't do apples to apples comparisons because the scene is dynamic and things other than the camera have changed. But nvidia could generate the same frame both ways for a direct comparison but only seem to want to show comparisons like DLSS off (at low res) vs DLSS on (at high res) or different DLSS versions against each other, which I think is telling.

Generating stock value?

But it'll keep the hype cycle going for a little bit longer! Line must go up!

PhysX, G-Sync, HairFX, etc.

The writing was on the wall for a long time already.

I will never get how Nvidia got THAT popular amongst gamers. Like sure, Nvidia always had some benefits in certain usecases. But how many people were actually capturing game footage as a job and needed the best hw encoders? How many gamers also used their gaming rig also as a workstation for things where CUDA is essential? A lot! For sure. But not >90% market share a lot.

haha you make it sound like any GPU will be affordable in the first place

Exactly for those reasons the last gaming notebook I bought (used) was all AMD. Comes with some caveats but it's better than supporting Nvidia.

They've not been for the gamers for a long time