AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 (AFMF 2) is designed to leverage AI to generate additional frames, boosting in-game frame rates without requiring any modifications from the game developers. Initial figures suggest the tech can increase frame rates by approximately 40 percent on laptops equipped with the latest Ryzen AI chips, though performance gains will vary depending on the game.
Do gamers actually want technologies like these? Upscaling makes sense to me, but frame generation just seems like it would increase lag and give visual information that isn’t reliable.
Oh you missed because your enemy wasn’t where the AI predicted he would be.
the problem imo is that it’s advertised absolutely incorrectly. they make it sound like the tech makes the game run faster. it doesn’t. it leverages the free resources due to the cpu bottleneck in order to interpolate frames, like those 2010’s tvs with their “9000hz motion” interpolation. it’s okay for smoothing out jerky frame movement in solo third person rpgs and stuff like that, but absolutely disgusting and unusable for first person shooters. yet, following the gaming subs on reddit, people are gushing over it like it’s free real performance increases out of thin air.
That’s because frame gen Technology is actually pretty good right now. Even the folks at digital Foundry have had good things to say
i dont disagree with it being in a decent state. i’m just annoyed by the marketting around it, which is deceiving, if not flatout lies.
Games do “run faster” and the perceived smoothness and actual framerate are increased.
Not sure where the deceit or flat out lies are coming from.
No, the games runs at the same rate or slightly slower. The driver adds extra frames which the game knows nothing about.
And what’s the end result? Game is perceived to run faster…
The animation is smoother but actions have a longer response time. Depending on the game that could be negative to your perception of “speed”.
I’m already using a worse version of frame generation through lossless scaling. The problems you describe are there for sure but for some games it’s literally magic. Metal Gear Rising Revengeance can “run” at 144 frames now and it looks and feels super clean.
Putting the frames through gsync/freesync really lowers the input lag too.
I’ve only tried frame Gen. on a few games. But Forza horizon 5 in particular makes me nautious with is frame Gen. it feels like I’m getting much worse frame times than it says I’m getting. Frame Gen. off feels so much better.
Granted this is on a 4090 going from ~130 fps to 144. But you’d think with that little of a difference it should be the least noticeable.
I found that if your getting well past 60 frames all it’s gonna do is cause artifacts and input lag. But if you are running a game at 60 or less it really shines.
The bigger problem is that when the frame rate is low, the created frames are ass. But if you’re already running at like 90, boosting it to whatever is your monitor’s refresh rate make imperfections hard to spot. You lose a few ms to latency, but you get a lot of motion detail.
If it makes the game feel smoother then I don’t really mind, but yeah if the generation creates too many artifacts, or hides an NPC that would otherwise be visible that is a significant problem.
In a way, our vision works somewhat like this to compensate for missing information (blind spot in our retina, eye blinks) or to smooth out some movement (saccadic suppression, predictive processing), etc
In my experience these frame insertion things have made a game feel smeary, blurry and laggy for me. But maybe this one is better somehow?
if only there was a better way to generate frames. Maybe calculate the pixel values directly from a model of the scene or something…
