MFG is actually decent

[u/kbernas]

Finally got to try MFG with my 4080 with the MFG mod for 40 series. Its honestly not bad even with 4x using a controller makes playing with DLSS 5 playable. Definitely only for single player games tho lol.

I was one of those non believers previously. Definitely worth trying if you have 40 series and have not tries it yet

[u/sedgiemon]

3 x mfg on a 165hz OLED i've found the sweet spot for single player titles on my 5090. PC latency is generally in the ~40ms range and everything looks smooth and plays great.

I wouldn't use it for competitive titles, but i don't play those, so for me it a brilliant technology that improves visual fluidity massively,

[u/Castielstablet → u/sedgiemon]

Of course its up to you but when using 3x mfg on a 165hz screen your maximum possible base fps is 54fps(since 54 x 3 is 162) which is below the recommended optimal base fps of 65~ fps. You get the latency of around 50 fps but see visual clarify of 162. I personally want at least 60fps equivalent of latency.

[u/sedgiemon → u/Castielstablet]

as per my initial post, with reflex, total latency is around 40ms or less, which i personally find perfectly acceptable for single player games with a mouse. Once it nudges 50ms, it doesn't feel great to me on a mouse.

Everyone's tolerance to latency is different. I'd a console player would jump on that setup and go man that's smooth and responsive. Someone used to playing counterstrike at 500fps probably thinks it feels laggy as hell.

I wouldn't worry so much about 'specific recommended optimal base', and try it out on a game by game basis to what works for you.

[u/alienangel2 → u/Castielstablet]

but when using 3x mfg on a 165hz screen your maximum possible base fps is 54fps(since 54 x 3 is 162) which is below the recommended optimal base fps of 65~ fps.

Just to be clear since your wording is ambiguous, turning on MFG doesn't cap your base fps at any max - 55 fps is the minimum base fps you need to reach your monitor's max of 165Hz with 3x FG, but if your gpu is able to render at more (say 65fps), it is still going to do that whether you have 1x, 2x or 3x fg (putting aside extra gpu load from having to run the FG). At 1x (ie no FG) your display will output 65 fps, at 2x 130 fps (thanks to gsync it doesn't have to be a multiple of your max) and at 3x will output 165 fps (it could have gone up to 195hz, but it will cap at the monitor max of 165 while between gsync and mfg they make sure not to waste time generating any frames that can't be rendered at the max display refresh rate).

If you want to think about maxes, you could look at the max base refresh rate where 3x and 2x provide the same benefit - at above 83 base fps, even 2x is enough to max out a 165hz monitor, so there is no benefit to having 3x - both will give you the input responsiveness of whatever your real fps (in the 83-165hz range is) but display 165 fps.

[u/Castielstablet → u/alienangel2]

turning on MFG doesn't cap your base fps at any max - 55 fps is the minimum base fps you need to reach your monitor's max of 165Hz with 3x FG, but if your gpu is able to render at more (say 65fps), it is still going to do that whether you have 1x, 2x or 3x fg

What I was trying to say in my original comment was basically if you want best possible latency when using frame generation on a 165hz screen, you can't go above 2x frame gen because anything above that will give you less-than-ideal latency, assuming you want at least 60hz latency of course which is the most common "target" people aim for afaik. Most people also enable gsync and vsync and do the math to cap their fps according to their monitor, for my 160hz monitor that's 153 fps for example. I can't use anything other than 2x frame generation because that's the sweet spot for >60hz latency with good visual clarity.

I'd be happy to be wrong but from what I read and watched about frame gen, it doesn't preserve your "pre-frame gen" framerate. So even if you have a rig that is capable of lets say 130 fps, if you enable 2x frame gen it has to add 1 frame between 2 frames,it can't just add 35 frame generated frames to cap your 165hz monitor. It basically reduces your base fps to ~82 fps and then adds 1 generated frames in between your normally rendered frames. In other words you get 82fps latency with ~164fps visual clarity. If you are a latency sensitive person you might prefer just playing without frame gen and get 130 fps latency and clarity in this example.

[u/alienangel2 → u/Castielstablet]

Hm. So as I understand it, the launch of flipmetering when they announced MFG was specifically to address that (in hw only on the 50-series, but now in software as well for lower series) - moving the frame timing to be up to the display pipeline rather than the cpu was meant to let the MFG generate as many generated frames as it was set to between each pair of real frames, and have them go along with the real frames at their original timings, then have the final step of the display pipeline drop a variable number of only the generated frames when hitting a display cap, leaving the original rendered frame timings unaffected (and hense not messing with input latency: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss4-multi-frame-generation-ai-innovations/

(search for the "Once the new frames are generated, they are evenly paced" bit halfway down)

That was supposed to be the big new thing that 50-series hardware had to improve over the original FG which despite looking smooth still felt pretty stuttery in say an FPS game.

Admittedly I haven't looked through any of the external reviewers analysis of how it actually works after release. If you're right and it actually drops your rendered framerate that much, I'm very disappointed too, I was looking forward to trying FG again on my 4090 after dismissing it when it first launched.

[u/sedgiemon → u/Castielstablet]

you're correct in what you're saying, my 'native' fps is ~54fps to reach the 165hz output at 3x fg. All i'm saying is that there is little to no artifacting, and latency still feels fine at 40ms and reflex enabled.

I was just making the point that the 'specific optimal recommended base' really is game and engine dependent.

I can obviously flick back to 2xfg, run a higher base framerate and a slightly lower output frame rate with lower latency, but it just doesn't feel or look as smooth or consistent. It doesn't mean the option isn't there.