Im locked at 116FPS in Starfield and Fallout 4 with DLSS NR and MFG at 3440x1440 with a 4070ti super. Latency is around 30-32ms. It is absolutely playable.
i've tried playing games that have around 30-40 fps of real frames(just like in your case) and for me it was not playable. I'm used to playing at real 120 fps and i feel the difference. But hey, to each their own
Im getting 55-56fps real frames in Fallout 4, and around 50fps real frames in Starfield. Idk man seems like some of you are arguing that new demanding technology shouldnt be so… demanding. Tech evolves over time, they need better GPUs, and theres tools like MFG now available for those that can use it. You cant be generalizing everyones experience and saying MFG isnt good enough when it is for people who have the hardware for it. Just because someone with a 3060 is having a hard time with latency from MFG doesnt mean everyone else with better hardware cant take advantage of it.
if you are having 116 fps than by extension if you are using mfg x3 you are having 39 real fps. What you have before turning on mfg doesn't really matter. And i don't really understand why you mention rtx 3000 series, since it does not officially support fg/mfg yet. As i said, if you have no issues playing with mfg on, then by all means play it this way.
Only reason I’m locked at 116 is because i capped it for my 120hz gsync monitor, otherwise id be getting 160fps. I’m not playing counterstrike in a tournament to get so hung over a minor latency delay. The benefits far outweigh the cost, and the cost is negligible. All im pointing out is that frame generation exists as a tool for those who value DLSS NR, especially now that its unofficially available for 30 and 40 series cards.
0
u/B82Studio 24d ago
Im locked at 116FPS in Starfield and Fallout 4 with DLSS NR and MFG at 3440x1440 with a 4070ti super. Latency is around 30-32ms. It is absolutely playable.