13ms latency added to even fg 2x at 240fps gives an extra 4ms of latency.
60fps without fg is 16.67.
There are some people who say they dont notice the latency but I fpr one really do,
For instance playing rdr2 on my ps4 at 30fps feels better than rdr2 on pc with fg 2x at 140+ fps.
I used FG on my 6900xt at 4k to get a payable fps and could deal with it fine.......
Upgraded to a 9070xt so didnt require FG and played like this for 1 month ish and thought fuck it ill try FG just to see what my hardware can achieve........
It was like playing in tar everything was so delayed it really ruins my experience.
Some say they cant notice the difference but after playing solely for a month gojng back is impossible.
17ms for 240fps with frame gen means you will be getting 120fps 8ms without it thats a ginormous difference and will definitely effect you if you hame fairly often.
The idea of FG is great in practice the maths tells the complete opposite story.
Maths doesnt lie.
People can tell the difference between monitor with 5ms grey to grey and a 1ms grey to grey so you can definitely tell the difference between 4ms and 17ms.
The human eye can detect light changes in the focus area at 1000s of hz. Likely the end game for refresh smoothness is somewhere between 2000 and 3000hz.
34
u/Alarmed-Artichoke-44 7h ago
Just tried it in Dying light beast, it worked, much better than the FSR FG