You may have noticed that some PC games now include frame generation as part of the system requirements. The problem here is that PC gaming system requirements typically target 60 FPS performance, and playing games at 60 FPS with frame generation is anything but enjoyable.
Frame generation doesn’t improve performance like scaling does
I agree with developers making scaling, such as DLSS or FSR, part of the system requirements for a PC that is aiming for 60 FPS performance. Of course, using upscaling to reach 60 FPS is far from perfect, especially at 1080p.
But DLSS and FSR 4 are often better than native rendering, even at 1080p when it comes to DLSS 4 upscaling (I was stunned when I saw how impressive DLSS 4 looked at 1080p back when I was still using an RTX 3070).
Of course, in most cases you won’t have perfect image quality, but you will be able to play a game on a GPU that would have otherwise struggled to reach 40 FPS at native resolution.
On the other hand, frame generation doesn’t offer a real performance boost like scaling does. When it comes to upscaling, your GPU continues to render every frame displayed on your monitor, which means that input latency (the time between moving your mouse or controller and displaying that movement on your monitor) decreases as the frame rate increases.
For example, 60 FPS performance means at least 16.66 ms of input latency, since 60 frames are rendered per second. At 100 FPS, the minimum latency is around 10ms, as each frame takes 10ms to render. Of course, there are additional sources of input latency, such as your monitor and other components in your PC, that add up to a higher total, but you get the gist.
Frame generation can also increase the frame rate. But instead of reducing input latency, it increases it. This is because image generation works by embedding a generated image between two GPU-rendered images. In the case of NVIDIA’s DLSS 4 multi-frame generation technology, you can have two or even three generated frames inserted between two frames rendered by the GPU.
The algorithms responsible for generating these intermediate, or “fake,” images take two images rendered by the graphics card and attempt to “guess” what the intermediate images would look like, create them, then place them between two “real” images. The results aren’t perfect, but good enough that most people won’t notice slight inaccuracies in the generated images.
What people notice is the increased input lag caused by the generated images and the processing of the real images required to create these “fake” ones. Since the generated images are created by an algorithm and not rendered, moving your mouse does nothing when these images are displayed, resulting in increased input lag.
So we can say that frame generation does not improve the overall performance as it would also result in reduced input lag in addition to higher frame rate. Frame generation allows for smooth movement, making the game appear to be running at a higher frame rate but with higher input latency than if the GPU had rendered all the frames itself.
Games running at 60 FPS with frame generation suffer from high input lag
When you have a base frame rate of 60 FPS, where each frame is rendered by the GPU, the total input lag is quite low. Enabling frame generation and increasing the frame rate to around 120 FPS can still feel quite responsive, especially if you have a monitor with low input latency and response time. The higher the base frame rate, the less “floaty” the game appears with frame generation enabled.
Additionally, at high frame rates, visual artifacts caused by image generation are virtually imperceptible because the performance is so high that your eyes cannot notice them in most cases.
I’m currently playing Borderlands 4 with most settings maxed out and frame generation enabled, and my frame rate is still above 110 FPS, with my base frame rate being around 60 FPS. I definitely notice the extra input lag compared to a game running at 110 FPS with no frame generation, but the extra latency is low enough for an enjoyable experience.
However, if you have a base frame rate of just 30 FPS which is then doubled to 60 FPS with frame generation, your minimum input lag will be 33.33ms. Add to that the latency of other components and frame generation, and we’re talking about a very high input latency that most people will perceive. High input latency is one of the main reasons why games running at 30 FPS feel so floaty and slow, and why more and more gamers are demanding that games offer 60 FPS performance modes, even on consoles.
Certainly, using frame generation on a base frame rate of just 30 FPS to double it to 60 FPS seems smooth, since your monitor is indeed delivering 60 frames per second. However, the game feels floaty due to the increased input lag. Worse still, since the frame rate is low to begin with, you also start to notice visual artifacts during the generated frames. So you not only get higher input lag, but also worse image quality.
The end result is a floaty, visually messy experience that looks smooth but makes the game less responsive than it would be at 30 FPS without frame generation.
Making frame generation part of the system requirements is unacceptable
This is why it is unacceptable to include frame generation in the system requirements. If a game requires frame generation to reach 60 FPS at the minimum or recommended specs, this means that the CPU and GPU combinations listed can actually only deliver 30 “real” frames. In this case, developers must either specify 30 FPS as the expected performance, or specify hardware capable of delivering a “true” 60 FPS performance as the recommended configuration.
But claiming that a particular GPU is sufficient for a 60 FPS experience with frame generation is misleading at best. Those 60 FPS certainly won’t feel like native 60 FPS, where every frame is rendered by the GPU.
I’ve tested a fair number of games on PC handhelds, many of which struggle to achieve a stable 30 FPS on devices like the Steam Deck and ASUS ROG Ally. I always enable frame generation when testing games to check if the game runs smoothly at 60 FPS with frame generation (either natively or via Lossless Scaling).
But in the majority of cases, the experience is noticeably smooth, even with a controller. With a mouse and keyboard, the control method favored by most PC gamers, things are even worse. On the other hand, it’s quite difficult to notice visual artifacts on compact portable displays, especially with scaling, but they’re much easier to spot on a large monitor.
This trend of generating list frames as part of system requirements started earlier this year with Wild Monster Hunters. The game’s recommended specifications list frame generation as necessary to achieve 60 FPS.
Instead of listing the actual specs needed to hit “real” 60 FPS, Capcom has attempted to fool players into thinking the game is less demanding than it actually is. This decision backfired spectacularly, with Wild Monster Hunters it is now rated “Mixed” on Steam, with recent reviews being “Mostly Negative.” The game’s sales have also exploded recently, in part because Capcom has failed to improve its performance since its release on PC or consoles.
Borderlands 4 is another example of this trend. Truth be told, the official system requirements for the game on Steam don’t mention the frame generation needed to reach 60 FPS. However, a recent article shared by Gearbox, following the initial uproar over the game’s unusually high hardware requirements, includes optimization guides for AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, many of which require frame generation to achieve 60 FPS performance.
Dying Light: The Beast is yet another game that includes image generation as part of its system requirements. To achieve 60 FPS in 4K with Ultra specs and ray tracing, you need frame generation. So in reality you need hardware a level or two above the game’s ultra specs to enjoy it in 4K and 60 FPS with ray tracing and no frame generation. While it’s not as blatant as Monster Hunter, it’s still misleading.
I wouldn’t mind if these games listed frame generation as necessary to achieve 120 FPS. This would mean that the specs listed would be sufficient for a 60 FPS experience without frame generation, the level of performance most PC gamers expect from the recommended system specs.
But the way developers have presented frame generation as necessary for a 60 FPS experience distorts the truth and takes advantage of the fact that many casual gamers don’t know the ins and outs of frame generation, believing that their PC can run a certain game at 60 FPS, with input latency and image quality to match.
In the future, technologies such as asynchronous rendering, aspects of which are used by Frame Warp, a component of NVIDIA’s Reflex 2 technology, that detach mouse and controller inputs from rendered frames and generated frames could allow games to be very responsive with frame generation, even if the base frame rate is only 30 FPS.
However, at the moment, 60 FPS with frame generation looks quite jarring and is plagued by visual artifacts. Integrating frame generation into the system specifications needed for a 60 FPS experience is misleading to gamers. This makes them believe their hardware can run games at 60 FPS when it really can’t. This practice is all kinds of wrong and should stop.
