Every time Daniel uploads a video, it feels like seeing a good friend. Genuine, informative, thorough, and just dog gone friendly. My only membership on YT. :)
@@danielowentechCan you please try out lossless scaling's LFG. Identical concept but a far better implementation in my opinion It doesn't "give up' like FMF does. And outside of UI artifacts, it's essentially an artifact free presentation(at 120 fps(locked)to 240hz for me)
If you like content like this, check out Digital Foundry. Whereas Daniel drills down deep into specific topics, DF takes a bit of a broader view of the overall gaming landscape, and their content is incredibly well made. Not to talk down on Daniel of course! It’s just a different vibe.
No you're not wrong, you're a reviewer, you're supposed to be having high expectations and nitpicking every small detail. It's just that the majority of gamers doesn't see it the same way. Hardware reviews and real world gaming are two very different subjects, just look at the steam charts what games are being played, and look at your videos what games you benchmark.
But hey at least now we can get FG although it's driver level/ forced FG, since game devs for what ever reason took a frikkin long time to implement FSR3 natively, not to mention Nvidia sponsored titles, who knows when those games gonna update to FSR3, so might as well use Afmf and hope it run well, cause so far it's a hit and miss for me, slow paced games like BG3 run quite well while face paced games like avatar don't.
Biggest win with AFMF is that we can now discuss frame gen without people screeming fake frames and latency killer every other comment. The AMD users have now fully embraced frame gen.
Daniel you do your work well and it is obviously to see the effort you give us. Keep on it! You let us feel you are a good friend and let us show beyond the stages. Thumbs up! Greetings from Austria 🇦🇹
To answer your question: the foliage issues in Plague Tale definitely come across in a youtube video. When AFMF is engaged, the foliage looks like it fizzling and breaking up during camera movements.
Ancientgameplay did a tutorial on how to properly use AFMF, and i do find that locking your fps below your max refresh rate is better than unlocked fps, for ex if you hitting above 60-70fps and your max refresh rate is 120hz, with AFMF enabled you will get severe screen tearing, while locking your fps to 59 bring far better experience with AFMF.
let me get this straight. if i am getting 70 fps, native, i should use 2 additional technologies which add a layer of latency, scales a lower res image than the native one and cap it at 59 fps. you cannot be serious, lol
@@gloomsurvivor Well no one is forcing you to use it, just turn it off, it's a driver level implementation and not forced FG, beside it is used to backfill your high refresh rate monitor and thus bring a perceived smoothness to visual quality it's not a performance improving tech, though i do hate it as well when they use FG as marketing tool to compare it with previous gen gpus as if it got far better performance with it enabled.
i dont got screen tearing even when i have more than 165 fps with AFMF which is the max my monitor supports, 7800xt with HP X34 monitor, in fact i never had screen tearing on that monitor period.
@@gloomsurvivor mr Thomas kinda misquote Ancient Gameplay, from my perspective, AFMF is not FSR, also, first thing to do is determine the max refresh rate of your monitor. So, for a 120hz monitor, AFMF is useless because you have to cap using RTSS to 59, which is BAD all around. now if the monitor is say, 240hz, then u cap using RTSS to 119, turn on AFMF, and if all is well, you should have a 'fluider' experience up to 238
My own Tests with FMF are: Don't use it in FPS Games due to the high input lag but also fast movements, it workes great in Flight Simulator or City Skylines (doubling the FPS). All in all, for some Games, it's really usefull, for others not so much
Hello Daniel! First of all, you are amazing, you really report as a colleague or friend would and that is very good, it is greatly appreciated. Regarding AFMF, I think you are correct and everyone's perception is different. However, what we can do to understand each other is to share experiences. Personally, I use YES or YES a setting for the games I want to play with AFMF. This is not there or at least it does not appear to me in the global configurations of the driver, but it does appear in the particular configurations of each game. I simply go to the games section, choose the game, and there is an option called "Radeon Enhanced Sync" Yes or yes I activate it if I am going to use AFMF, since it is the closest thing there is to Vsync for AFMF at the moment, yes, when the frames go below the refresh rate you feel a "whiplash" of frames (either due to the demands of the game, turning the camera more than 60 degrees quickly or both), although in general the experience is much more fluid. In addition to the Radeon boost with the resolution change to 16.7% Radeon image sharpening at 70% Particularly I play at 1440p. On a Rx 6700 10gb And so far it has worked quite well for the games I play. (Genshin impact, resident evil, Rocket league... Yes rocket league with AFMF, call me crazy if you want hahaha) If you like to try, go ahead. I hope my experience helps you Greetings!!!
Tested it a bit in Hogwarts with gamepad where I have 60-75 fps natively, apart from some stutters. It would only really kill the added frames if I started panning 360, and I didn't really notice artifacts. However, in a slow game like that with a gamepad, I don't even notice higher fps that much as long as it's above 60 so I'm not sure I will keep using it. But it's a neat feature, good to see AMD actually beat Nvidia on something for once.
i have both 4090 and 7900, i just update the 7900xtx and turned on the AFMF and it´s actually insane i went from 88 to 250 fps (my monitor can actually use those frames) with no visual downgrades except some flickering that can be fixed, the fact that this works in every game without implementation it´s crazy
Honestly my thoughts on AFMF are similar to yours. I find the frame overlapping between the real and blurry generated frames to be quite distracting in games where you have to pan the camera, like third person games. I did a 120 fps recording and if you skip frame by frame in the editor you can see ihow it happens, where parts of the image misalign and overlap with some blurry spots and some not so blurry which leads to this stuttery mismatched motion consistency. It works OK in some games like Forza Motorsport where the camera is fixed. Otherwise I feel you need at least 100 fps for enough real frames to mask over the generated ones. It's essentially a frame smoothing technology for very high refresh displays it's how I'd probably use it. But yeah if I am getting 60 fps in a game turning AFMF on makes the image fluidity worse in most games I've tried even though its doubling the framerate but I havent tried a ton of games and may look into it a bit more.
I'd also say that the feature turning itself off during fast motion defeats the purpose of frame generation. The whole point is to reduce persistence blur during fast motion. If the camera is moving slowly, you can see everything clearly anyway. I feel like the time spent on developing this technology could've been spent on something more useful.
@@THU31 My guess is that they probably do that because the faster the motion the lower quality generated frames you get because of missing game engine data therefore it probably doesnt look great. You can see this when moving the camera without triggering the feature disabling.
@@ManualSword depends heavily on the game tbh, as well as on the upscaler. For whatever reason using it with XeSS (at least in cyberpunk) completely breaks the image
My experience with CP2077 and AFMF was pretty great now that I tried it again today. It did not look like crap and I can run 3440x1440p with my preferred settings with RT maxed out without Path Tracing. Pretty close to what you were running (FSR quality, every other RT feature on, Lighting on Psycho or High) and with a 3700X+7800XT, I get over 60 FPS consistently with AFMF. Previously I was running at about 40, which was mostly fine, since my CP2077 gameplay is pretty slow-paced and mostly photography anyways. 40-50 is as low as I can tolerate. I've dropped a few settings to optimize the experience as per Digital Foundry's guide for stuff that is pretty much not perceivable, but give a slight boost to FPS. I prefer the game looking amazing vs. high framerates, I play it for the aesthetic.
Perception is everything, and everybody perceives things differently, you are totally correct:) . I am super sensitive to latency but not sensitive to frame rate. I much rather have low latency at 75FPS than high latency at 150FPS.
AFMF turning off when motion is too fast (and it doesn't seem to take much motion to trigger that) is a real dealbreaker. It completely defeats the purpose of motion smoothing. On the plus side, modders are implementing the much higher quality FSR 3 frame gen in many games. I've personally tested the DLSS->FSR FG mod for Cyberpunk and it works very well.
Agreed, but I've also heard people pairing this with HYPR-RX, and it's Dynamic Resolution feature, that only turns on and boosts framerate when huge amount of motion is in place.
@@technologicalelite8076 That's an interesting solution though I wonder how much it would actually help. I have not been impressed with that feature at all, as it also results in a wildly variable framerate, and also greatly degrades image quality in motion since it relies on basic bilinear upscaling last I checked.
@@nimbulan2020 Right, it's not a more aggresive upscaling, which would be more interesting. This is just gonna have to come down to more testing and user preference 😅
same thing i noticed, same gpu and cpu as listed in your description, afmf is jittery and not as smooth but still very happy they released it, also very happy they made fsr3 open source for anyone to use in their game.
Idk works pretty good , what I did was turn on super resolution , went from 1440p to 1080p but it upscaled to 1440p , frame gen on and anti lag on , fsr 2.1 on cyberpunk , the latency went from 40 to 20 , I don’t use boost and it works really well and super smooth
it seems in certain games its better than others, like older games where its easier to run, but even so fast fps drops make it noticeable for me very easily, @@AzSureno
Thank you for trying them with a controller as well. Controller players are a HUGE part of the gaming player base. I absolutely cannot stress how awesome it is to see someone testing the different inputs. This is something I RARELY if EVER see. Great job man!!!
Thanks for the upload! You should check out Lossless Scaling's frame generation. There was a new release that came out that altered the way the frame generation works, resulting in a pretty smooth experience. Might be fun to do a head-to-head with Lossless Scaling FG vs AFMF, battle of the non game engine FG methods!
really is that playable how is the input lag? I tried doing this in Alan Wake 2 but it got all fucked up when i combined FSR3 and Lossless together.@@enf.dudurj
The higher the base fps, the less often AFMF will disable itself as each frame is more similar to the next because it lasts fewer milliseconds. Also the flickering will be less distracting because each generated frame will be on screen for a shorter time. 75 base fps instead of 60 at 1440p in Cyberpunk is a huge improvement from my testing. At 120 fps base it basically only turns off if you shake the camera left to right at max speed for 180 degree turns. It's great if you have a 240hz monitor or higher and just want to fill out the refresh rate in every game, even those without frame gen, especially older games. On a similar note, the more pixels you have, the more often it will disable, which is why you only need 60 fps base at 1080p, but 70 at 1440p and probably more for ultrawides.
This has been my experience as well. It's a real shame that the highest refresh rate Daniel Owen has is a 120 hrz monitor. I feel like this is another example of AMD marketing ruining an interesting product. They obviously "recommend" at least 60 fps at 1080p and 72 fps at 1440p because there are tons of 120+ hrz 1080p displays and a lot of 144+ hrz 1440p displays and you don't want people to feel left out. I haven't done extensive testing at 1080p, but across 5 displays (1 1080p and 4 1440p), I felt that 90 fps was the ABSOLUTE lowest fps at which AFMF felt playable. The latency felt better and it only rarely kicked off. While I say locked to 90 fps WAS playable, I much preferred locked to 110-120 fps. It felt like I was playing 1440p high/ultra at 120 fps (because I was), but with the smoothness of 240 hrz. In addition, the few times I noticed AFMF kick off (when locked between 110 an 120) it was less jarring because I was still playing at over 100 fps. Even then it was only in maybe 2 or 3 of the 12 or so games I tried it in that I would actually consider using AFMF. I previously had a 300 hrz 1080p display that I now regret selling, as I think it would be fascinating to test AFMF at higher frames. Especially because a lot of games built in older engines like GTA V and Apex legends benefit from capping your framerate so that you aren't bouncing off the engine's upper limit for fps and ruining your frametimes. Even if I wouldn't use AFMF in those games specifically, I think they would be interesting case studies.
@@jorge69696 It's designed to work in tandem with Radeon boost, but yeah i agree it's silly, just give us end user the ability to enable/disable it on fast motion instead having to turn on another unnecessary feature
I have a 160hz monitor and 7900xtx. I cap my FPS to 79fps so I have an output with AFMF of 158fps (only on games where I’m getting about 60 - 80 fps). So for example, in the Witcher 3, full raytracing, I like the way it feels. And I use a controller and turn down the sensitivity to .75 and if I do a full camera rotation, AFMF doesn’t disable. It’s very specific, but useful and I like it.
at 9.:02 I noticed you were using Borderless Fullscreen with AFMF, AFMF recommends to be used on Exclusive Fullscreen setting. Not sure if that matters a lot but AMD recommends it.
@@doctorvengeance1 lol yeah I’m planning on buying a 1440p 165 hz monitor but school started and I think it’ll be until like July when I have enough money 🥲
It would be interesting to test it without knowing whether or not AFMF was on. If you were unaware of whether or not you were currently testing with it on or off it then it might give a better idea of what it feels like to play with since you might be expecting to feel latency with it on so you perceive a higher latency
Seeing random drops from 120 to sub-60fps is going to be _very_ noticeable no matter who you are or what you think is enabled. Maybe if you had a 120 baseline boosting to 200 I'd believe you might not notice it and chalk it up to a placebo effect, but everyone can tell the difference in 60-120 in both looks and feel.
Boost increases your performance by degrading the image. If AFMF already has issues with a still image, a moving image that is rendered at a lower resolution is going to look like Vaseline.
Great informational review. But a short answer is that upscalling or frame generation should only be used if needed, and a base frame rate of 60 is best if any of the technologies are used. I only use them if I have to use them.
I have tested afmf in Alan wake 2 with the preview drivers and the 24.1.1 and i have noticed an improvement in motion. In preview drivers I could notice the desync while Moving fast, now with the latest drivers I can barely notice. I'm playing With a rx6800 at 55-60 fps without Afmf , and 110/120 with afmf.
I have a 240hz monitor that I mainly use for multiplayer games close to 240fps. But with single player games I often get around 100-120fps. I suspect this feature might work decently for this use case.
I've been using it for months. I have a 144 hz monitor and if I unlock my framerate (I typically use RTSS to limit frames to 71=142 FMF), FMF gives up far less often. I don't do this due to the tearing though. In your case, it would probably give up very rarely.
I have been messing around with just that. As I've said in other comments I think AMD is once again horribly miss representing the technology. None of the frame generation options are 30 fps to 60 miracle solutions and AFMF especially is NOT a 60 fps to 120 technology. I have been messing around in a few games and it's 90 fps MINIMUM imo. The experience at 110-120 felt noticeable better, but only in about 2/12 games was it even worth considering turning on. I haven't tried pushing past my monitor's max refresh rate, but my may try it out.
@@MLWJ1993yes, but I think your missing the point of AFMF, it works virtually in ANY Dx11/12 game (Vulkan most likely coming soon) so hundreds of thousands of games now have frame gen capability, that is a huge step. and it will only get better with driver updates. Sure FSR3 frame gen will be better but we are only talking a handful of games atm.
As an FYI an update is being made to LSFG so theirs no need to cap your framerate (currently it requires it being half your refresh rate & having a stable FPS otherwise frame pacing goes out the window) No ETA on when this will be done but when it is it will be a even stronger competitor to AFMF, it's already better in *some* ways
@@praisetheoak AFMF doesn't have as many artifacts because it's always disabling, so it's hard to say which looks better. If it disabled anytime an artifact would occur it would also look good but it would make it almost pointless to use
@@praisetheoakLSFG definitely isn't great (best to stick with the stable release, I get even worse ghosting on the beta) but it shows a lot of promise. After testing it though I can see why AMD disables AFMF on fast movement, because interpolated frames can't keep up and look absolutely abysmal, and the same is true with LSFG (I try to smooth it over a bit with motion blur, which can help). AFMF seems to have fixed a lot of text and UI ghosting since its early preview releases, but both AFMF and LSFG need to solve or at least mitigate the fast movement problem without just disabling it.
@@Hybred Fair take in emulators capped at 30fps where frame disparity is a problem, but in normal gameplay in +60fps games like Dark Souls and Valheim, AFMF has worked wonderfully for me with almost no UI ghosting and no break-up, whereas LSFG makes the image too unstable and full of artifacts to have any practical use. Needless to say, I'm intrigued what the future versions of LSFG will bring to the table.
@@TheEnhas In my testing (Witcher 3 next gen, Dark Souls 1, Wind Waker GC emulator, RE4 remake, MHWorld) I was pleasantly surprised that even in motion, AFMF has almost no UI ghosting or break-up. However, at anything below 60fps, the constant on-off switching makes it unusable in emulators. At +60fps works wonderfully depending on the game. I feel like the solution for both LSFG and AFMF would be somewhere in the middle: A slider to adjust whether we want constant interpolation or a what percentage we want it to switch off to avoid too many artifacts.
I think if you have a really high refresh rate monitor like 240 it will be worth using. But i have a lg c2 so I can only get 120fps so I need to lock my fps to 58fps and then use afmf to get my frames below 120fps. If afmf gets above your displays refresh rate you will get stutter. So targeting 120fps using afmf is not ideal you have to run at a lower fps therefore more lag and more artifacts. Fabio put out a video today and tested it with a 1440p 160hz ultrawide, It seems good there because he locks his fps to 78 fps. giving him more real frames for better latency and less artifacts.
I think the frame generation gimmick works decently for midrange users in a very specific scenario, I was running Alan Wake 2 at 50~55fps, then I used the FSR3/frame generation mod, I was able to reach +- 85fps, so I turned v-sync on, locked at 60fps on a 60hz TV, it's working fine thus far imo didn't noticed input delay, artifacts, etc.. there was some "ghosting", but I got rid of it after turning off those stupid "filters" that simulates a movie picture (grain, lens distortion, etc). So, for high end users with 120hz monitors and beyond, they can follow your tip, for midrange users, I guess this tech will work decently in these scenarios, let's say Horizon 2 running at 50fps, turn on frame generation and v-sync, lock at 60fps, the GPU will work at 80% or so, saving energy, etc.. it's a win-win scenario in my pov, but it has to be implemented "professionally", not something the end user has to figure it out, using mods, messing around with the driver, etc.. nope, the game should have FSR3 and frame generation implemented by the devs, it's the bare minimum really. We can mess around with "older" games like Cyberpunk and so on, but the current games should have this option by default
@@RRRRRRRRR33 FSR3 is better I used afmf for ark survival ascended and after using afmf. The grass appears like it has a afterimage affect because theres too much detail for the afmf to reproduce correctly, I think daniel was seeing this for plague tale. I imagine older games afmf would better because theres less complexity in graphics.
If your monitor displays 120 frames per second. The game generates 58*2= 116 frames. What do you think the monitor displays instead of the missing 4 frames? Clue: When the monitor has finished outputting a frame and a new frame is not yet ready. All the video card can offer is to display the previous one. (of course, if you don’t have FreeSync, if you have it, the technology will work well, but it will be smooth without it thanks to FreeSync). What do you think will happen if the frame is 2ms late? The monitor needs to output a frame, but it doesn’t, it starts outputting the previous frame. And after 2ms a late frame arrives. So the game will start making a new frame, if it manages to make it by the time the monitor asks for a new frame, then the late frame will be thrown out, and if it doesn’t have time, then the late one will be thrown out, but by that time a lot of time will have passed in the game :)) ) Yes, the limit of 58 will really save you from tearing, but at the expense of the fact that there will always be late and discarded frames. Which will lead to an increase in input lag. It will be even worse than playing with VSYNC. Plus one more question. To make an intermediate frame you need 2 frames. The first frame is the one that was shown. Where can I get the second one? It's simple. You see the game one frame later :))) There is always the last (current) frame that will not be shown to you.
@@12coco100 Depending on the "old" game, maybe is not even worthy to give it a shot. I am thinking about replaying Horizon 1, at my current setup I can run it at 1440p, max settings, locked at 60fps, etc.. so really, frame generation would be overkill in scenarios such as these (unless you go overboard just for the laughs, like 4k resolution, "extreme" settings and so on). I don't think this tech will perform miracles, like AMD users running ray tracing at 25fps, suddenly it catapults to 60fps, etc.. (unless AMD can replicate that "ray reconstruction" gimmick from Nvidia, who knows). But in specific scenarios were the game is already running well, 50fps and so on, you can force the FSR3 + frame generation to make it smoother. Now to reach 120fps, damn... it's overkill on your finances, lol it's already expensive to buy a monitor with that kind of frame rate (for TV users like myself, the prices are even more absurd), then your hardware has to be strong enough to go over 60fps already, only then you use the frame generation gimmick to simulate some "fake" frames... idk, seems too much of a hassle, unless the 120fps is really extraordinary (some people say that, others are not impressed, etc)
Just messed around with AFMF and had mixed results. It seems to be game dependent to me but for some games that are locked to 60 FPS like Elden ring, Nioh 1, or Arkham knight, it was fantastic. Unfortunately, games like Sekiro or DS3 had a lot of tearing… perhaps this might be due to unable to alter Vsync? I do think the technology is promising and I hope AMD continues to make adjustments
You can turn off vsync in nioh and elden ring with something like special k, you can turn off the 60fps limit in elden ring too (prob can in nioh but I've never tried). It makes them way more enjoyable to play Edit:before anyone says anything, unlocking fps doesn't break elden ring because the logic isn't tied to fps like it is in old dark souls, it's an artificial cap
Dani we're with you pal and deeply appreciate your tireless efforts to deliver us the best as you can. Honestly I can't thank you enough. I consider you a friend whois honest, genuine and helpful. You're a blessing pal.
Yh bro...but I do understand that it is objective to each gamer, however I definitely believe people wasn't giving it a fair chance because AMDs name is attached to it. Afmf plays really well in some games, it definitely shocked me at how good the latency felt also how the image quality was. I do get a little screen tearing but that's only when I was panning the camera around slowly to see it, but playing the game without a FPS counter and just normally, I really couldn't see the downsides that most people were claiming.
@@tristngrHave you modded in FSR 2? It’s a pain to get working, because Bedrock is installed in a folder you can’t access, but it was game-changing for me. Upscaling was greyed out for me so it was just native and rly slow by default, so the hassle is worth it
Im new here, Vex recommended this channel. I've just gotta say what the fuck is this upload schedule? 30+min Quality videos every day when there's something happening? sign me up.
The problem is that this is not a technology that improves performance but rather enhances motion in those games that already hit a higher frame rate but still have plenty of room to fill the refresh rate of your monitor, so it's really naive to expect any sort of boost and AMD should be criticized for advertising it as such. Its getting somewhat of a bad reputation because it's mainly used by those with slow systems that already struggle to even achieve a stable frame rate and who really need that performance uplift, but this ain't magic. In my case with the 7800XT, it worked great in Valheim (So much so, that I forgot I had it on). On Witcher 3 I didn't notice much of a difference and if anything it felt worse. Wind Waker on emulator was a mixed-bag; when it worked, it worked great, but it was constantly switching on and off because of the base 30fps frame-rate. I can see a much brighter future if AMD implements some sort of slider that adjust whether we want it always on, or when to stop frame-interpolation to avoid image break-up.
i have only tested frame generation on 240hz display, and my finding is that you need more than 150fps baseline to make it work. it scaled with fps and at 230fps generated it is close to being usable, i then extrapolate that 150 to 200fps baseline is where it becomes usable. pending testing. or you can say it another way, you need playable fps before enabling frame generation for that free doubling of fps. for me that is having a 360hz display at minimum.
It is a good thing PC gamers can start to add FSR3 to games as they see fit with the FSR3 Frame Generation MOD. So when Nvidia supported game developers refuse to add FSR3 we just do it ourselves.
Tried it in Lords of the Fallen and the input lag was insane, and it also didn't FEEL nearly as smooth as the FPS it was showing (70s-80s). It felt almost like half that FPS.
AFMF was never intended to replace FSR 3, it is there simply for games whose developers are too lazy and/or slow to implement FSR3. AFMF is usable in all DX11/12 games and doesn't require AMD users to hope that developers will bother to implement FSR3. Having said that as noted by other users, Lossless Scaling on steam is looking very promising and is not dependent on a particular gpu manufacturer.
I enjoyed my experiences with AFMF when following the recommendations. I enabled a frame rate limit, enhanced sync, Radeon Boost, and motion blur for fast movement. Yes leaving motion blur improves the experience. It seems more fluid and realistic to have rapid movements have motion blur and it stops as you focus on the new subject you are looking at. I tied mods but didn't immediately figure it out and one was causing crashes, perhaps, due to missing a step in installing it or the game not fully supported. AFMF and RSR would work with anything and it saved time installing a FSR3 mod with frame gen. LosslessFG looks promising but I didn't give it much time as AFMF was easier and gave satisfactory results. I really wanted more of my limited time playing and not figuring stuff out.
This is hysterical. xD You've enabled so much stuff like motion blur and radeon boost (lowers the resolution) which worsens the image quality to use a feature that worsens the image quality with tearing, micro stutter, frame drops and many visual artifacts.
@@mrblonde609 what's hysterical is nvidiot fanboys crying because they can't use frame gen in hundreds of thousands of Dx11/dx12 games. Looks wonderful on my Samsung G9 240hz monitor with my Aqua 7900XTX at 3.0GHZ extreme BIOS running most games at 240fps/hz on a 32:9 5120x1440 is silky smooth. Maybe you should actually try it before bashing.
@@mrblonde609 Imagine enabling motion blur to hide terrible image quality. 🤢 Just wipe your screen down with vaseline at that point and everything will look great. If people so badly need more FPS just go with FSR/DLSS performance mode. At least that gives you a boost across the board without the frame drops and micro stutters.
Without anti-lag +, afmf falls short. We already know it cant match up to FSR 3 due to a lack of temporal data, but this just widens the gap more. AMD needs to get Anti-Lag + fixed pronto. That was seriously shocking incompetence.
Upscaling though transparent hud elements would look worse in the FSR3 implementation than in the AFMF one. With AFMF the motion frames are generated based on what the resulting image actually looks like, meaning hud elements that are static will also end up looking mostly static in the motion vectors with AFMF. FSR3 however would instead get the motion vectors of the background, and apply those transformations to the HUD which would completely garble it
From what I hear, you better use it together with Radeon boost which increases the fps in fast camera movements by temporarily reducing render resolution, therefore compensate AFMF turning off in those situations.
Had a little play around with the settings earlier and tried in a couple of titles and RDR2 and got a massive uplift in frame rate im using a 7800XT and will be testing it out in other titles over the next few days
When purchasing my RX7800XT, I did not believe that fluid motion frames or FS3 were going to be a feature that I would use, but since purchasing I find I have been enabling them on almost every game. The technology is not perfect but I can only imagine where it will be in a few years.
@@dazlian3432 I'm using a 7900xt but my cpu is a 3950x and my ram kit is 3600 64gb. But I can only get stable ram at 3466mhz. If I go up to factory 3600 I get stutters on audio and the pc crashes...
Have you considered the effect of high fov due to using a widescreen format on afmf? You can see , especially in a plague tale, that the side of the image warps more because it's moving relatively faster when you rotate the camera. I expect the majority of people ( using 16:9 ) will have a better experience with afmf
Honestly I’ve been enjoying the addition, finally getting to play Cyberpunk RT on my 6700xt at 1080p with playable frame rates, yeah I feel the latency but it’s not awful imo
Frame Generation tech in general feels like a very "win more" or "rich get richer" feature... it works best by far when you're *already* at a very high frame rate so the generated frames have closer together frames to interpolate from and the interpolated frames end up being displayed for less time. It's really a feature to take a high frame rate into very high territory for very high refresh rate monitors. i feel for anyone who tries to use FG to salvage a poor framerate into what could be a more acceptable one..
Tried it on few games (1080p/144Hz on a 6700 10Gb), Cyberpunk and Starfield were the best experiences I got so far, Hogwards works quite well also I frame capped all games at 72fps on the driver setting. I think it's a really great option to smooth your gameplay on a mid- range PC. Already looking for a new monitor with higher Hz, 240Hz would be fine, while 360Hz seems a bit overkill for my PC
I have been trying it out in Cyberpunk 2077, RDR2, Dying Light 2 on a RX 6700 XT and it does not look smooth to me. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong here, I tried capping my frames by half of my monitors refresh rate and it even looks worse than having it off. I have purchased Lossless Scaling on Steam and that, really does a way better job for me than AFMF and It does not turn off when moving the mouse too much comparing to AFMF that for some reason for me, it turns off with not so fast movement which is not good.
the jitters you see in plague tale requiem is the reason why I don't play with HDR enable. When enable, HDR tends to make everything too bright, jittery or too dark sometimes. Maybe it's just my personnal experience.
IT SEEMS TO WORK ONLY IF YOU ARE INSIDE monitors freesync range !! So for example for 120hz freesync panel you would have to limit framerate to 59 in for example rivatuner and then enable it to double framerate to 118 . In that case it only seems to work correctly for me . If I let it go over that 120hz it feels worse than without it . 144hz monitor limit to 71 etc .. that being said it breaks up bit too easily but still seems to be pretty nice feature but only with controller imo
I'd like the ability to keep it on all the time, even if there is alot of motion on the screen. I can't say for sure I'd use it that way, but would like to choose for mhself
I’ve personally been using AFMF with heavily modded Skyrim, and I notice a few problems with foliage and more finely detailed objects at times, but I still think it looks better than without it. Though as far as consistent framerates go, modded Skyrim is already jumping all over the place, so even the problems with AFMF have been noticeable for me because I always expect something to end up being rendered wrong. The one thing that I have specifically noticed with Skyrim in particular that I have to restart my pc occassionally to have AFMF detect it as fullscreen exclusive.
I think the perspective of cameras can be really tough to get smooth overall cause for a display it’s 2 dimensional but in a game it’s rendering to make something LOOK 3 dimensional on a screen that’s flat; when afmf is on the edges of your perspective and peripheral are moving much faster hence you will notice more of the judder or us not as continuous than the center or focal area but different displays will render in so many ways like top down in bars or alternating so your eyes will notice something, whether good or bad that’s subjective and preference based But Daniel will be a great demonstrator if he can convey with his math background on how distance from a center point (radius) is going to be the distance an area is rendered around the camera and the perspective usually is isometric so cone shaped which makes the edges of where the camera can see much faster but that probably is limited by the denomination of the focal which is slower therefore i believe it doesn’t adapt the edges of the image as well Especially since it’s not using game data and vectors at all it has to machine learn on the fly with who knows how many sample sets before giving the image
The point is not to compare to FSR since you will always use FSR if available. The point is that you will love a free feature when it is the only available option. We know it is a simplified feature but that is due to the driver level.
The question is, why would want to activate this feature if you're getting 80+ fps? it says that it works best when you have at least 60 fps, but the result is not the best with a base of 60 fps. For me, i won't use this feature, i will lower the graphics preset to get like 80+ fps and waiting for the FSR3 implementation in the games i play
I love it. While 35 frame image with AFMF don't really look like 70fps is sure looks a lot smoother. The artifacts does make high speed objects look a tad bit less clear tho. But I'm talking 35 fps base with AFMF. 60fps or above you probably can't tell.
I'm surprised how good it became compared to the first preview driver (I didn't try it after, till this one). I don't know why AMD keeps saying Vsync must be disabled, in my experience it's way better with it enabled. I tried it on Starfield, Assassin Creed Valhalla, Watch Dogs Legion, Far Cry6, Red dead Redemption 2, with Vsync enabled & gave me a great picture and doubled the frames🙂 Also I tried recording with Adrenaline new 120fps feature and it was nice. AMD really made a good thing for gamers with FSR3 as open source, and now for their customers with AFMF. Better to come late than never😁👍 I can say well done AMD. Let's hope this fire up the competition for the sake of gamers goodness.
@mrblonde609 For me, the biggest flaw was the huge amount of tearing and jittering. It was uncomfortable for the eye, and I couldn't play with it at all. But now, it seems much better, I don't know if I made a mistake before, but now I see myself playing with it. And I enable Vsync despite AMD's advice to disable it. It gives me better results.
Hey Daniel ! If you want a category of games where afmf is a no brainer, you should try some sim racing games, such as ACC, BeamNG or F1 23 (even dirt rally 2.0, got the game at over 250fps with afmf and it looks nice)
On X Frank Azor said AMD discuss in the Team a toggle option for the Users to choose AFMF permanent or dynamically disabling during fast motion. And the Micro Stutters in Games comes not of AFMF, it seems there is a Bug in the 24.1.1 that cause higher micro stutter rate in various games also without AFMF. The 23.12.1 dont have this Issues.
It's only going to get better that's what people need to understand lol the fact that you can double your frames especially when you have everything maxed out and enough Vram but just not quite where your fps needs to be boom AFMF comes into play.
i said that to myself 2 years by now from amd....and using afmf 4 times already in every preview driver...i don't think its gonna get better, amd admit they just given up with it and move on with fsr3 instead , what really holding back is fsr2.2 image quality and entire tech is not great for fsr3 fg ...seems to me amd got frame gen working part correctly but it lacks image quality scalier that been thorn to amd ass since its why people prefer intel image scalier that seems does way better than fsr2.2 with xess 1.2...imagine what xess 1.3 would do next ?? its gonna be equally good as dlss2.1 in image with more frames boost as fsr2.2
@@user78405xess does not look better idk why everyone says that it literally has grid lines for sharpening it's really noticable even on quality just ruins games.
@@user78405how did they give up if it just came out and went open source 11 games have it now and FG on a driver level lmfaooooooo you're clearly wrong.
I've tested this in MSFS2020 and I feel it works very well in that game. Of course I get stutters if I pan quickly, which I did before as well, but in general when flying it feels a lot smoother than without AFMF.
Thank you for your honest review again, some people needs to understand that some times technology needs to improve and then being used by everyone. And we are close to that,be patient.
I use DLSS 2 or nothing at all. I prefer consistent behavior over something that performs better and has irregular behavior. I only play 3rd person games and only use a controller.
I have been using it in jedi survivor at 4k Epic settings with max RT and getting a smooth 120 fps like experience with hardly noticeable drops during fast movement. It's on my channel. I could not run jedi survivor like that before and it kinda fixes the issues the game had for me. I love it.
As for AMD Fluid Motion Frames I get on 1080p, 60 Hz, game is Enlisted at High settings with the RX 6600 210 fps with FMF on and FMF off the card makes 140 fps. That is an improvement in real conditions of 33%. Worth to mention there is no loss in picture quality using the new Fluid Motion Frames but with FSR there where horrible picture qualities and blurr which made FSR completely useless. With the RX 6750 XT I get without FMF 200 fps same game Enlisted and settings on High and with Fluid Motion Frames on I get 300 fps. That is surprisingly aswell an approvement of 33%.
I love afmf. It is only a lil stutter when you first enable it. After that it gets used to it and be completely fine. During normal gameplay I always have it on. It's a feature that doesn't reduce image quality for me. And with a high refreshrate monitor its amazing.
Do you enable Motion Blur in the games you use AFMF with? I use AFMF for almost all my singleplayer games now, but it is a MUST for me to enable Motion Blur or it looks kinda jank to me
Tried AFMF in Starfield with rx 6700 non xt. It doubles the frame rate but definitely introduce high latency and artifacting when moving. Not the experience i like.
So I just tested AFMF in a few titles: PUBG, Apex, Cyberpunk2077. -Pubg: I went from 200-250 to 400-550 fps, it's crazy. However the engine is so bad, that the stuttering completely ruins it. Input lag increase is not noticable at all, still, AFMF not recommended here. -Apex: from 144 to 300-500 fps. Input lag is not noticable either, the game is completely fluid. Use it if you feel like it. -Cp2077: this one is more complex. If I use path tracing and everything maxed out, I get around 30-35 fps. With AFMF I get it almost doubled, around 50-60. However, my input lag is already bad with the base 30fps, so we add even more with AFMF and it get's reaaaally slippery. The input lag is huge. With path tracing off I get a decent 60-70 fps. With AFMF its a really fluid, 120-130 fps. The input lag is noticable, but I think it's completely fine for a single player game. Recommended.
Daniel, loved your video. It was cool to see your take on this and I feel I can always trust you to approach these things with an open mind. With that said, I think it is worth pointing out that turning on Motion Blur in any games you test with AFMF will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce artifacting and general jank with the image. At least it has in my experience, and I have been using this tech since the October preview on my RX 6800 with a 165HZ 2560x1440p monitor. I used to never enable Motion Blur, but the AFMF really looks bad without it. The main games I have played and now keep the AFMF on for are: RDR2 (DX12 mode), Mafia 3, Guardians of the Galaxy with RT, GTA V, Cyberpunk, SW Jedi Fallen Order, and recently been testing it in Need For Speed Hot Pursuit Remastered as it is also locked to 60FPS. The experience in a game locked to 60 is very hit or miss for me, NFS isn't too bad, but some games give it a sort of 'screen door affect' from the AFMF at around 60FPS, I noticed that HEAVILY when you tested Elden Ring and that is the point where I turn AFMF off personally lol. I will say that the more real frames you have, the better the frame gen looks as you noted in your video, for me the sweet spot is around 80. If you can get roughly 80 and you have a 165HZ or higher monitor, it works fairly well. I have enabled Radeon Enhanced Sync at times when screen tearing happens, but it sometimes does make it worse, so I just turn it back off. Would be interesting to see if this works well with a Freesync monitor. I basically try AFMF in every singleplayer title I play now if the game doesn't hit my monitors refresh rate at the settings I use
I was excited for this new feature, but was disappointed once I tried it. I have an RX6600-XT, and tried AFMF on Far Cry 6 and Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, and the results were just awful. Playing at 60 FPS without AFMF was far smoother than with it. And with AFMF on, I'd get a huge frame-time spike every few seconds. I get far smoother results by simply reducing settings and using in-game FSR to keep the FPS around 100. I've not found much use for any of the AMD driver options, such as Chill, Boost, etc. Leaving them all off gives me far smoother results, without constant frame-time spikes.
Glad you did testing with a controller and mouse. It makes a big difference to the perceived framerate. Completely different experience. Great vid. I chose to play cyberpunk with a controller because of this. Makes driving cars more fun too :P. I highly recommend using a controller if your using any form of framegen.
Every time Daniel uploads a video, it feels like seeing a good friend. Genuine, informative, thorough, and just dog gone friendly. My only membership on YT. :)
Wow, thank you!
Yeah Dan feels like your friend who just wants to fill you in on the best stuff to know for your pc gaming experience haha
@@danielowentechCan you please try out lossless scaling's LFG. Identical concept but a far better implementation in my opinion
It doesn't "give up' like FMF does. And outside of UI artifacts, it's essentially an artifact free presentation(at 120 fps(locked)to 240hz for me)
You need to play the games on medium to high and you should be using freesync premium at the very least mr owen@danielowentech
If you like content like this, check out Digital Foundry. Whereas Daniel drills down deep into specific topics, DF takes a bit of a broader view of the overall gaming landscape, and their content is incredibly well made. Not to talk down on Daniel of course! It’s just a different vibe.
No you're not wrong, you're a reviewer, you're supposed to be having high expectations and nitpicking every small detail. It's just that the majority of gamers doesn't see it the same way. Hardware reviews and real world gaming are two very different subjects, just look at the steam charts what games are being played, and look at your videos what games you benchmark.
it is genuinely tough to watch the UE5 games being benchmarked bc im not interested in any of them lol. Glad to see plague tale in this video
good point, i do think Daniel has a healthy amount of skepticism and realism and that makes him a good and unique reviewer.
But hey at least now we can get FG although it's driver level/ forced FG, since game devs for what ever reason took a frikkin long time to implement FSR3 natively, not to mention Nvidia sponsored titles, who knows when those games gonna update to FSR3, so might as well use Afmf and hope it run well, cause so far it's a hit and miss for me, slow paced games like BG3 run quite well while face paced games like avatar don't.
Plague Tale Requiem looks much better anyways @@MagikarpPower
Biggest win with AFMF is that we can now discuss frame gen without people screeming fake frames and latency killer every other comment. The AMD users have now fully embraced frame gen.
Daniel you do your work well and it is obviously to see the effort you give us. Keep on it! You let us feel you are a good friend and let us show beyond the stages. Thumbs up! Greetings from Austria 🇦🇹
To answer your question: the foliage issues in Plague Tale definitely come across in a youtube video. When AFMF is engaged, the foliage looks like it fizzling and breaking up during camera movements.
basically txaa :D
It did it in Avatar too. Looks a bit weird, but maybe someone else won't mind 🤷🏻♂️
Looks like it extrapolate TAA issues
@@heasterian2508 This is an interesting thought. I wonder if the same foliage issues occur in games which don't use TAA? 🤔
@@WickedRibbonnah. TAA should be disabled by default
Ancientgameplay did a tutorial on how to properly use AFMF, and i do find that locking your fps below your max refresh rate is better than unlocked fps, for ex if you hitting above 60-70fps and your max refresh rate is 120hz, with AFMF enabled you will get severe screen tearing, while locking your fps to 59 bring far better experience with AFMF.
let me get this straight. if i am getting 70 fps, native, i should use 2 additional technologies which add a layer of latency, scales a lower res image than the native one and cap it at 59 fps. you cannot be serious, lol
@@gloomsurvivor Well no one is forcing you to use it, just turn it off, it's a driver level implementation and not forced FG, beside it is used to backfill your high refresh rate monitor and thus bring a perceived smoothness to visual quality it's not a performance improving tech, though i do hate it as well when they use FG as marketing tool to compare it with previous gen gpus as if it got far better performance with it enabled.
i dont got screen tearing even when i have more than 165 fps with AFMF which is the max my monitor supports, 7800xt with HP X34 monitor, in fact i never had screen tearing on that monitor period.
@@gloomsurvivor mr Thomas kinda misquote Ancient Gameplay, from my perspective, AFMF is not FSR, also, first thing to do is determine the max refresh rate of your monitor. So, for a 120hz monitor, AFMF is useless because you have to cap using RTSS to 59, which is BAD all around. now if the monitor is say, 240hz, then u cap using RTSS to 119, turn on AFMF, and if all is well, you should have a 'fluider' experience up to 238
@@gloomsurvivor yea AMD frame gen tech is still no there compared to Nvidia, DLSS 3 at 70fps would just give you 90-120fps no hassles needed
My own Tests with FMF are: Don't use it in FPS Games due to the high input lag but also fast movements, it workes great in Flight Simulator or City Skylines (doubling the FPS). All in all, for some Games, it's really usefull, for others not so much
Hello Daniel!
First of all, you are amazing, you really report as a colleague or friend would and that is very good, it is greatly appreciated.
Regarding AFMF, I think you are correct and everyone's perception is different. However, what we can do to understand each other is to share experiences.
Personally, I use YES or YES a setting for the games I want to play with AFMF.
This is not there or at least it does not appear to me in the global configurations of the driver, but it does appear in the particular configurations of each game.
I simply go to the games section, choose the game, and there is an option called "Radeon Enhanced Sync"
Yes or yes I activate it if I am going to use AFMF, since it is the closest thing there is to Vsync for AFMF at the moment, yes, when the frames go below the refresh rate you feel a "whiplash" of frames (either due to the demands of the game, turning the camera more than 60 degrees quickly or both), although in general the experience is much more fluid.
In addition to the Radeon boost with the resolution change to 16.7%
Radeon image sharpening at 70%
Particularly I play at 1440p. On a Rx 6700 10gb
And so far it has worked quite well for the games I play. (Genshin impact, resident evil, Rocket league... Yes rocket league with AFMF, call me crazy if you want hahaha)
If you like to try, go ahead. I hope my experience helps you
Greetings!!!
Daniel. You cannot please everyone. Your meticulous and thorough investigation into computer parts is second to none. Keep doing you💯😎
Tested it a bit in Hogwarts with gamepad where I have 60-75 fps natively, apart from some stutters. It would only really kill the added frames if I started panning 360, and I didn't really notice artifacts. However, in a slow game like that with a gamepad, I don't even notice higher fps that much as long as it's above 60 so I'm not sure I will keep using it. But it's a neat feature, good to see AMD actually beat Nvidia on something for once.
i have both 4090 and 7900, i just update the 7900xtx and turned on the AFMF and it´s actually insane i went from 88 to 250 fps (my monitor can actually use those frames) with no visual downgrades except some flickering that can be fixed, the fact that this works in every game without implementation it´s crazy
Honestly my thoughts on AFMF are similar to yours. I find the frame overlapping between the real and blurry generated frames to be quite distracting in games where you have to pan the camera, like third person games. I did a 120 fps recording and if you skip frame by frame in the editor you can see ihow it happens, where parts of the image misalign and overlap with some blurry spots and some not so blurry which leads to this stuttery mismatched motion consistency. It works OK in some games like Forza Motorsport where the camera is fixed. Otherwise I feel you need at least 100 fps for enough real frames to mask over the generated ones.
It's essentially a frame smoothing technology for very high refresh displays it's how I'd probably use it. But yeah if I am getting 60 fps in a game turning AFMF on makes the image fluidity worse in most games I've tried even though its doubling the framerate but I havent tried a ton of games and may look into it a bit more.
Yeah, the AFMF generated frames just aren't good enough to enable it below 90 fps imo.
I'd also say that the feature turning itself off during fast motion defeats the purpose of frame generation. The whole point is to reduce persistence blur during fast motion. If the camera is moving slowly, you can see everything clearly anyway.
I feel like the time spent on developing this technology could've been spent on something more useful.
@@THU31 My guess is that they probably do that because the faster the motion the lower quality generated frames you get because of missing game engine data therefore it probably doesnt look great. You can see this when moving the camera without triggering the feature disabling.
@@ManualSword depends heavily on the game tbh, as well as on the upscaler. For whatever reason using it with XeSS (at least in cyberpunk) completely breaks the image
It's great with a 240Hz monitor :P
I can't believe you're a full time teacher and also pump out this many videos
He's honestly become my go to source when it comes to new GPU information.
Pumping vidoes rather than wife is not a good sign
My experience with CP2077 and AFMF was pretty great now that I tried it again today.
It did not look like crap and I can run 3440x1440p with my preferred settings with RT maxed out without Path Tracing. Pretty close to what you were running (FSR quality, every other RT feature on, Lighting on Psycho or High) and with a 3700X+7800XT, I get over 60 FPS consistently with AFMF.
Previously I was running at about 40, which was mostly fine, since my CP2077 gameplay is pretty slow-paced and mostly photography anyways. 40-50 is as low as I can tolerate. I've dropped a few settings to optimize the experience as per Digital Foundry's guide for stuff that is pretty much not perceivable, but give a slight boost to FPS. I prefer the game looking amazing vs. high framerates, I play it for the aesthetic.
if I'm running raytracing in cyberpunk I would just use nvidia lol.
Perception is everything, and everybody perceives things differently, you are totally correct:) . I am super sensitive to latency but not sensitive to frame rate. I much rather have low latency at 75FPS than high latency at 150FPS.
AFMF turning off when motion is too fast (and it doesn't seem to take much motion to trigger that) is a real dealbreaker. It completely defeats the purpose of motion smoothing. On the plus side, modders are implementing the much higher quality FSR 3 frame gen in many games. I've personally tested the DLSS->FSR FG mod for Cyberpunk and it works very well.
Agreed, but I've also heard people pairing this with HYPR-RX, and it's Dynamic Resolution feature, that only turns on and boosts framerate when huge amount of motion is in place.
@@technologicalelite8076 That's an interesting solution though I wonder how much it would actually help. I have not been impressed with that feature at all, as it also results in a wildly variable framerate, and also greatly degrades image quality in motion since it relies on basic bilinear upscaling last I checked.
@@nimbulan2020 Right, it's not a more aggresive upscaling, which would be more interesting. This is just gonna have to come down to more testing and user preference 😅
same thing i noticed, same gpu and cpu as listed in your description, afmf is jittery and not as smooth but still very happy they released it, also very happy they made fsr3 open source for anyone to use in their game.
Idk works pretty good , what I did was turn on super resolution , went from 1440p to 1080p but it upscaled to 1440p , frame gen on and anti lag on , fsr 2.1 on cyberpunk , the latency went from 40 to 20 , I don’t use boost and it works really well and super smooth
I basically didn’t feel no latency
@@AzSureno You're re tard.ed if you think latency decreases when you use frame generation. Never talk about it again
it seems in certain games its better than others, like older games where its easier to run, but even so fast fps drops make it noticeable for me very easily, @@AzSureno
Thank you for trying them with a controller as well. Controller players are a HUGE part of the gaming player base. I absolutely cannot stress how awesome it is to see someone testing the different inputs. This is something I RARELY if EVER see. Great job man!!!
Thanks for the upload! You should check out Lossless Scaling's frame generation. There was a new release that came out that altered the way the frame generation works, resulting in a pretty smooth experience. Might be fun to do a head-to-head with Lossless Scaling FG vs AFMF, battle of the non game engine FG methods!
Will lossless scaling work on a 1080ti?
@@Patrick_AV works on any gpu i believe
I used nuken mod DLSS + FG AMD for play in 100 FPS in Remnant 2 and used LossLess and go to 200 FPS. Its crazy and work in Remnant 2.
@@enf.dudurj i got an rx 570 so no amd FG or dlss for me lmao
really is that playable how is the input lag? I tried doing this in Alan Wake 2 but it got all fucked up when i combined FSR3 and Lossless together.@@enf.dudurj
The higher the base fps, the less often AFMF will disable itself as each frame is more similar to the next because it lasts fewer milliseconds.
Also the flickering will be less distracting because each generated frame will be on screen for a shorter time. 75 base fps instead of 60 at 1440p in Cyberpunk is a huge improvement from my testing. At 120 fps base it basically only turns off if you shake the camera left to right at max speed for 180 degree turns.
It's great if you have a 240hz monitor or higher and just want to fill out the refresh rate in every game, even those without frame gen, especially older games.
On a similar note, the more pixels you have, the more often it will disable, which is why you only need 60 fps base at 1080p, but 70 at 1440p and probably more for ultrawides.
How does having more pixels affect how often it disables?
@@carlosmann100 More pixels = more possible differences to trigger it to turn off.
Disabling itself should be optional. I have no idea why AMD thought an incredibly unstable and variable framerate was a good idea.
This has been my experience as well. It's a real shame that the highest refresh rate Daniel Owen has is a 120 hrz monitor.
I feel like this is another example of AMD marketing ruining an interesting product. They obviously "recommend" at least 60 fps at 1080p and 72 fps at 1440p because there are tons of 120+ hrz 1080p displays and a lot of 144+ hrz 1440p displays and you don't want people to feel left out. I haven't done extensive testing at 1080p, but across 5 displays (1 1080p and 4 1440p), I felt that 90 fps was the ABSOLUTE lowest fps at which AFMF felt playable. The latency felt better and it only rarely kicked off. While I say locked to 90 fps WAS playable, I much preferred locked to 110-120 fps. It felt like I was playing 1440p high/ultra at 120 fps (because I was), but with the smoothness of 240 hrz. In addition, the few times I noticed AFMF kick off (when locked between 110 an 120) it was less jarring because I was still playing at over 100 fps. Even then it was only in maybe 2 or 3 of the 12 or so games I tried it in that I would actually consider using AFMF.
I previously had a 300 hrz 1080p display that I now regret selling, as I think it would be fascinating to test AFMF at higher frames. Especially because a lot of games built in older engines like GTA V and Apex legends benefit from capping your framerate so that you aren't bouncing off the engine's upper limit for fps and ruining your frametimes. Even if I wouldn't use AFMF in those games specifically, I think they would be interesting case studies.
@@jorge69696 It's designed to work in tandem with Radeon boost, but yeah i agree it's silly, just give us end user the ability to enable/disable it on fast motion instead having to turn on another unnecessary feature
I have a 160hz monitor and 7900xtx. I cap my FPS to 79fps so I have an output with AFMF of 158fps (only on games where I’m getting about 60 - 80 fps). So for example, in the Witcher 3, full raytracing, I like the way it feels. And I use a controller and turn down the sensitivity to .75 and if I do a full camera rotation, AFMF doesn’t disable. It’s very specific, but useful and I like it.
I feel like this would only be usable on legion go or rog ally
that's only for controllers probably, mouse can turn way faster.
at 9.:02 I noticed you were using Borderless Fullscreen with AFMF, AFMF recommends to be used on Exclusive Fullscreen setting. Not sure if that matters a lot but AMD recommends it.
Me with a 3060 and 60 hz monitor watching the cool afmf stuff 🙂
you can use fsr mods on supported game but 60hz monitor is kind of bad now a days 144hz monitor are cheap so if you can get that pretty good
me with 1060 and 60hz here too xDD
@@doctorvengeance1 lol yeah I’m planning on buying a 1440p 165 hz monitor but school started and I think it’ll be until like July when I have enough money 🥲
It would be interesting to test it without knowing whether or not AFMF was on. If you were unaware of whether or not you were currently testing with it on or off it then it might give a better idea of what it feels like to play with since you might be expecting to feel latency with it on so you perceive a higher latency
Seeing random drops from 120 to sub-60fps is going to be _very_ noticeable no matter who you are or what you think is enabled. Maybe if you had a 120 baseline boosting to 200 I'd believe you might not notice it and chalk it up to a placebo effect, but everyone can tell the difference in 60-120 in both looks and feel.
AFMF is supposed to only working on exclusive fullscreen, Also you can activate/Desactivate it in-game with ALT+SHIFT+G
Those Micro stutters are very noticeable with AFMF. Using DLSS 3 and FSR 3 are dramatically better than the driver level implementation.
Please try AFMF with boost enabled. Boost increases performance during mouse movement, so maybe it balances out the cons of AFMF
Boost increases your performance by degrading the image. If AFMF already has issues with a still image, a moving image that is rendered at a lower resolution is going to look like Vaseline.
Great informational review. But a short answer is that upscalling or frame generation should only be used if needed, and a base frame rate of 60 is best if any of the technologies are used. I only use them if I have to use them.
I have tested afmf in Alan wake 2 with the preview drivers and the 24.1.1 and i have noticed an improvement in motion. In preview drivers I could notice the desync while Moving fast, now with the latest drivers I can barely notice. I'm playing With a rx6800 at 55-60 fps without Afmf , and 110/120 with afmf.
I have a 240hz monitor that I mainly use for multiplayer games close to 240fps.
But with single player games I often get around 100-120fps. I suspect this feature might work decently for this use case.
I've been using it for months. I have a 144 hz monitor and if I unlock my framerate (I typically use RTSS to limit frames to 71=142 FMF), FMF gives up far less often. I don't do this due to the tearing though. In your case, it would probably give up very rarely.
I have been messing around with just that. As I've said in other comments I think AMD is once again horribly miss representing the technology. None of the frame generation options are 30 fps to 60 miracle solutions and AFMF especially is NOT a 60 fps to 120 technology. I have been messing around in a few games and it's 90 fps MINIMUM imo. The experience at 110-120 felt noticeable better, but only in about 2/12 games was it even worth considering turning on. I haven't tried pushing past my monitor's max refresh rate, but my may try it out.
I'd still prefer FSR 3 massively over AFMF, because it's at least consistent. The disengaging FG is a pretty significant con IMO.
Yes, IMHO AFMF is ideal for 240hz monitor and up. Sweet spot is 90-120 fps native and then limit fps to 119(238 effective AFMF) fps.
@@MLWJ1993yes, but I think your missing the point of AFMF, it works virtually in ANY Dx11/12 game (Vulkan most likely coming soon) so hundreds of thousands of games now have frame gen capability, that is a huge step. and it will only get better with driver updates. Sure FSR3 frame gen will be better but we are only talking a handful of games atm.
As an FYI an update is being made to LSFG so theirs no need to cap your framerate (currently it requires it being half your refresh rate & having a stable FPS otherwise frame pacing goes out the window)
No ETA on when this will be done but when it is it will be a even stronger competitor to AFMF, it's already better in *some* ways
LSFG quality is abysmal compared to AFMF, but I find it to be a better alternative in emulators where AFMF is constantly switching on and off.
@@praisetheoak AFMF doesn't have as many artifacts because it's always disabling, so it's hard to say which looks better. If it disabled anytime an artifact would occur it would also look good but it would make it almost pointless to use
@@praisetheoakLSFG definitely isn't great (best to stick with the stable release, I get even worse ghosting on the beta) but it shows a lot of promise. After testing it though I can see why AMD disables AFMF on fast movement, because interpolated frames can't keep up and look absolutely abysmal, and the same is true with LSFG (I try to smooth it over a bit with motion blur, which can help).
AFMF seems to have fixed a lot of text and UI ghosting since its early preview releases, but both AFMF and LSFG need to solve or at least mitigate the fast movement problem without just disabling it.
@@Hybred Fair take in emulators capped at 30fps where frame disparity is a problem, but in normal gameplay in +60fps games like Dark Souls and Valheim, AFMF has worked wonderfully for me with almost no UI ghosting and no break-up, whereas LSFG makes the image too unstable and full of artifacts to have any practical use. Needless to say, I'm intrigued what the future versions of LSFG will bring to the table.
@@TheEnhas In my testing (Witcher 3 next gen, Dark Souls 1, Wind Waker GC emulator, RE4 remake, MHWorld) I was pleasantly surprised that even in motion, AFMF has almost no UI ghosting or break-up. However, at anything below 60fps, the constant on-off switching makes it unusable in emulators. At +60fps works wonderfully depending on the game. I feel like the solution for both LSFG and AFMF would be somewhere in the middle: A slider to adjust whether we want constant interpolation or a what percentage we want it to switch off to avoid too many artifacts.
I think if you have a really high refresh rate monitor like 240 it will be worth using. But i have a lg c2 so I can only get 120fps so I need to lock my fps to 58fps and then use afmf to get my frames below 120fps. If afmf gets above your displays refresh rate you will get stutter. So targeting 120fps using afmf is not ideal you have to run at a lower fps therefore more lag and more artifacts. Fabio put out a video today and tested it with a 1440p 160hz ultrawide, It seems good there because he locks his fps to 78 fps. giving him more real frames for better latency and less artifacts.
I think the frame generation gimmick works decently for midrange users in a very specific scenario, I was running Alan Wake 2 at 50~55fps, then I used the FSR3/frame generation mod, I was able to reach +- 85fps, so I turned v-sync on, locked at 60fps on a 60hz TV, it's working fine thus far imo didn't noticed input delay, artifacts, etc.. there was some "ghosting", but I got rid of it after turning off those stupid "filters" that simulates a movie picture (grain, lens distortion, etc). So, for high end users with 120hz monitors and beyond, they can follow your tip, for midrange users, I guess this tech will work decently in these scenarios, let's say Horizon 2 running at 50fps, turn on frame generation and v-sync, lock at 60fps, the GPU will work at 80% or so, saving energy, etc.. it's a win-win scenario in my pov, but it has to be implemented "professionally", not something the end user has to figure it out, using mods, messing around with the driver, etc.. nope, the game should have FSR3 and frame generation implemented by the devs, it's the bare minimum really. We can mess around with "older" games like Cyberpunk and so on, but the current games should have this option by default
@@RRRRRRRRR33 FSR3 is better I used afmf for ark survival ascended and after using afmf. The grass appears like it has a afterimage affect because theres too much detail for the afmf to reproduce correctly, I think daniel was seeing this for plague tale. I imagine older games afmf would better because theres less complexity in graphics.
If your monitor displays 120 frames per second.
The game generates 58*2= 116 frames.
What do you think the monitor displays instead of the missing 4 frames?
Clue:
When the monitor has finished outputting a frame and a new frame is not yet ready. All the video card can offer is to display the previous one.
(of course, if you don’t have FreeSync, if you have it, the technology will work well, but it will be smooth without it thanks to FreeSync).
What do you think will happen if the frame is 2ms late?
The monitor needs to output a frame, but it doesn’t, it starts outputting the previous frame. And after 2ms a late frame arrives.
So the game will start making a new frame, if it manages to make it by the time the monitor asks for a new frame, then the late frame will be thrown out, and if it doesn’t have time, then the late one will be thrown out, but by that time a lot of time will have passed in the game :)) )
Yes, the limit of 58 will really save you from tearing, but at the expense of the fact that there will always be late and discarded frames. Which will lead to an increase in input lag. It will be even worse than playing with VSYNC.
Plus one more question.
To make an intermediate frame you need 2 frames.
The first frame is the one that was shown.
Where can I get the second one?
It's simple.
You see the game one frame later :)))
There is always the last (current) frame that will not be shown to you.
@@12coco100 Depending on the "old" game, maybe is not even worthy to give it a shot. I am thinking about replaying Horizon 1, at my current setup I can run it at 1440p, max settings, locked at 60fps, etc.. so really, frame generation would be overkill in scenarios such as these (unless you go overboard just for the laughs, like 4k resolution, "extreme" settings and so on). I don't think this tech will perform miracles, like AMD users running ray tracing at 25fps, suddenly it catapults to 60fps, etc.. (unless AMD can replicate that "ray reconstruction" gimmick from Nvidia, who knows). But in specific scenarios were the game is already running well, 50fps and so on, you can force the FSR3 + frame generation to make it smoother. Now to reach 120fps, damn... it's overkill on your finances, lol it's already expensive to buy a monitor with that kind of frame rate (for TV users like myself, the prices are even more absurd), then your hardware has to be strong enough to go over 60fps already, only then you use the frame generation gimmick to simulate some "fake" frames... idk, seems too much of a hassle, unless the 120fps is really extraordinary (some people say that, others are not impressed, etc)
Just reach 120fps and use BFI if you have a C2
Just messed around with AFMF and had mixed results. It seems to be game dependent to me but for some games that are locked to 60 FPS like Elden ring, Nioh 1, or Arkham knight, it was fantastic. Unfortunately, games like Sekiro or DS3 had a lot of tearing… perhaps this might be due to unable to alter Vsync? I do think the technology is promising and I hope AMD continues to make adjustments
Same with me elden ring was great the latency was just a bummer though. Hopefully 6000 series gets antilag+ soon
Might have to go into the ini. File for those kind of games? I haven't tried afmf yet but I'm guessing maybe that's a work around.
After I read half your comment I was hoping you'd say "Sekiro also plays well", but alas. Maybe someone will mod a better plugin for sekiro.
@@trousersnake1486 you can definitely do that for Arkham Knight. A simple .ini edit and you're playing at whatever FPS you want to.
You can turn off vsync in nioh and elden ring with something like special k, you can turn off the 60fps limit in elden ring too (prob can in nioh but I've never tried). It makes them way more enjoyable to play
Edit:before anyone says anything, unlocking fps doesn't break elden ring because the logic isn't tied to fps like it is in old dark souls, it's an artificial cap
Dani we're with you pal and deeply appreciate your tireless efforts to deliver us the best as you can. Honestly I can't thank you enough. I consider you a friend whois honest, genuine and helpful. You're a blessing pal.
While not perfect, I get way better RT experience with AFMF so I kinda like it.
On MC bedrock RTX I get around 50 fps with my rx6800xt but using AFMF I'm definitely getting a smoother experience
Yh bro...but I do understand that it is objective to each gamer, however I definitely believe people wasn't giving it a fair chance because AMDs name is attached to it. Afmf plays really well in some games, it definitely shocked me at how good the latency felt also how the image quality was. I do get a little screen tearing but that's only when I was panning the camera around slowly to see it, but playing the game without a FPS counter and just normally, I really couldn't see the downsides that most people were claiming.
@@tristngrHave you modded in FSR 2? It’s a pain to get working, because Bedrock is installed in a folder you can’t access, but it was game-changing for me. Upscaling was greyed out for me so it was just native and rly slow by default, so the hassle is worth it
@@bearpuns5910 I didn’t even know it was possible but yeah I’ll definitely look into it, thanks!
@@RX7800XTBenchmarks Just get an nvidia card
Im new here, Vex recommended this channel. I've just gotta say what the fuck is this upload schedule? 30+min Quality videos every day when there's something happening? sign me up.
Years of presentation experience going over numbers with math class and UA-cam
While being a full time math teacher with a few kids by himself.
If you're using AFMF you need to have Radeon Boost on as well to help with the fast motion stutter and tearing.
The problem is that this is not a technology that improves performance but rather enhances motion in those games that already hit a higher frame rate but still have plenty of room to fill the refresh rate of your monitor, so it's really naive to expect any sort of boost and AMD should be criticized for advertising it as such. Its getting somewhat of a bad reputation because it's mainly used by those with slow systems that already struggle to even achieve a stable frame rate and who really need that performance uplift, but this ain't magic. In my case with the 7800XT, it worked great in Valheim (So much so, that I forgot I had it on). On Witcher 3 I didn't notice much of a difference and if anything it felt worse. Wind Waker on emulator was a mixed-bag; when it worked, it worked great, but it was constantly switching on and off because of the base 30fps frame-rate. I can see a much brighter future if AMD implements some sort of slider that adjust whether we want it always on, or when to stop frame-interpolation to avoid image break-up.
I was waiting for him to use both fg and afmf together lmao. Idk but it’s fascinating to me that they can both work together
This shit is wild, very interesting, and very curious on the future of this stuff!
Daniel out here pumping out videos like no tomorrow.
i have only tested frame generation on 240hz display, and my finding is that you need more than 150fps baseline to make it work.
it scaled with fps and at 230fps generated it is close to being usable, i then extrapolate that 150 to 200fps baseline is where it becomes usable. pending testing.
or you can say it another way, you need playable fps before enabling frame generation for that free doubling of fps. for me that is having a 360hz display at minimum.
I'm shocked, someone actually using frame gen properly!
It is a good thing PC gamers can start to add FSR3 to games as they see fit with the FSR3 Frame Generation MOD. So when Nvidia supported game developers refuse to add FSR3 we just do it ourselves.
Tried it in Lords of the Fallen and the input lag was insane, and it also didn't FEEL nearly as smooth as the FPS it was showing (70s-80s). It felt almost like half that FPS.
AFMF was never intended to replace FSR 3, it is there simply for games whose developers are too lazy and/or slow to implement FSR3. AFMF is usable in all DX11/12 games and doesn't require AMD users to hope that developers will bother to implement FSR3. Having said that as noted by other users, Lossless Scaling on steam is looking very promising and is not dependent on a particular gpu manufacturer.
It's pretty wild that we can see it on YT, filmed with a camera. It must look REALLY bad in person.
I enjoyed my experiences with AFMF when following the recommendations. I enabled a frame rate limit, enhanced sync, Radeon Boost, and motion blur for fast movement. Yes leaving motion blur improves the experience. It seems more fluid and realistic to have rapid movements have motion blur and it stops as you focus on the new subject you are looking at.
I tied mods but didn't immediately figure it out and one was causing crashes, perhaps, due to missing a step in installing it or the game not fully supported. AFMF and RSR would work with anything and it saved time installing a FSR3 mod with frame gen. LosslessFG looks promising but I didn't give it much time as AFMF was easier and gave satisfactory results. I really wanted more of my limited time playing and not figuring stuff out.
That's interesting about motion blur, I usually turn it off but I will play with now again with AFMF, Baldur's Gate 3 looks terrific to me already.
This is hysterical. xD You've enabled so much stuff like motion blur and radeon boost (lowers the resolution) which worsens the image quality to use a feature that worsens the image quality with tearing, micro stutter, frame drops and many visual artifacts.
@@mrblonde609 what's hysterical is nvidiot fanboys crying because they can't use frame gen in hundreds of thousands of Dx11/dx12 games. Looks wonderful on my Samsung G9 240hz monitor with my Aqua 7900XTX at 3.0GHZ extreme BIOS running most games at 240fps/hz on a 32:9 5120x1440 is silky smooth. Maybe you should actually try it before bashing.
@@mrblonde609 Imagine enabling motion blur to hide terrible image quality. 🤢 Just wipe your screen down with vaseline at that point and everything will look great. If people so badly need more FPS just go with FSR/DLSS performance mode. At least that gives you a boost across the board without the frame drops and micro stutters.
There's something really funny about hearing a math teacher say "trust me bro".
Without anti-lag +, afmf falls short. We already know it cant match up to FSR 3 due to a lack of temporal data, but this just widens the gap more.
AMD needs to get Anti-Lag + fixed pronto. That was seriously shocking incompetence.
Upscaling though transparent hud elements would look worse in the FSR3 implementation than in the AFMF one. With AFMF the motion frames are generated based on what the resulting image actually looks like, meaning hud elements that are static will also end up looking mostly static in the motion vectors with AFMF. FSR3 however would instead get the motion vectors of the background, and apply those transformations to the HUD which would completely garble it
From what I hear, you better use it together with Radeon boost which increases the fps in fast camera movements by temporarily reducing render resolution, therefore compensate AFMF turning off in those situations.
I tried boost, and it looks like crap in something like Cyberpunk. The quality gets too low, and stuff starts to flicker like mad.
Daniel is never wrong..
Had a little play around with the settings earlier and tried in a couple of titles and RDR2 and got a massive uplift in frame rate im using a 7800XT and will be testing it out in other titles over the next few days
Number go = better? Not always. Not in this video.
When purchasing my RX7800XT, I did not believe that fluid motion frames or FS3 were going to be a feature that I would use, but since purchasing I find I have been enabling them on almost every game. The technology is not perfect but I can only imagine where it will be in a few years.
Found this to be very solid fair evaluation of AFMF.
I love it. I love that it works on such a game as, Star Citizen!
It works great for me on SC with my RX6600, i have fewer stutters and the game feels smoother.
@@dazlian3432 I'm using a 7900xt but my cpu is a 3950x and my ram kit is 3600 64gb. But I can only get stable ram at 3466mhz.
If I go up to factory 3600 I get stutters on audio and the pc crashes...
Have you considered the effect of high fov due to using a widescreen format on afmf?
You can see , especially in a plague tale, that the side of the image warps more because it's moving relatively faster when you rotate the camera.
I expect the majority of people ( using 16:9 ) will have a better experience with afmf
Honestly I’ve been enjoying the addition, finally getting to play Cyberpunk RT on my 6700xt at 1080p with playable frame rates, yeah I feel the latency but it’s not awful imo
Frame Generation tech in general feels like a very "win more" or "rich get richer" feature... it works best by far when you're *already* at a very high frame rate so the generated frames have closer together frames to interpolate from and the interpolated frames end up being displayed for less time. It's really a feature to take a high frame rate into very high territory for very high refresh rate monitors.
i feel for anyone who tries to use FG to salvage a poor framerate into what could be a more acceptable one..
I've been playing Assassins creed Origins lately and AFMF seems to do extremely well. I normally get 80-90 fps normally, and with AFMF turned on I get
Tried it on few games (1080p/144Hz on a 6700 10Gb), Cyberpunk and Starfield were the best experiences I got so far, Hogwards works quite well also
I frame capped all games at 72fps on the driver setting.
I think it's a really great option to smooth your gameplay on a mid- range PC.
Already looking for a new monitor with higher Hz, 240Hz would be fine, while 360Hz seems a bit overkill for my PC
Cyberpunk is surprisingly solid with it
I have been trying it out in Cyberpunk 2077, RDR2, Dying Light 2 on a RX 6700 XT and it does not look smooth to me. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong here, I tried capping my frames by half of my monitors refresh rate and it even looks worse than having it off. I have purchased Lossless Scaling on Steam and that, really does a way better job for me than AFMF and It does not turn off when moving the mouse too much comparing to AFMF that for some reason for me, it turns off with not so fast movement which is not good.
the jitters you see in plague tale requiem is the reason why I don't play with HDR enable. When enable, HDR tends to make everything too bright, jittery or too dark sometimes. Maybe it's just my personnal experience.
Those XTX indeed have a scary temps, especially the reference card. Hotspot must be like 95
IT SEEMS TO WORK ONLY IF YOU ARE INSIDE monitors freesync range !! So for example for 120hz freesync panel you would have to limit framerate to 59 in for example rivatuner and then enable it to double framerate to 118 . In that case it only seems to work correctly for me . If I let it go over that 120hz it feels worse than without it . 144hz monitor limit to 71 etc .. that being said it breaks up bit too easily but still seems to be pretty nice feature but only with controller imo
I appreciate the time you took for doing this, the thing is I'm just going to use AMFM if FSR 3.0 is not present.
I'd like the ability to keep it on all the time, even if there is alot of motion on the screen. I can't say for sure I'd use it that way, but would like to choose for mhself
Just tried it in RDR2 for a bit. Played about 5 mins before I had to turn it off.
What did you dislike ?
@@techwizard9699way to much input lag
I’ve personally been using AFMF with heavily modded Skyrim, and I notice a few problems with foliage and more finely detailed objects at times, but I still think it looks better than without it. Though as far as consistent framerates go, modded Skyrim is already jumping all over the place, so even the problems with AFMF have been noticeable for me because I always expect something to end up being rendered wrong. The one thing that I have specifically noticed with Skyrim in particular that I have to restart my pc occassionally to have AFMF detect it as fullscreen exclusive.
I think the perspective of cameras can be really tough to get smooth overall cause for a display it’s 2 dimensional but in a game it’s rendering to make something LOOK 3 dimensional on a screen that’s flat; when afmf is on the edges of your perspective and peripheral are moving much faster hence you will notice more of the judder or us not as continuous than the center or focal area but different displays will render in so many ways like top down in bars or alternating so your eyes will notice something, whether good or bad that’s subjective and preference based
But Daniel will be a great demonstrator if he can convey with his math background on how distance from a center point (radius) is going to be the distance an area is rendered around the camera and the perspective usually is isometric so cone shaped which makes the edges of where the camera can see much faster but that probably is limited by the denomination of the focal which is slower therefore i believe it doesn’t adapt the edges of the image as well
Especially since it’s not using game data and vectors at all it has to machine learn on the fly with who knows how many sample sets before giving the image
The point is not to compare to FSR since you will always use FSR if available. The point is that you will love a free feature when it is the only available option. We know it is a simplified feature but that is due to the driver level.
Fantastic feature. Improving motion clarity only when standing still 😂😂😂
Yeah, AFMF is a joke at the moment.
The question is, why would want to activate this feature if you're getting 80+ fps? it says that it works best when you have at least 60 fps, but the result is not the best with a base of 60 fps. For me, i won't use this feature, i will lower the graphics preset to get like 80+ fps and waiting for the FSR3 implementation in the games i play
I love it. While 35 frame image with AFMF don't really look like 70fps is sure looks a lot smoother. The artifacts does make high speed objects look a tad bit less clear tho. But I'm talking 35 fps base with AFMF. 60fps or above you probably can't tell.
i am more curious with intel 3rd method ...extrapolation is best in both worlds in software and ai cores can take advantage of
Just so you know, i know this is 6 months late, but they have fixed that bug around the UI with FG enabled.
Use AFMF with radeon boost. Radeon boost will lower the resolution when AFMF gives up due to motion so youd get less of a framerate dip
There was definietly tearing on Elden Ring i actually noticed before you said it :D It's cool tech but it was expected results.
I'm surprised how good it became compared to the first preview driver (I didn't try it after, till this one).
I don't know why AMD keeps saying Vsync must be disabled, in my experience it's way better with it enabled.
I tried it on Starfield, Assassin Creed Valhalla, Watch Dogs Legion, Far Cry6, Red dead Redemption 2,
with Vsync enabled & gave me a great picture and doubled the frames🙂 Also I tried recording with Adrenaline new 120fps feature and it was nice.
AMD really made a good thing for gamers with FSR3 as open source, and now for their customers with AFMF.
Better to come late than never😁👍 I can say well done AMD.
Let's hope this fire up the competition for the sake of gamers goodness.
How did it improve? It still disables the same as it did back then with the preview driver.
@mrblonde609 For me, the biggest flaw was the huge amount of tearing and jittering. It was uncomfortable for the eye, and I couldn't play with it at all.
But now, it seems much better, I don't know if I made a mistake before, but now I see myself playing with it.
And I enable Vsync despite AMD's advice to disable it. It gives me better results.
Hey Daniel ! If you want a category of games where afmf is a no brainer, you should try some sim racing games, such as ACC, BeamNG or F1 23 (even dirt rally 2.0, got the game at over 250fps with afmf and it looks nice)
On X Frank Azor said AMD discuss in the Team a toggle option for the Users to choose AFMF permanent or dynamically disabling during fast motion. And the Micro Stutters in Games comes not of AFMF, it seems there is a Bug in the 24.1.1 that cause higher micro stutter rate in various games also without AFMF. The 23.12.1 dont have this Issues.
It's only going to get better that's what people need to understand lol the fact that you can double your frames especially when you have everything maxed out and enough Vram but just not quite where your fps needs to be boom AFMF comes into play.
i said that to myself 2 years by now from amd....and using afmf 4 times already in every preview driver...i don't think its gonna get better, amd admit they just given up with it and move on with fsr3 instead , what really holding back is fsr2.2 image quality and entire tech is not great for fsr3 fg ...seems to me amd got frame gen working part correctly but it lacks image quality scalier that been thorn to amd ass since its why people prefer intel image scalier that seems does way better than fsr2.2 with xess 1.2...imagine what xess 1.3 would do next ?? its gonna be equally good as dlss2.1 in image with more frames boost as fsr2.2
@@user78405xess does not look better idk why everyone says that it literally has grid lines for sharpening it's really noticable even on quality just ruins games.
@@user78405how did they give up if it just came out and went open source 11 games have it now and FG on a driver level lmfaooooooo you're clearly wrong.
@@UKKNGaming don;t change what i said , and don't act dumb what i comment...did i say fsr give up ?? afmf is given up idea from amd
You have good eyes man, I’m getting older and I have a hard time seeing differences in graphics
I've tested this in MSFS2020 and I feel it works very well in that game. Of course I get stutters if I pan quickly, which I did before as well, but in general when flying it feels a lot smoother than without AFMF.
Thank you for your honest review again, some people needs to understand that some times technology needs to improve and then being used by everyone. And we are close to that,be patient.
I use DLSS 2 or nothing at all. I prefer consistent behavior over something that performs better and has irregular behavior. I only play 3rd person games and only use a controller.
7:01 have to correct you there. I am watching 140p resolution.
Looks very smooth by the way
I have been using it in jedi survivor at 4k Epic settings with max RT and getting a smooth 120 fps like experience with hardly noticeable drops during fast movement. It's on my channel. I could not run jedi survivor like that before and it kinda fixes the issues the game had for me. I love it.
As for AMD Fluid Motion Frames I get on 1080p, 60 Hz, game is Enlisted at High settings with the RX 6600 210 fps with FMF on and FMF off the card makes 140 fps. That is an improvement in real conditions of 33%. Worth to mention there is no loss in picture quality using the new Fluid Motion Frames but with FSR there where horrible picture qualities and blurr which made FSR completely useless.
With the RX 6750 XT I get without FMF 200 fps same game Enlisted and settings on High and with Fluid Motion Frames on I get 300 fps. That is surprisingly aswell an approvement of 33%.
RDR2 was the only game I have tested that actually looked good with AFMF on. The base was around 80FPS.
" If I turn the graphics down I should get a higher framerate". The last of us remake made us all paranoid.
Calling Owen reviewer would flatter him. He's just a maths teacher who makes videos about gaming hardware when he can.
I love afmf. It is only a lil stutter when you first enable it. After that it gets used to it and be completely fine.
During normal gameplay I always have it on. It's a feature that doesn't reduce image quality for me. And with a high refreshrate monitor its amazing.
Do you enable Motion Blur in the games you use AFMF with? I use AFMF for almost all my singleplayer games now, but it is a MUST for me to enable Motion Blur or it looks kinda jank to me
@@Jimmy-6300 no i hate motionblur and dept of field with a passion. i leave it off always and never have any visual issues. so not sure why others do
Tried AFMF in Starfield with rx 6700 non xt. It doubles the frame rate but definitely introduce high latency and artifacting when moving. Not the experience i like.
Considering this is a new feature, this has some insane potential.
So I just tested AFMF in a few titles: PUBG, Apex, Cyberpunk2077.
-Pubg: I went from 200-250 to 400-550 fps, it's crazy. However the engine is so bad, that the stuttering completely ruins it. Input lag increase is not noticable at all, still, AFMF not recommended here.
-Apex: from 144 to 300-500 fps. Input lag is not noticable either, the game is completely fluid. Use it if you feel like it.
-Cp2077: this one is more complex. If I use path tracing and everything maxed out, I get around 30-35 fps. With AFMF I get it almost doubled, around 50-60. However, my input lag is already bad with the base 30fps, so we add even more with AFMF and it get's reaaaally slippery. The input lag is huge.
With path tracing off I get a decent 60-70 fps. With AFMF its a really fluid, 120-130 fps. The input lag is noticable, but I think it's completely fine for a single player game. Recommended.
AFMF Vs LukeFZ FSR 3 Frame Gen Mod? Or Both together?
Daniel, loved your video. It was cool to see your take on this and I feel I can always trust you to approach these things with an open mind. With that said, I think it is worth pointing out that turning on Motion Blur in any games you test with AFMF will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce artifacting and general jank with the image. At least it has in my experience, and I have been using this tech since the October preview on my RX 6800 with a 165HZ 2560x1440p monitor. I used to never enable Motion Blur, but the AFMF really looks bad without it. The main games I have played and now keep the AFMF on for are: RDR2 (DX12 mode), Mafia 3, Guardians of the Galaxy with RT, GTA V, Cyberpunk, SW Jedi Fallen Order, and recently been testing it in Need For Speed Hot Pursuit Remastered as it is also locked to 60FPS. The experience in a game locked to 60 is very hit or miss for me, NFS isn't too bad, but some games give it a sort of 'screen door affect' from the AFMF at around 60FPS, I noticed that HEAVILY when you tested Elden Ring and that is the point where I turn AFMF off personally lol. I will say that the more real frames you have, the better the frame gen looks as you noted in your video, for me the sweet spot is around 80. If you can get roughly 80 and you have a 165HZ or higher monitor, it works fairly well. I have enabled Radeon Enhanced Sync at times when screen tearing happens, but it sometimes does make it worse, so I just turn it back off. Would be interesting to see if this works well with a Freesync monitor. I basically try AFMF in every singleplayer title I play now if the game doesn't hit my monitors refresh rate at the settings I use
I was excited for this new feature, but was disappointed once I tried it. I have an RX6600-XT, and tried AFMF on Far Cry 6 and Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, and the results were just awful. Playing at 60 FPS without AFMF was far smoother than with it. And with AFMF on, I'd get a huge frame-time spike every few seconds. I get far smoother results by simply reducing settings and using in-game FSR to keep the FPS around 100. I've not found much use for any of the AMD driver options, such as Chill, Boost, etc. Leaving them all off gives me far smoother results, without constant frame-time spikes.
Glad you did testing with a controller and mouse. It makes a big difference to the perceived framerate. Completely different experience. Great vid. I chose to play cyberpunk with a controller because of this. Makes driving cars more fun too :P. I highly recommend using a controller if your using any form of framegen.
"Trust me bro..." Daniel we do trust you brother. Keep being a legend in the UA-cam space!