Hacker News Reader

Comment by kllrnohj | Hacker News Reader

Digital Foundry just covered this. 3x and 4x both add additional latency on top of 2x.

https://youtu.be/xpzufsxtZpA?si=hZZlX-g_nueAd7-Q

"Frame generation (FG)" was not a feature in DLSS 2 - the subthread starter was speculating about MFG (of DLSS 4) having worse latency than FG (of DLSS 3), on the basis of more interpolated frames meaning being more frames behind.

To me this sounds not quite right, because while yes, you'll technically be more frames behind, those frames are also presented for a that much shorter period. There's no further detail available on this it seems however, so people have pivoted to the human equivalent of LLM hallucinations (non-sequiturs and making shit up then not being able to support it, but also being 100% convinced they are able to and are doing so).

Nobody is talking about DLSS 2 here so I don't know where that came from. The 2x, 3x, and 4x in my post are the number of generated frames. So 2x == DLSS 3, and 3x and 4x are then part of the new MFG in DLSS 4.

Digital Foundry has actual measurements, so whether or not that matches your intuition is irrelevant. But I think the part you forgot is that generating the frames still takes time in and of itself, and you then need to still present those at a consistent rate for motion smoothness.

Seems like I misunderstood your notation.

> Digital Foundry has actual measurements, so whether or not that matches your intuition is irrelevant.

I mean, it's pretty relevant to me. Will watch it later then.

Watched their coverage, not much in the way of details that would explain why the (slightly) increased latency. Your speculation about why MFG takes longer makes sense to me, although I have troubles picturing how exactly the puzzle all fits together. Will have to wait for more in-depth coverage.

Yeah, in hindsight I should have figured it was more generated frames presented at a lower frame times (shorter period).

The Digital Foundry initial impressions are promising, but for me with a 144hz monitor that prefers V-Sync with an an FPS cap slightly below, I'm not sure using 3x or 4x mode will be desirable with such a setup, since that would seemingly make your input lag comparable to 30fps. It seems like these modes are best used when you have extremely high refresh rate monitors (pushing 240hz+).

This is true, but it's worth noting that 3x was 5ms additional latency beyond original FG and 7ms for 4x, so the difference in latency between DLSS 3 FG and DLSS 4 MFG is probably imperceptible for most people.

I just saw the Digital Foundry results, and that's honestly really good.

I'm guessing users will self tune to use 2x/3x/4x based on their v-sync preference then.

yeah but it means MFG still has the same fundamental problem of FG that the latency hit is the largest in the only scenario where it's meaningfully useful. That is, at low 15-45fps native FPS, then the additional impact of an additional frame of buffering combined with the low initial FPS means the latency hit is relatively huge.

So Nvidia's example of taking cyberpunk from 28fps to 200+ or whatever doesn't actually work. It'll still feel like 20fps sluggish watery responses even though it'll look smooth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com