Frame gen question

[StefanGT]

I have a question. I have a 5070ti, i9-12900k, 64 gigs DDR5 6000mhz. I have a 1440p 144hz g-sync monitor. If I cap the framerate at 142fps will frame gen turn on when it needs it to hit that 142 fps or does it lower the base framerate so that when frame gen is on it is making that 142 fps game (example: base framerate is 71 fps with 2x frame gen making it 142 fps)? Sorry, I hope my question makes sense.

[starsmine]

not currently, but it is a future feature of DLSS 4.5 (but also, frame gen always lowers the base frame rate, which means it make the game play worse)

[GuiltySpark_]

For the record, when setting a cap you should be setting it to 139fps. If you're curious about the math as to why, great info here. 

 

I have a 120hz 4K display (capped at 116) and while the above is true, i've used FG to get from a similar 70's to my 116 cap and its always a better experience. 

 

Reality is, this is something you should simply try on your own. If you like the results, use it. If you don't, don't. Others opinions don't really matter.

[StefanGT]

1 minute ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

For the record, when setting a cap you should be setting it to 139fps. If you're curious about the math as to why, great info here. 

 

I have a 120hz 4K display (capped at 116) and while the above is true, i've used FG to get from a similar 70's to my 116 cap and its always a better experience. 

 

Reality is, this is something you should simply try on your own. If you like the results, use it. If you don't, don't. Others opinions don't really matter.

Thank you, I thought that was how it worked. I was wondering if I was correct. So until “adaptive frame gen” is a thing I’m actually just running at the 71 fps with 2x frame gen making it 142. So for Battlefield 6 I should just cap it at 139 and turn frame gen off, as I get around 150-160 fps without frame gen?

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, StefanGT said:

So for Battlefield 6 I should just cap it at 139 and turn frame gen off, as I get around 150-160 fps without frame gen?

If you can reach your target frame rate without it, then yes. No sense using it in this case.

 

As was said above, enabling frame gen will actually drop your base frame rate slightly (increasing input lag). It then adds generated frames in between frames rendered by the engine to improve visual smoothness. It does nothing to improve performance (i.e. the speed at which the engine runs).

 

If you can hit 150–160 fps without it, it would make sense to enable it if you wanted to target something close to 300 Hz/fps.

[ewitte]

I find for FG to be useful the base (even with the hit) needs to be about 60fps for slow paced games or 90fps for fast paced games.  Having a cap at 118fps for fast paced games doesn't make any sense for FG because that puts me over...  Especially considering in 95% of the games I'm over 100 with a 4090.  I'm possibly going from the LG C1 to a C6 this year (during black Friday timeframe) which will give me 4k165.  I do have a 32in 4k240hz screen but find it small and it can't get as bright.

 

IMO makes most sense for people with 240-360hz monitors where your already over 100-150fps but that is just 2x.

[Ergroilnin]

On 2/12/2026 at 6:48 AM, Eigenvektor said:

If you can reach your target frame rate without it, then yes. No sense using it in this case.

 

As was said above, enabling frame gen will actually drop your base frame rate slightly (increasing input lag). It then adds generated frames in between frames rendered by the engine to improve visual smoothness. It does nothing to improve performance (i.e. the speed at which the engine runs).

 

If you can hit 150–160 fps without it, it would make sense to enable it if you wanted to target something close to 300 Hz/fps.

 

Sorry to the OP for a bit of hijacking the thread but I want to ask in the cases you mention eg. having ~140 stable native FPS on 144 hz monitor meaning the FG has no sense - doesn't the FG lower the GPU usage by quite a bit? So for example if I had GPU capable of running earlier said case but at a very high GPU usage, thus very high temps leading to loud GPU fans, would not using FG effectively make the usage lot lower leading to less noise? Of course with the disadvantage of higher input lag but still it could make some sense in some cases?

 

I am still trying to wrap my head around all the new techs so I am really only asking to get a better understanding of it.

[Eigenvektor]

10 hours ago, Ergroilnin said:

doesn't the FG lower the GPU usage by quite a bit?

On its own it increases the amount of work the GPU has to do. Which is why base frame rate drops as a result of enabling it.

 

If the game offers a frame cap, you could set that to e.g. 72 fps, then let the GPU double that to 144 fps. That should lower its workload compared to running the engine at 144 fps (generating a frame is less work than rendering a frame, the CPU will also have to do less work to run the engine at 72 vs 144)

 

The downside is that the game now runs at lower performance, with resulting increased input lag. Depending on the game that might not matter. FG also typically comes with more or less noticeable visual artefacts.

 

In that case you should get power draw slightly above what you'd get just capping at 72 fps directly, while on screen it still appears as if the game was running at 144 fps.

[Ergroilnin]

23 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

On its own it increases the amount of work the GPU has to do. Which is why base frame rate drops as a result of enabling it.

 

If the game offers a frame cap, you could set that to e.g. 72 fps, then let the GPU double that to 144 fps. That should lower its workload compared to runing the engine at 144 fps (generating a frame takes less work than rendering a frame, the CPU will also have to do less work to run the engine at 72 vs 144)

 

The downside is that the game now runs at lower performance, with resulting increased input lag. Depending on the game that might not matter. FG also typically comes with more or less noticeable visual artefacts.

 

In that case you should get power draw slightly above what you'd get just capping at 72 fps directly, while on screen it still appears as if the game was running at 144 fps.

 

Oh thank you for the explanation, that makes sense to me now.