News AMD Adds Fluid Motion Frames Support for RX 6000 GPUs

[Admin]

AMD has introduced a new preview driver that enables AMD Fluid Motion Frames for Radeon RX 6000 series GPUs.

AMD Adds Fluid Motion Frames Support for RX 6000 GPUs : Read more

 

[DavidLejdar]

Nice... I suppose? There certainly are some difference possible with that stuff in general. I.e. in Cyberpunk 2077 2.01, with the ultra graphics preset, with Boost and Anti-Lag enabled, without upscaling and without RT, and all at 1440p with the in-game benchmark:
- without FSR, I get an average of 57 fps,
- with FSR 2.1 set to quality, it is 69 fps,
- with FSR 2.1 set to performance, it is 96 fps, and
- with FSR 2.1 set to ultra-performance, it is 117 fps.

I guess I'll run a series of benchmarks, to see which impact which feature has, and how it works for me. Raytracing isn't currently a biggie for me, as I am currently more interested to find a good 10-bit screen, which will make stuff look better in general, apparently, and it seems that HDR also works better with a 10-bit screen.

 

[-Fran-]

I won't like frame generation tech ever, most likely, but the way you go out of your way to pass this as a negative is quite something...

So if nVidia's Frame Generation comes to older RTX cards I'm sure you'd be praising the heavens and then some more, but AMD get's a "who gives a crap; it's trash anyway" treatment. And this is in the driver, not even per-game. Leaving qualitative analysis of how it works, the wording leaves a lot of be desired and hard not to read a lot of bias in it.

Welp. Disappointing.

Regards.

 

[lilgawain]

Nice... I suppose? There certainly are some difference possible with that stuff in general. I.e. in Cyberpunk 2077 2.01, with the ultra graphics preset, with Boost and Anti-Lag enabled, without upscaling and without RT, and all at 1440p with the in-game benchmark:
- without FSR, I get an average of 57 fps,
- with FSR 2.1 set to quality, it is 69 fps,
- with FSR 2.1 set to performance, it is 96 fps, and
- with FSR 2.1 set to ultra-performance, it is 117 fps.

I guess I'll run a series of benchmarks, to see which impact which feature has, and how it works for me. Raytracing isn't currently a biggie for me, as I am currently more interested to find a good 10-bit screen, which will make stuff look better in general, apparently, and it seems that HDR also works better with a 10-bit screen.

Have you tried XESS? It looks a bit better than FSR 2.1 to my eyes. What card are you running, BTW? Performance looks very similar to my mine on a 6700XT/5600X.