The topic Most gamers still avoid frame generation, but they’re missing the point is currently the subject of lively discussion — readers and analysts are keeping a close eye on developments.
This is taking place in a dynamic environment: companies’ decisions and competitors’ reactions can quickly change the picture.
Frame generation has always had a poor reputation among serious gamers, and rightfully so, largely because Nvidia presents it as a feature that fixes poor performance. Yes, it does significantly improve frame rates as Nvidia and AMD claim, but smooth performance isn’t just about pushing a higher number. Your frame time consistency, input latency, and how responsive the game actually feels matter just as much, and frame generation doesn’t improve any of that.
This is exactly why you feel weird after trying it out for a bit, especially when the native performance isn’t in a good place to begin with. Even though your FPS jumps in MSI Afterburner, your inputs are still tied to your base frame rate, so it doesn’t really feel like you’re gaming at the frame rates you’re seeing on screen. That disconnect is hard to ignore once you notice it, and it’s what throws people off. But that also means most gamers are judging frame generation in the worst possible scenarios.
On my 3080 gaming rig, frame generation is an admission of weakness. On my new RTX 5060 Ti build, its the only logical answer.
Most people turn on frame generation when a game is already struggling, hoping that it’ll fix all their problems, but that’s usually the worst possible scenario to use this feature. I’ll admit it does make the game look more playable, and that’s where people get the wrong idea. Frame generation doesn’t actually fix what made the experience poor in the first place. It masks the problem visually without addressing the root cause, so your gameplay still feels limited by the underlying issues.
For instance, if you were getting 35FPS, and now you’re getting 120+ FPS with Multi-Frame Generation, the game is still going to feel choppy because your inputs are still tied to your base frame rate. Those extra frames only fill in the gaps visually and make motion look smoother, but how the game feels comes down to responsiveness, which frame generation doesn’t fix. And if your base frame rate is that low, any inconsistency in frame times becomes even more noticeable, which makes the gameplay feel less stable despite what the FPS counter says.
In my opinion, frame generation works best when it’s not used as a workaround. You don’t want frame generation to carry your experience because that’s when everything falls apart. Instead, treat it like an FPS booster that builds on what’s already there. For instance, if you’re already getting close to 100FPS with stable frame times, your inputs are already responsive enough, provided your CPU isn’t a bottleneck. In that situation, frame generation isn’t trying to compensate for anything. It’s just adding extra frames on top to make motion look smoother on a high refresh rate monitor.
When you start using the feature this way, you realize it’s not nearly as bad as people make it seem. And that’s because you’re letting frame generation do what it does best without letting other factors drag the experience down. I know this isn’t how Nvidia showcases this feature, but that marketing angle is exactly what leads people to use it in the wrong scenarios. That said, even with solid base performance, pushing it too far with Multi-Frame Generation can still create a noticeable gap between what you see and what you feel, especially in fast-paced games.
This is the biggest reason why competitive gamers still avoid frame generation at all costs. Even developers know this, which is why many competitive games don’t even offer it as a feature. In fast-paced titles, how quickly your inputs show up on-screen matters more than how smooth everything looks. And as we’ve discussed so far, frame generation only makes everything look smoother. So, when you’re aiming or tracking enemies, that added smoothness doesn’t actually make your inputs any more responsive.
If anything, that mismatch between visual smoothness and actual responsiveness can make everything feel slightly off, especially when you’re relying on muscle memory. And let’s not forget the latency side of things. 5-10mms of added latency may not seem like much, but in fast-paced shooters where every millisecond counts, that could be the difference between landing a kill and getting killed. That said, in single-player games, you just want your responsiveness and latency to be decent, so the smoother motion from frame generation ends up mattering more than the slight delay.
You can hate “fake frames” all you want, and I’d completely understand why. But it’s not really a pointless feature like many people in the PC community make it seem. The problem is that it’s often used in the exact situations where it performs the worst. When you start using it the right way in the right games, it does make a meaningful impact. Just don’t use it to mask CPU bottlenecks or poor native performance, and you’ll be happy with the results, at least in slower, single-player titles.
Here’s how to get Nvidia’s multi frame generation on GTX, RDNA 2 and Intel GPUs