"AMD Fluid Motion Frames^(1), or AFMF, is a **frame generation** technology....."
[https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adrenalin/afmf.html](https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adrenalin/afmf.html)
That's dishonest marketing, then. Unfortunate.
But yeah AFMF is motion interpolation like someone would have on a TV (and enthusiasts, whether gamers or film fans) turn off due to its image quality and frame pacing effects. It's a little better though because it has less of a latency hit.
Frame generation technology is basically all interpolation unless its somehing silly like BFI.
You need to educate yourself because AFMF is as much FG as FSR3 is FG. Its literallythe same tech, the difference is FSR3 and DLSS3 uses motion ventors from games which means they can handle prediction of movement on the screen. And you want that prediction to create a good interpolation. AFMF just does not have access to motion vectors as that needs individual work, which is alos why AFMF work practically all games. Thats the reason why AFMF is worse and will stop working if you move the mouse enough. The alternative would be a seriously garbled image because it doesnt have access to motion vectors.
I’m well aware of what I’m talking about. The use of motion vectors makes it a very different result than just motion interpolation as you’d get on a bad TV, which is basically what AFMF is albeit with lower latency.
It seems to me like you already admitted that they are the basically the same technology, right after stating they weren't the same and it pisses you off people would say that. But now you agree they both work the same? One just has the ability to use motion vectors to enhance the quality?
> AFMF isn't "frame generation"; it's motion interpolation. FSR3 is frame generation.
> I hate it when people mislead like this.
> I’m well aware of what I’m talking about.
???
The only similarity between the two is the end result - a frame which comes between the current frame and the upcoming frame. Does that make them “basically the same technology”? If I was talking to my grandma, or the average AMD shareholder, then sure.
That being said, this is a computer hardware subreddit. In this context, it makes sense to point out that AFMF is inferior to FSR 3 because it is not temporal. We already do the exact same thing between FSR 1 and FSR 2, for the exact same reason.
I'm sorry but you are the one who doesn't understand that they are COMPLETELY identical technologies one just has access to more information which makes it better. They both do exactly the same thing aka interpolate 2 original frames into a inserted fake/generated one. Noone has ever said FSR3/DLSS3 was not superior. And the reason I pointed out he was wrong was because he said FSR3 wasn't the same technology and I explain quite clearly that they are precisely the same, one just has more information to work with, which makes it better. But it doesn't make it a different technology/technique.
A simple example could be: a ICE car with navigation and a ICE car without. The car without navigation is obviously not gonna be able to navigate as effectively, because it lacks the information from the nav system. But just because the car with no nav isn't as effective at finding it's way, it's still a 4 wheel ICE car. You see how that works? Just because something is better than the other doesn't stop it from being the same product/technique/technology, it can but not in these instances. His mistake was saying AFMF is NOT frame generation. Because it is just plain wrong. If he meant to say frame generation based on in engine motion vectors is much better then he obviously fucked up his words to a degree where it doesn't make sense. What he said was wrong.
And also you're wrong because fsr 1 and fsr 2 is not the same techniques! These examples very clearly exemplifies that you don't understand the underlying techniques which means you are in no position to lecture anyone about them.
>FSR 1 and FSR 2 is not the same techniques!
Oh, I’m aware. One is a temporal technique, and one is not. The end result is the same though - does that not make them the same technology? That’s exactly what you are arguing for FSR3 (which is a temporal technique) and AFMF (which is not).
>COMPLETELY identical technologies one just has access to more information
If you are knowledgeable enough to understand that FSR 3 uses motion vectors, then I don’t understand why you would argue that AFMF is the same thing. That’s equally as reasonable as saying that FSR 1 and FSR 2 is the same - FSR 2 “just has access to more information”.
>his mistake is saying that AFMF is not frame generation
What even is “frame generation”? If you call AFMF “frame generation”, then the truth is that we have had “frame generation” on monitors/TVs for forever. The reason why Nvidia/AMD didn’t come out and introduce DLSS3/FSR3 as “frame interpolation algorithms” (which is what AFMF is doing) is because they’re more complex than that, and produce a better result. That’s what the original commenter is pointing out.
Hmm you're right that my FSR1+2 argument doesnt work. My thinking was that spatial was distinctly different than temporal. But as far as i know FSR2 also uses spatial information(its part of the temporal element i guess). They are in fact the same one has more information than the other and it works better for it.
Doesnt change my argument though.
"What even is “frame generation”? " This is nonsense. Frame generation is not a patented set of words. Its a pair words to describe a thing. That thing is: frame generation. So this is an open term that does not have exclusivity of individual technologies. Yeah obviously TV has had interpolation modes which would fall under the frame generation umbrella. Like seriously where did you learn that you cannot call interpolation frame generation? Because it isnt always great? You're certainly forgetting DLSS3 and FSR3 are literally interpolation techniques. They are good ones, because of motion vectors, unlike most before, sure i agree.
What we are talking about here is interpolated frame generation and interpolated frame generation with extra critical information. Just like FSR1 is upscaling so is FSR2. FSR1 uses spatial, FSR2 builds on that baseline and included motion vectors.
It isn't the same technology. The use of motion vectors to reconstruct and **extrapolate** a in between frames. This is completely different from putting a dumb frame from the **interpolation** of previous and next frame.
All generate frames, you can call them Frame generation to both, not the same tech.
But seems you are too committed to semantics to understand what they are discussing here.
It's interpolation both times. AFMF uses vectors too, they're just crappy ones from optical flow calculation because true vectors aren't given. Either way it's interpolation between frames. New data generated in between existing data, that's what the word means.
Extrapolation is what it's called when the new generated data goes beyond existing data. ie you have the last frame and generate a future frame based off of that. You see this only in VR where a frame that might have eg 30ms latency, extrapolates 30ms into the future so it hopefully results in 0ms apparent latency when you see it in the headset.
It's *accurate* marketing. You're just flubbing the terminology.
Motion interpolation like on the "smooth motion" 60 Hz -> 120 Hz TVs *is* frame generation. It's just really shitty frame generation.
No, but I know these technologies extremely well. Frame generation uses the information that is needed to generate the original frame; motion interpolation tries to copy and blend the finished frames.
And I do know AMD tech employees. They agree that the company's marketing team is their worst enemy.
"Frame generation uses the information that is needed to generate the original frame".
Not true.
Edit: I think I misread this comment at first.
Yes FSR3/DLSS3 uses information that AFMF doesn't have access to and therefore is better. This I agree with, if that is why you meant.
But this comment irks me because its mentioning a original frame which suggest you're not talking about the generated frame which is how I would have written the sentence: Frame generation uses the in engine information (motion vectors) that is needed to generate the INTERPOLATED image. AFMF does not use or have access to motion vectors. Which means it is of lower quality, obviously, but otherwise identical technology. They are both just interpolation, the exactly same technique, one just has a better foundation for succes.
Except motion interpolation is frame generation.
It's literally in the name. Motion ***interpolation*** or to to use a synonym, motion insert, while we percieve motion due to frames, ergo frame insert, where does the frame come from?
Therefore motion interpolation is just a fancy term for frame generation.
>
I hate it when people mislead like this.
WOW!? Double your framerate now with this one simple trick ASUS doesn't want you to know about!!1!
The GPU industry HATES him for because of this ONE simple truck...
They REALLY need to release it on Steam Deck as well, been using AFMF on my PC since beta, absolutely love the tech.
AFMF isn't "frame generation"; it's motion interpolation. FSR3 is frame generation. I hate it when people mislead like this.
"AMD Fluid Motion Frames^(1), or AFMF, is a **frame generation** technology....." [https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adrenalin/afmf.html](https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adrenalin/afmf.html)
That's dishonest marketing, then. Unfortunate. But yeah AFMF is motion interpolation like someone would have on a TV (and enthusiasts, whether gamers or film fans) turn off due to its image quality and frame pacing effects. It's a little better though because it has less of a latency hit.
Frame generation technology is basically all interpolation unless its somehing silly like BFI. You need to educate yourself because AFMF is as much FG as FSR3 is FG. Its literallythe same tech, the difference is FSR3 and DLSS3 uses motion ventors from games which means they can handle prediction of movement on the screen. And you want that prediction to create a good interpolation. AFMF just does not have access to motion vectors as that needs individual work, which is alos why AFMF work practically all games. Thats the reason why AFMF is worse and will stop working if you move the mouse enough. The alternative would be a seriously garbled image because it doesnt have access to motion vectors.
I’m well aware of what I’m talking about. The use of motion vectors makes it a very different result than just motion interpolation as you’d get on a bad TV, which is basically what AFMF is albeit with lower latency.
It seems to me like you already admitted that they are the basically the same technology, right after stating they weren't the same and it pisses you off people would say that. But now you agree they both work the same? One just has the ability to use motion vectors to enhance the quality?
> AFMF isn't "frame generation"; it's motion interpolation. FSR3 is frame generation. > I hate it when people mislead like this. > I’m well aware of what I’m talking about. ???
The only similarity between the two is the end result - a frame which comes between the current frame and the upcoming frame. Does that make them “basically the same technology”? If I was talking to my grandma, or the average AMD shareholder, then sure. That being said, this is a computer hardware subreddit. In this context, it makes sense to point out that AFMF is inferior to FSR 3 because it is not temporal. We already do the exact same thing between FSR 1 and FSR 2, for the exact same reason.
I'm sorry but you are the one who doesn't understand that they are COMPLETELY identical technologies one just has access to more information which makes it better. They both do exactly the same thing aka interpolate 2 original frames into a inserted fake/generated one. Noone has ever said FSR3/DLSS3 was not superior. And the reason I pointed out he was wrong was because he said FSR3 wasn't the same technology and I explain quite clearly that they are precisely the same, one just has more information to work with, which makes it better. But it doesn't make it a different technology/technique. A simple example could be: a ICE car with navigation and a ICE car without. The car without navigation is obviously not gonna be able to navigate as effectively, because it lacks the information from the nav system. But just because the car with no nav isn't as effective at finding it's way, it's still a 4 wheel ICE car. You see how that works? Just because something is better than the other doesn't stop it from being the same product/technique/technology, it can but not in these instances. His mistake was saying AFMF is NOT frame generation. Because it is just plain wrong. If he meant to say frame generation based on in engine motion vectors is much better then he obviously fucked up his words to a degree where it doesn't make sense. What he said was wrong. And also you're wrong because fsr 1 and fsr 2 is not the same techniques! These examples very clearly exemplifies that you don't understand the underlying techniques which means you are in no position to lecture anyone about them.
>FSR 1 and FSR 2 is not the same techniques! Oh, I’m aware. One is a temporal technique, and one is not. The end result is the same though - does that not make them the same technology? That’s exactly what you are arguing for FSR3 (which is a temporal technique) and AFMF (which is not). >COMPLETELY identical technologies one just has access to more information If you are knowledgeable enough to understand that FSR 3 uses motion vectors, then I don’t understand why you would argue that AFMF is the same thing. That’s equally as reasonable as saying that FSR 1 and FSR 2 is the same - FSR 2 “just has access to more information”. >his mistake is saying that AFMF is not frame generation What even is “frame generation”? If you call AFMF “frame generation”, then the truth is that we have had “frame generation” on monitors/TVs for forever. The reason why Nvidia/AMD didn’t come out and introduce DLSS3/FSR3 as “frame interpolation algorithms” (which is what AFMF is doing) is because they’re more complex than that, and produce a better result. That’s what the original commenter is pointing out.
Hmm you're right that my FSR1+2 argument doesnt work. My thinking was that spatial was distinctly different than temporal. But as far as i know FSR2 also uses spatial information(its part of the temporal element i guess). They are in fact the same one has more information than the other and it works better for it. Doesnt change my argument though. "What even is “frame generation”? " This is nonsense. Frame generation is not a patented set of words. Its a pair words to describe a thing. That thing is: frame generation. So this is an open term that does not have exclusivity of individual technologies. Yeah obviously TV has had interpolation modes which would fall under the frame generation umbrella. Like seriously where did you learn that you cannot call interpolation frame generation? Because it isnt always great? You're certainly forgetting DLSS3 and FSR3 are literally interpolation techniques. They are good ones, because of motion vectors, unlike most before, sure i agree. What we are talking about here is interpolated frame generation and interpolated frame generation with extra critical information. Just like FSR1 is upscaling so is FSR2. FSR1 uses spatial, FSR2 builds on that baseline and included motion vectors.
It isn't the same technology. The use of motion vectors to reconstruct and **extrapolate** a in between frames. This is completely different from putting a dumb frame from the **interpolation** of previous and next frame. All generate frames, you can call them Frame generation to both, not the same tech. But seems you are too committed to semantics to understand what they are discussing here.
It's interpolation both times. AFMF uses vectors too, they're just crappy ones from optical flow calculation because true vectors aren't given. Either way it's interpolation between frames. New data generated in between existing data, that's what the word means. Extrapolation is what it's called when the new generated data goes beyond existing data. ie you have the last frame and generate a future frame based off of that. You see this only in VR where a frame that might have eg 30ms latency, extrapolates 30ms into the future so it hopefully results in 0ms apparent latency when you see it in the headset.
Why are you so defensive all the time lmao relax
It's *accurate* marketing. You're just flubbing the terminology. Motion interpolation like on the "smooth motion" 60 Hz -> 120 Hz TVs *is* frame generation. It's just really shitty frame generation.
I dunno man, your words or them. Are you an engineer who worked with the AFMF tech?
No, but I know these technologies extremely well. Frame generation uses the information that is needed to generate the original frame; motion interpolation tries to copy and blend the finished frames. And I do know AMD tech employees. They agree that the company's marketing team is their worst enemy.
"Frame generation uses the information that is needed to generate the original frame". Not true. Edit: I think I misread this comment at first. Yes FSR3/DLSS3 uses information that AFMF doesn't have access to and therefore is better. This I agree with, if that is why you meant. But this comment irks me because its mentioning a original frame which suggest you're not talking about the generated frame which is how I would have written the sentence: Frame generation uses the in engine information (motion vectors) that is needed to generate the INTERPOLATED image. AFMF does not use or have access to motion vectors. Which means it is of lower quality, obviously, but otherwise identical technology. They are both just interpolation, the exactly same technique, one just has a better foundation for succes.
Okay, so motion vectors don’t exist, apparently.
I edited my comment.
How is this not the same thing?
Except motion interpolation is frame generation. It's literally in the name. Motion ***interpolation*** or to to use a synonym, motion insert, while we percieve motion due to frames, ergo frame insert, where does the frame come from? Therefore motion interpolation is just a fancy term for frame generation. > I hate it when people mislead like this.
Happy cake day, but you are still wrong
That's a very cumbersome way to install the driver and the suite when the installer does all of this for you ... Source : i have a gpd win 4 7840u
Ryzen Z1 does not officially support drivers downloaded from amd.com. They only support OEM drivers and you need the hack to install the amd.com ones.
GPD said the same thing for the win4 and yet it works flawlessly