[trevortheblack]

?

This is mostly wrong?

> The reason gamers want higher framerates is mostly for lower latency,

"Gamers" are absolutely not a monolithic group, but in general, they mostly want higher frame rates because higher frame rates does a better job of feeling and looking fluid.

> faster reaction times,

60 fps is 16 ms per frame. The end to end latency for a decent video game setup will be ~50 ms, and it's pretty well decoupled from frame time. The actual frame time will only constitute a small fraction of the overall latency. Most setups will have an end-to-end latency of 100ms. So the difference between 60fps and 120fps is even less cogent.

> and a bigger advantage in online play.

Most gamers play in 30fps or 60fps on console. There is definitely a lot of folks playing framerate sensitive games (like CS:GO) on PC which do benefit from increased framerate, up to ~300fps (above that gets complicated). But the vast majority of gamers are limited by skill and will see marginal benefit above 60.

> DLSS 3 'fakes' it's higher frame rates. As a result you might have 120 fps, but it's going to feel like 60hz.

Visually it looks a lot like 120. Digital Foundry has a video on this. Outside of definitely noticeable visual artifacting 120 fps with DLSS3 looks and plays like... 120 fps. Saying it feels like 60 is a wild thing to say.

It's possible that all games today running DLSS3 poll the input at the true frame rate, rather than that with the frame gen, but if we're talking about the difference between a 60 poll per second versus a 120 poll per second that difference in latency is only going to affect the top tier of players in the kinds of games where millisecond latency matters (an inherently niche set)

You could say that all gamers want the absolute best possible 300+fps setup to their online play, but where they're not primarily limited by skill, they're going to be predominantly limited by budget. Doubling your framerate from raw compute alone will more than double your cost.

There are valid criticisms to DLSS3. I've never heard or seen anything you're mentioning here.

Source: I'm a graphics engineer in the industry (Not Nvidia)

[hackerman_fi]

I play fps shooter (Overwatch 2) weekly at minimum. I’m far from being ”pro”, advanced hobbyist rather. When Windows spontaneously decides to reset refresh rate back to 60, I’ll notice it the second I aim by flicking my mouse. In addition to strobe-effect of low fps, the increased input lag in mouse controls is absolutely noticeable and really messes my aim. So no need to be pro to enjoy (and notice) increased responsiveness in fps games as long as you’ll clock a few hours weekly to it!

[Dah00n]

I know nothing of DLSS (I use AMD parts) but 100ms sounds extreme to me. Like way above playable. Did you try Nvidia's reflex experiment? At 85ms it feels like the mouse is stuck in tar. I read that the increase in aim precision was near 60% and often up to 80%(!) in the low Vs high latency.

I don't know what my current systems total latency is, but I use a mouse with custom internals and an LG OLED screen for the lowest input lag. The difference between 60 and 120 Hz is huge even with my at least low-ish input lag system.

This isn't meant as a criticism, as I stated I have no clue how DLSS feels and I quite enjoy playing games on my PS5 too (with LG OLD and VRR), but the 100ms just sounded off to me.

Actually, before posting I just had a quick look at Nvidias article. Their example of worst system latency was 77ms and the best is 12ms.

100 and I'd throw it out the window.

[flohofwoe]

> because higher frame rates does a better job of feeling and looking fluid

But a higher frame rate also does a good job of reducing input latency with the same number of frames in flight. Just try a game which uses the system mouse pointer and where you can move things around with the mouse. The difference in distance between the mouse pointer and the dragged thing at 60 vs 120fps is quite dramatic, even more so on 30 vs 60fps. This is just an obvious visual representation of what is a bit more subtle when using a first-person control scheme (which many non-hardcore gamers probably don't pay much attention to, but they still might wonder why one game feels "laggy" and another feels more "crisp")

[lbwtaylor]

>I've never heard or seen anything you're mentioning here.

You may not have but it is pretty accepted knowledge in the gaming community. An example commentary from hardware unboxed:

https://youtu.be/GkUAGMYg5Lw

I'm pretty sure digital foundry had indicated that DLSS 3 adds latency vs turning it off, so in the 60fps vs 120 fps example, it would actually feel like 45 fps.