I think it’s valid for boosting raw 60fps to 120fps (or whatever your max refresh rate is) in games that aren’t super latency sensitive. Boosting something like 180 or 240FPS to 360 or 480 is probably valid for more latency sensitive things like competitive shooters since it would (theoretically) increase readability of motion at an imperceptible cost to latency.

Personally, I’d probably use multi-frame-gen only for boosting games that are capped at 60 and for games where I can stably reach 120 but no higher if I had a super high refresh rate monitor and the game provides good clean frames to start with (which is… Arguable in a ton of modern titles).

Using it to boost, like, 30->60 or higher, or even 45->90, is idiotic. The latency at native 30 is already annoying and at 45 is just barely pushing into the range where it’s less noticeable in casual play, so adding any latency is just a really bad trade.

Upscaling tech (DLSS/FSR/etc) is nice as a way to help older/weaker hardware play newer games, and I’ve really appreciated it on the deck. I really don’t like it when games use it as a crutch to avoid having to optimize their game to an acceptable level.

Frame gen is in a worse spot because it usually only works well on hardware that can already hit 60fps. I’ve never found a built in framegen option that was actually usable on the deck without horrendous input lag and/or graphical issues.

Lossless Scaling’s Frame Gen is a sometimes exception, I’ve found a few Deck games that it works really well with. There are still occasional graphical issues/ghosting with it, but it can help out quite a bit. It’s weird to me that 3rd party software from a small dev would work better than integrated FG from the game devs/GPU makers, but it is what it is.

If DLSS can reach its fifth generation AI can destroy component supply for a second year