Clamibot

I'd say all games benefit from frame gen, but the base framerate needs to be high enough that the latency between you moving your mouse and the action being reflected on the screen is low enough for the game to still feel responsive enough. This varies from person to person, and I'm on the high end, so I still need a base framerate in the hundreds for the game to feel responsive. The base framerate also needs to be high enough to minimize frame gen artifacts. Things start looking really wacky when you try interpolating to 300 fps while having a base framerate of only 15 fps.

Radeon cards are better for frame gen. Lossless Scaling likes them more due to Radeon's higher floating point compute power vs their GeForce equivalents at all performance tiers, which is very important for frame gen performance. This also explains why Radeon cards perform significantly better with Minecraft shaders vs their GeForce equivalents. Both tasks are dependent on floating point performance. So the best setup for dual GPU in games is Radeon + Radeon if your games favor AMD GPUs, or Nvidia + Radeon if your games favor Nvidia GPUs. In either case, the optimal frame gen GPU is going to be a Radeon GPU.

Well now that you have your issues resolved, now you can use both of those RTX 5080s to build a badass dual GPU gaming/workstation rig! Losless Scaling will let you bring back the days of SLI/Crossfire by using one card as a render card and the second card as a frame gen card. I've recently been planning out a build to do pseudo tri-SLI or pseudo trifire as I know more recent versions of Windows (I think the minimum requirement is Windows 11 24H2) allow for generated frames to be piped through to another computer over a network (you're gonna want 10G ethernet for this at least if your framerate is in the hundreds like mine lol). This allows for render and framegen on one system, then on a second, you can do additional framegen on top of the streamed input frames. This is one way to get around Lossless Scaling's insistence of only one instance per machine, and allow the use of up to 3 GPUs to process your game. All of this was triggered by LG's announcement of a 1000 Hz monitor. I really want one, but am going to need a system to push that framerate in every game. My current rig has an RX 6950 XT and an RTX 3080. It works amazingly! I use the 6950 XT as my render card and the 3080 as my framegen card most of the time, but I swap the order if a particular game favors the Nvidia card. It's great to have a card from both major GPU vendors in those edge cases. I've also done experiments using my desktop as a render system and my laptop as a frame gen system. Piping the rendered frames to my laptop via ethernet and running Lossless Scaling on it to reach my framerate target works great! My ultra high performance software suite consists of the following: - Apollo (for streaming video to connected computers) - Moonlight (for streaming video from connected computers) - Lossless Scaling (for that sweet sweet frame gen) - Modified Windows (specifically WindowsXLite editions for maximum performance) This is especially useful if you have an ultra high refresh rate monitor. You'll be able to run all your games at your monitor's refresh rate, and it will look AMAZING! Bro Fox knows I swear by Lossless Scaling. It really is that good of an application, and is the best $7 I ever spent on any piece of software.

You have our support buddy! We hope everything turns out well for you! I'm happy to see that you avoided a much worse situation.

I'm very happy to see a fellow community member using Lossless Scaling in the exact fashion I do. This is something I've been promoting for a while, and I'm happy to see someone else interested in using Lossless Scaling to relive the days of SLI/Crossfire. This really is the way to better performance in games if you're super hungry for those frames but don't want to spend anything on new hardware. We can instead use what we already have! Cluster computing to increase performance in games is awesome. I use a combination of Lossless Scaling + Apollo + Moonlight to use two machines to render a game. Being able to take advantage of the combined performance of 2 computers to run your games is awesome! As an experiment, I think I'm going to see if a Tri-SLI/Trifire setup is possible this way. As I haven't tried that sort of a setup yet. I got a Radeon 9070 XT and a Radeon 9060 XT from Micro Center just before prices got to skyrocket, so I was able to get some hardware at those sweet discount prices. The 9060 XT was for my dad, but I'll be installing the 9070 XT in my desktop sometime soon when I find extra time. Currently, my desktop has a Radeon 6950 XT and an RTX 3080. I'm going to install the 9070 XT in my desktop and use that as my new render GPU, then use the RTX 3080 as my frame gen GPU. I'm going to install the 6950 XT in my second desktop (which currently has a GTX 1060) and pass those frames to my second desktop using Apollo + Moonlight, then perform another layer of frame gen on that input using a second instance of Lossless Scaling running on this machine. BAM! Triple GPU rendering baby! With some really awesome newer monitors coming out, I'm going to want the 1000 fps experience in every game, which should be achievable through a triple GPU setup using Lossless Scaling + Apollo + Moonlight. I actually really want the Thermaltake Core W200 case for my next build I will inevitably do sometime in the future, but it seems it's nowhere to be found anymore. I may have to just stick with 2 separate cases. Does anyone know of any other cases that can fit 2 ATX motherboards?

You should be able to assign the second core to Lossless Scaling as long as Windows sees the GPU as 2 GPUs, which I image it does. This reminds me of the GTX 690, as that was a dual GPU board as well. Now we have a new version of that from Intel which is awesome. That is correct. Your monitors should be plugged into the framegen GPU as plugging them into the render GPU will invoke a double readback, which will destroy performance and increase latency.

Lossless Scaling allows for up to 20x frame gen. It offers very interesting results.

Merry Christmas my friends! I hope you're all having an awesome day today! I know I am! After yet another grueling few weeks of really busy devleopment, I'm finally on a one week vacation. I got caught up on MANY pages worth of posts today, so now I'm up to speed on all the threads I follow. That was very time consuming. Thank goodness for my super long attention span and hyperfocus abilities. I got a second GPU installed in my desktop (RTX 3080 from brother Fox), and this system slaps! Paired with Lossless Scaling, I can now render any game I have at 300 fps for the foreseeable future. I love this return of multi GPU gaming rigs brought about by this awesome software.

Well looks like 9070 XT prices are finally coming down. they're available at my Dallas Microcenter for $650 as of the time of this post. There are lots of them in stock too! https://www.microcenter.com/product/689903/powercolor-amd-radeon-rx-9070-xt-reaper-triple-fan-16gb-gddr6-pcie-50-graphics-card

😭 I stepped away for a week, not checking the forums due to things being pretty busy on my end and I come back to seeing this as a notification, getting real excited in the process, only to see the card has already been sold 😭. Oh well, as they say, you snooze, you loose. I'm happy the card has found another owner who will definitely enjoy the card. Thanks for thinking of me when putting it up on offer, I really appreciate that.

Funnily enough, if one buys Lossless Scaling for $7, you can get MFG on any GPU. You can even use the program to bring back the days of SLI/Crossfire with it's dual GPU mode! The software suites locked behind either Nvidia's or AMD's products do not add any value to their products. They're technologies that should and can work on any GPU, proven by this nifty little program. Supposedly Lossless Scaling frame gen also runs better on an AMD card than a Nvidia one. I don't know if that's completely true, but that's what I've heard. It makes sense given AMD cards typically have very good theoretical compute capabilities.

Yep, AMD's performance these days screams. This is the reason I've switched over to only using AMD GPUs. Nvidia's drivers have a CPU side bottleneck that holds your framerate back. My how the tables have turned. This kinda stuff seems cyclical. We had Intel/Nvidia be the go to combo in the past, now it's full AMD. They'll continue leapfrogging each other. The great thing is, we get increasingly more powerful toys! I don't have any brand loyalty, but I sure am a fanboy of whoever has the best stuff at the time.

Bartlett Lake confirmed! Looks like we won't have to go to Xeon CPUs to escape the E-core madness after all! https://wccftech.com/intel-confirms-nova-lake-s-nova-lake-u-p-core-only-bartlett-lake-s-desktops-panther-lake-laptops/

This is the phenomenon of the "Intelligent Idiot". It's a very strange phenomenon where some otherwise intelligent people double down on their position even when they've been proven wrong because they cannot accept that they're wrong. Some highly intelligent individuals are also higly out of touch with reality.

Interesting video. I wonder what causes the drastic differences in 1% lows to flip flop depending on the game. I'm guessing it has something to do with inter-CCD latencies and the fact that not both CCDs have the 3D VCache, which in my opinion is a bad idea. Homogeneous designs yield the highest performance. So looks like for Intel to reclaim the performance crown, they need to do 2 things: 1. Add their own version of 3D Vcache underneath their CPU cores (I believe they have something similar to that, which they call Adamantine cache) 2. Get rid of the stupid E-cores and make all cores P-cores. I don't get the point of the E-cores. All they do is reduce performance for the most part, so I leave them turned off since leaving the E-cores turned off significantly increases my performance in pretty much everything, with games getting the biggest boost. I only had one case when using my 14900KF where they increased performance, and performance didn't increase by that much. Tripling your core count to get only a 17% increase in performance is an insanely bad ROI in relation to the amount of extra cores (yes, I know the core types don't have the same processing power, but even assuming the E-cores are half the processing power of the P-cores, it's still a very bad performance increase in relation to the number of extra cores). Intel's server class Xeon CPUs have all P-cores and they perform great due to not being shackled by E-cores. No weird scheduling shenanigans. Since Intel doesn't seem to want to ditch their E-core idea, we may have to move to their server class CPUs to escape the E-core insanity.