[Incipient]

My understanding is that frame generation uses motion vectors to (slightly?) adjust the scene to produce a "highly plausible" next frame to drop in before the following "real" frame.

I've only seen videos, so from a somewhat unrealistic perspective, it seems like an acceptable compromise for low end hardware in particular.

Boosting 120hz to 240hz admittedly seems silly.

[Borealid]

My comment isn't denigrating frame generation, which can be useful.

It's pointing out the absurdity of calling "45fps plus 1-for-1 frame generation" as if it is in any sense "90fps". It's not, and you aren't hitting a 90Hz refresh rate target at any more with it than you were without it. In point of fact, it lowers real FPS because it consumes resources that would have otherwise been available for the render pipeline.

I wish reviewers in particular would stop saying e.g. "120fps with DLSS FG enabled" and instead call out the original render rate. It makes the discourse very confusing.

[jasomill]

120 Hz is around the point where I'd start to consider frame generation in the first place, assuming everything else in the system is optimized for minimal latency.

At 100 Hz or less, I've yet to experience frame generation in any form that doesn't result in unacceptably floaty input relative to the same system with framegen disabled.