AMD Adds Fluid Motion Frames Support for RX 6000 GPUs

AMD Radeon RX 6000
(Image credit: AMD)

AMD has released a new Adrenalin Preview Driver that enables AMD Fluid Motion Frames (AFMF) for RX 6000-series graphics card owners. AMD's driver-level frame generation technology was originally limited to RX 7000-series cards, but after a strong response ("backlash" may be a good word) from owners of older AMD graphics cards, the company has filtered AFMF down to its previous generation cards.

Fluid Motion Frames is AMD's new driver-level frame generation technology that allows any supported GPU to use frame generation in any DX11 or DX12 title. The feature differs from FSR 3 frame generation significantly, however, as AFMF is implemented at the driver level and is unable to use motion vectors to maintain high image quality like DLSS 3/FSR 3 frame generation.

TOPICS
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • DavidLejdar
    Nice... I suppose? There certainly are some difference possible with that stuff in general. I.e. in Cyberpunk 2077 2.01, with the ultra graphics preset, with Boost and Anti-Lag enabled, without upscaling and without RT, and all at 1440p with the in-game benchmark:
    - without FSR, I get an average of 57 fps,
    - with FSR 2.1 set to quality, it is 69 fps,
    - with FSR 2.1 set to performance, it is 96 fps, and
    - with FSR 2.1 set to ultra-performance, it is 117 fps.

    I guess I'll run a series of benchmarks, to see which impact which feature has, and how it works for me. Raytracing isn't currently a biggie for me, as I am currently more interested to find a good 10-bit screen, which will make stuff look better in general, apparently, and it seems that HDR also works better with a 10-bit screen.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    I won't like frame generation tech ever, most likely, but the way you go out of your way to pass this as a negative is quite something...

    So if nVidia's Frame Generation comes to older RTX cards I'm sure you'd be praising the heavens and then some more, but AMD get's a "who gives a crap; it's trash anyway" treatment. And this is in the driver, not even per-game. Leaving qualitative analysis of how it works, the wording leaves a lot of be desired and hard not to read a lot of bias in it.

    Welp. Disappointing.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • lilgawain
    DavidLejdar said:
    Nice... I suppose? There certainly are some difference possible with that stuff in general. I.e. in Cyberpunk 2077 2.01, with the ultra graphics preset, with Boost and Anti-Lag enabled, without upscaling and without RT, and all at 1440p with the in-game benchmark:
    - without FSR, I get an average of 57 fps,
    - with FSR 2.1 set to quality, it is 69 fps,
    - with FSR 2.1 set to performance, it is 96 fps, and
    - with FSR 2.1 set to ultra-performance, it is 117 fps.

    I guess I'll run a series of benchmarks, to see which impact which feature has, and how it works for me. Raytracing isn't currently a biggie for me, as I am currently more interested to find a good 10-bit screen, which will make stuff look better in general, apparently, and it seems that HDR also works better with a 10-bit screen.
    Have you tried XESS? It looks a bit better than FSR 2.1 to my eyes. What card are you running, BTW? Performance looks very similar to my mine on a 6700XT/5600X.
    Reply