Again, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2. And when there are cases where your game cannot hit whatever threshold needed for 120fps, that’s where the variable refresh rate comes in.
You think fluid motion is just going to make games perform at 120 fps or near that? Especially without artifacting or fidelity? That’s highly optimistic.
Also I’m not sure why you keep on mentioning vrr, it has nothing to do with a 120 hrz screen wasting battery power chasing on paper metrics. Power is still allocated and not dynamic on this device.
Variable refresh rate is best on monitors that have high refresh rates because there’s a wider range of fps that it can adapt to. Even if you’re only at 80-100 fps, you’re benefiting from your refresh rate of your monitor being higher, particularly for frame times.
Also, I simply cannot imagine why you’re offended about refresh rate reaching 120hz. That’s purely a benefit. You can turn it down to save battery. There is literally zero downside.
Everything I’m running gets between 100-120+ fps with AFMF2 with far less artifacting than previous AFMF1. I’m mentioning VRR because it means that if a game doesn’t hit 120FPS, it stays perfectly smooth so frame dips are far less noticeable. I’m using an ROG Ally X, so I don’t spend much time worrying about battery power at all anymore unlike the previous ROG Ally. I get about 2-3 hours playing the bigger games on it and for anything that I want to basically play forever (2d stuff), I can set screen to 720p, lock screen to 60fps (or less) and lock TDP to 7 watts and get 10 or so hours out of it.
If you aren’t interested in trying the driver with AFMF2 (which is not yet officially released for the handheld Windows devices yet but can be sideloaded), you can also play with Lossless Scaling on Steam which can also do frame generation up to 4x.
Again, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2. And when there are cases where your game cannot hit whatever threshold needed for 120fps, that’s where the variable refresh rate comes in.
You think fluid motion is just going to make games perform at 120 fps or near that? Especially without artifacting or fidelity? That’s highly optimistic.
Also I’m not sure why you keep on mentioning vrr, it has nothing to do with a 120 hrz screen wasting battery power chasing on paper metrics. Power is still allocated and not dynamic on this device.
Variable refresh rate is best on monitors that have high refresh rates because there’s a wider range of fps that it can adapt to. Even if you’re only at 80-100 fps, you’re benefiting from your refresh rate of your monitor being higher, particularly for frame times.
Also, I simply cannot imagine why you’re offended about refresh rate reaching 120hz. That’s purely a benefit. You can turn it down to save battery. There is literally zero downside.
Everything I’m running gets between 100-120+ fps with AFMF2 with far less artifacting than previous AFMF1. I’m mentioning VRR because it means that if a game doesn’t hit 120FPS, it stays perfectly smooth so frame dips are far less noticeable. I’m using an ROG Ally X, so I don’t spend much time worrying about battery power at all anymore unlike the previous ROG Ally. I get about 2-3 hours playing the bigger games on it and for anything that I want to basically play forever (2d stuff), I can set screen to 720p, lock screen to 60fps (or less) and lock TDP to 7 watts and get 10 or so hours out of it.
If you aren’t interested in trying the driver with AFMF2 (which is not yet officially released for the handheld Windows devices yet but can be sideloaded), you can also play with Lossless Scaling on Steam which can also do frame generation up to 4x.