Nvidia’s claim that the RTX 5070 can achieve RTX 4090-level performance at a fraction of the cost hinges on the advancements in DLSS 4 and its Multi Frame Generation technology. While the statement is technically true in terms of frame rates achieved in specific benchmarks, it doesn’t imply that the RTX 5070 surpasses the 4090 in overall graphical prowess. The boosted frame rates are a direct result of DLSS 4’s ability to generate up to three additional frames for every traditionally rendered frame, effectively multiplying the output and creating a smoother visual experience. However, this artificial frame generation has ignited the “fake frames” debate, with some arguing that these interpolated frames don’t represent true GPU performance in the traditional sense.
The core of the “RTX 4090 performance” claim centers around specific games and configurations. Nvidia’s internal testing demonstrates that in titles supporting DLSS 4, like Cyberpunk 2077, the RTX 5070, utilizing DLSS 4, can reach frame rates comparable to an RTX 4090 running DLSS 3.5. It’s crucial to understand that this comparison focuses solely on frame rates, not the overall image quality or rendering details. The RTX 4090, with its significantly more powerful hardware, still maintains a clear advantage in raw rendering power and can deliver higher fidelity visuals when not relying heavily on upscaling and frame generation techniques. Essentially, the 5070 mimics the 4090’s performance in terms of frame output, but not necessarily in the quality or realism of those frames.
The “fake frames” argument stems from the nature of DLSS Frame Generation, which introduces interpolated frames between traditionally rendered ones. While DLSS 4 improves this process with its Multi Frame Generation and advanced AI model, the fundamental concept remains the same: the GPU isn’t rendering all the frames displayed. Critics argue that these artificially generated frames, while contributing to smoother visuals and higher frame rates, are not representative of the GPU’s inherent rendering capabilities. The debate revolves around whether these interpolated frames provide a genuine performance improvement or merely create an illusion of higher performance. Proponents of DLSS counter that these techniques allow for higher visual fidelity and smoother gameplay at lower hardware costs, making advanced gaming experiences more accessible.
The impact of frame generation on latency is another key consideration. While DLSS 4 incorporates improvements to minimize added latency, the introduction of interpolated frames inevitably adds some delay compared to traditional rendering. This latency, although small, can be perceptible, especially in fast-paced games where responsiveness is crucial. The effect of this added latency varies based on the individual and their sensitivity to input lag. Some players might not notice the difference, while others, especially those accustomed to very high refresh rates, might find the experience less responsive despite the higher frame rates. The core issue is that the game might “look” smoother with the added frames, but the underlying responsiveness, dictated by the actual rendered frames, might still feel slow.
The “fake frames” debate ultimately boils down to the trade-offs between visual fidelity, performance, and latency. With increasingly demanding games and the pursuit of realistic graphics, techniques like DLSS Frame Generation become essential tools for achieving playable frame rates, even on high-end hardware. The question is whether the benefits of enhanced visuals and smoother frame rates outweigh the potential drawbacks of introduced latency and the argument that these frames aren’t “real.” The answer likely depends on the individual gamer’s priorities and sensitivity to latency.
The broader context is that modern gaming already relies heavily on various techniques to optimize performance and enhance visuals. Dynamic resolution scaling, various levels of detail, and other rendering tricks are commonplace. DLSS, in its various iterations, is simply another tool in this arsenal, albeit a more advanced one utilizing AI. The trend towards AI-powered rendering is clear, with both Sony and AMD also exploring similar technologies. Whether or not one agrees with the “fake frames” argument, these techniques are likely here to stay, driving the evolution of game graphics and making high-fidelity gaming experiences more accessible.
