narkohol wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

Something weird happens, did 1080p test now, 6 delayed frames, then tried 1440p test, got 16 delayed frames!
Man, I used 4.25 heavy, thats model twice heavier than 4.6 (by performance)!

What's your GPU model? Nvidia drivers version and Windows version?

The 11 months old (bought 11 months ago) RTX 4070 GPU model, 565.90 graphics driver, Windows 10 19045.5011 OS build!

narkohol wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

Only 2 delayed frames for 24 seconds with VSync jitter always sit under 0.200 (59.940Hz display mode / GSync off)
Only 5 delayed frames for 24 seconds with VSync jitter always sit under 0.320 (60Hz display mode / GSync off)

Ahhh...   now I see what it's happening here.

https://i.postimg.cc/MpRK7xy9/image.png

I am talking about 1440p output. 720p or 1080p are also fine here. This was with Model 4.22_lite v2, I think:

https://i.postimg.cc/T3r5VcpR/image.png

but 1440p:
https://i.postimg.cc/CK7ZtLGX/image.png

So, nowhere near maxing the GPU % usage, but very noticeable stuttering/hitching/dropped/delayed frames.


This is with Model 4.6, much lower GPU % usage, not even 50%, but still a lot of stuttering/hitching/dropped/delayed frames:
https://i.postimg.cc/T3QwR216/image.png

I don't get why it doesn't work smoothly for 1440p, when it's not using even 50% of the GPU.
And going back to 1080p resolution in 2024 is just too big of a sacrifice. The trade-off of resolution/smoothness at 1080p doesn't pay off...

Something weird happens, did 1080p test now, 6 delayed frames, then tried 1440p test, got 16 delayed frames!
Man, I used 4.25 heavy, thats model twice heavier than 4.6 (by performance)!

narkohol wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

I have smooth 60FPS playback!

Default SVP settings and RIFE engine, mpv player...

You mean 'default' with no scaling at all and no special settings in MPV??

MPV doesn't count Dropped frames properly. Even when you have a stutter fest playback it always says 'Dropped Frames: 0 (decoder) 0 (output)'

I had to use   --hr-seek-framedrop=no --framedrop=no --video-sync=display-tempo    to display 'Delayed' frames, and then:

https://i.postimg.cc/T3QwR216/image.png

https://i.ibb.co.com/jfNYT8S/2024-11-04-212432580.png

Only 2 delayed frames for 24 seconds with VSync jitter always sit under 0.200 (59.94Hz display mode / GSync off)
Only 5 delayed frames for 24 seconds with VSync jitter always sit under 0.320 (60Hz display mode / GSync off)

narkohol wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

I have smooth 60FPS playback!

Default SVP settings and RIFE engine, mpv player...

You mean 'default' with no scaling at all and no special settings in MPV??

MPV doesn't count Dropped frames properly. Even when you have a stutter fest playback it always says "0"

I had to use --hr-seek-framedrop=no --framedrop=no --video-sync=display-tempo  to display 'Delayed frames', and then:

https://i.postimg.cc/T3QwR216/image.png

I dont need display-tempo/dislay-resample at all, GSync monitor, just did same test and see no delayed/mismatched or even dropped frames, perhaps thats hardware issue, not MPV related, I can clearly state that because my friends has 4070/4080s and have different behavior with RIFE engine with exactly the same settings, so thats impractical, OSD counts bad, see drops by my own, there was none!

narkohol wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

One more thing, the video has some bad frames, trees sequence, with/without RIFE and with/without GSync with/without 60Hz mode and with/without scaling methods!
The skip/delay/mismatch frames happens from scaling methods also (when you downscaling/upscaling the source footage)!

It plays smooth with DmitriRender... 

RickyAstle98 wrote:

I have smooth 60FPS playback!

With which SVP settings and which player/video decoder and video renderer settings?

Default SVP settings and RIFE engine, mpv player...

narkohol wrote:

I don't know why, but after trying a crap ton of different options and combinations I can’t get SVP RIFE to do smooth 60fps playback.
There are always some microstutters/hitching and Dropped/Skipped/Delayed frames when I use SVP with RIFE, even with low CPU and GPU % usages (I'm using scaling to QHD 1440p and black bars on a RTX4080 and Ryzen 5950x).
If I disable SVP there are no Dropped/Skipped/Delayed frames or stutters/hitching.

I tried MPV, PotPlayer, MPC-BE, VLC with all available video renderers and video decoders in each one, and  the same happens in all of them.

All that I tried in detail here: https://www.svp-team.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=85781

TL;DR Can any of you play this file ( 30 seconds long dolly from Unbelievable 2160p DV HDR ) at 60fps perfectly fine with no Dropped/Skipped/Delayed frames and no visible hitches/stutters?

One more thing, the video has some bad frames, trees sequence, with/without RIFE and with/without GSync with/without 60Hz mode and with/without scaling methods!
The skip/delay/mismatch frames happens from scaling methods also (when you downscaling/upscaling the source footage)!
I have smooth 60FPS playback!

dawkinscm wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:
dawkinscm wrote:

Are you seeing any difference between the old v4.25_heavy and the new smaller one? Have you guys tried the new 4.25_heavy with SC disabled?

The 4.25 lite (new) worse than most older models!
Performance? Can do 7x from HD source (24>168/720p)
Smoothness? Smoother than 4.15 model, but choppy sometimes!
Artefacts? A lot! Very noticeable difference against heavy!
The SC disabled!
RTX 4070

The QUALITY models
4.9/4.10/4.12/4.15/4.15l/4.18

The SMOOTH models
4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10/4.25h

What about 4.25h 100MB vs 4.25h 80MB?

I dont think theres the difference, downloaded since release, thats was 76 mb model!

dawkinscm wrote:
Drakko01 wrote:
Blackfyre wrote:

Having said that, artefact masking is not as good as the original 4.25 that was released as a beta.

I am glad that was released as a beta, because that older one still remains the best quality version IMO and better than 4.18 too.

Exactly right, it kinda like the new 4.25_heavy, but reintroduce some artifacts the most models has for especific scene that 4.25 was fixed already, I hope see a combination of the two in the next model

Are you seeing any difference between the old v4.25_heavy and the new smaller one? Have you guys tried the new 4.25_heavy with SC disabled?

The 4.25 lite (new) worse than most older models!
Performance? Can do 7x from HD source (24>168/720p)
Smoothness? Smoother than 4.15 model, but choppy sometimes!
Artefacts? A lot! Very noticeable difference against heavy!
The SC disabled!
RTX 4070

The QUALITY models
4.9/4.10/4.12/4.15/4.15l/4.18

The SMOOTH models
4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10/4.25h

Grinchy wrote:

Someone else with some kind of micro lags since the newest nvidia Driver Update? (4090 @ 4.15)

It feeled much smoother before the update.

For me (4070) the models from 4.11 to 4.25 looks choppy sometimes, I updated drivers and nothing happens, 4.15 has tendency to move frame forward and backwards for background objects, which makes the video not smooth, but 4.15 is awesome for action movies!

For me 4.25 heavy FIX smoothness issue from 4.11 to 4.25 models, my RTX 4070 runs these models choppy, not performance issue, no monitor issue, 4.25h now smooth as 4.10 without any artefacts!
What about performance? Well, 4.25 v2 heavy enough for 576p 24>192 conversion without drops (2 threads)

abraxas wrote:

4.25_lite v2: max 5% less GPU usage than non-lite (4K HDR source material, frc.frame.resize=-19201080, fixed 60fps/SDR tone-mapped, upscaled to 4K with mpv/a couple of shaders) , no artifacts in my test scenes in The Martian, Jason Bourne, Rogue One, Big Bang Theory (1080p source, fixed 48fps) and downloaded YT-Video with different aspect ratio (fixed 48fps).

Smooth overall visual impression an 27" 4k monitor. Much better than 4.26x (which has many artifacts in my test cases).

Shaders:
hdebeband.glsl
SSimSuperRes.glsl
FSRCCNNX_x2_8-0-4-1.glsl
contrast.10.hk

I think your shaders somehow interfere RIFE algorithms, because 4.26 was better than 4.25L during my test sessions, a lot, but pixel crosstalk still an issue!
What do you mean upscaled back to 4K thats output resolution now? (resize and upscaling interfere RIFE methods - tested)

RTX 4070 (10 months old)

4.25 V1/V2 Lite test > worst (the pixels interpolating separately from main object) (not happens from 4.0 to 4.18)

Test parameters: mod8/mod32/mod64 inputs | builder optimization levels 2/3/4

scb wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

NVOF : good (smoother than SVP)
SVP : normal
RIFE : good/normal (weird changes depends on threshold but perfect with newer models)

I think we're talking cross purposes here, the image comparison list in SVP has the following options
* Disabled
* SVP motion vectors
* NVOF motion vectors
* Image comparison

It's the differences between these four options that I'm looking for clarification on. Can you help?

Disabled - RIFE image comparison method (100% threshold) (same problems as image comparison with threshold >25%)
SVP motion vectors: smooth transitions between scenes but suffers with high speed camera movement (high frame repeat/frame blending)
NVOF motion vectors: smoother transitions between scenes than SVP but has wavy artefacts between scenes (low frame repeat/frame blending)
Image comparison: RIFE has weird scene transitions, overall smoothness better than others (high frame repeat/frame blending with threshold <5% / scene weirdness differs from model and threshold)

scb wrote:
Chainik wrote:

different scene change detection methods work differently big_smile

I'm sure smile

How would those differences be described, to allow an end-user like myself to know what might be reasons to pick one over the other?

NVOF : good (smoother than SVP)
SVP : normal
RIFE : good/normal (weird changes depends on threshold but perfect with newer models)

abraxas wrote:
pensioner600 wrote:

I checked it many more times 4.26. It's surprising that many people don't see her mistake. No, I stay at 4.18, that's the best for me.

If you have The Martian: at timestamp 18:33 and later, you can see bars between the bed and his workplace in the background. At 4.18 there are significant artifacts there. Not at 4.26, not at 4.22v2 lite, not at 4.9(!!). All the others I tested (4.15v2 lite, 4.16v2 lite, 4.18, 4.18v2) have artifacts.

Of course, this is only one scene, but for me these kinds of artifacts are the worst, because they catch my eye immediately.

For THIS test case, 4.26v2 and 4.9 are visually identical at normal speed.

Testing parameter: 4k source material, scaling to -19201080, upscaling with MPV and shaders to 4k LED screen.

Nope!

Drakko01 wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

The problem is with mpv and SVP both, because this issue happens too often realtime playback, doesn't necessary for example videos...

Do you try it with this scene?
In my case for the example scene, happen exactly same position same way every time except on v4.25

Yes I tried with this scene too, some areas look pretty good with new model, but half of the video is better handles with older models!
Easier explanation (10 months old RTX 4070)
4.4 to 4.10 models: smooth experience with mid to average level of artifacts
4.10 to 4.16 models: choppy experience with low level of artifacts
4.15 lite sometimes better than newer models too much (100 movies tested)
4.17 to 4.25 models: chopper experience with low to mid level of artifacts
4.26 is worse than 4.25 (atleast for me)
Where level of artifacts emphasizes the level of their perception!

Drakko01 wrote:

@jdg4dfv7
Ok, a lot to read. Let's start by making the following clarification, when I mentioned not being interested in 0.25 speed test, I meant not doing it. But in no way was my intention to minimize your efforts in testing it in a less flawed way. I doubt that this matters to you, since you are not here for the opinions of others. I really appreciate and see the value of this type of tests, but I am convinced that the real benefit of your tests is  directly with the Rife developers and I don't believe they see it as child's play, your findings may lead them to see something they can improve and extend the benefits to all of us.I encourage you, if you don't already do it, to send it to them in some way.
After reading everything else the only thing I can say is, thank you for taking the time to test and respond but from here on out I am not going to quote directly or respond to any of your post. Because I can see that it's just going to lead to endless, pointless arguments that benefit no one. And in a few days the thread will probably have 200 worthless pages.

For everyone else, I really interest on the "flawed"visual testing on normal speed playback of scene like a mentioned (Doc Op vs Spiderman under the bridge) or any other scene with obvious artifacts like this one,the kind that don't need to have superhuman vision to be able to spotted.

RickyAstle98 wrote:

4) The 4.26 has significant artifacts for me even at normal playback speed, which not happens with older models, sometimes even parts of big objects interpolating separately than full object, which still not happens for older models testing, no matter what playback speed was set, I dont say 4.26 will work the same for others, atleast thats how 4.26 works for me, period!

Looking at you, and comments like this(whichever your preferred model) plus some scene example.

If you dont have the file in cuestion, can use this on youtube in the resolution you prefer or downscaling via svp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5c8LyPyuk&t=13s

The problem is with mpv and SVP both, because this issue happens too often realtime playback, doesnt necessary for example videos...

Chainik wrote:
flowreen91 wrote:

We can see how the directly generated video of RIFE has no shake of the white lines on the right side of the screen.
But when transcoding it with SVP, every interpolated frame has different positioning of the white lines than the non-interpolated frames.
It's like you show the video normally on the non-interpolated frames and then reduce the height by a few pixels on the RIFE generated frames which makes the pixels not align with the original movie, adding a shake-like effect on the static white lines that is obvious for big screen users.

SVP devs please take a look

Looking through the magnifying glass on the 65'' OLED, I can see "shaking" in both of these converted samples (non-RIFE too), and moreover, in a real-time RIFE conversion.
I'd say this's because of color space converted back and forth, noticeable in a very high contrast areas only.
Probably hmm

Propably big_smile

reynbow wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:
reynbow wrote:

Thanks for this.
Should I be using v2 or not?

The v2 models gives me 16% transcoding performance increase and 14% realtime performance! (my 10 months old 4070)
The answer: why not?

Dang. Well. You've sold me.

But only about 10% realtime increase for new models (4.18 to 4.26)!

reynbow wrote:
TUSJDFJSERTHS wrote:
reynbow wrote:

sorry for the dumb question but I'm struggling to find a link to download the latest models in these 80+ pages of comments
can anyone guide me please?

I see this: https://github.com/hzwer/Practical-RIFE
but I'm not how I'm supposed to use those files with SVP

https://github.com/AmusementClub/vs-mlr … nal-models

Thanks for this.
Should I be using v2 or not?

The v2 models gives me 16% transcoding performance increase and 14% realtime performance! (my 10 months old 4070)
The answer: why not?

jdg4dfv7 wrote:

@reynbow
It's always the same page https://github.com/AmusementClub/vs-mlr … nal-models

@Drakko01

I'm not interested in the 0.25 speed test, I don't think anyone here is

The opinions of x y, what someone interested in, is not the topic here (or the one I started). I recommended you to do your own testing if you don't know whom to believe or unsure about your own testing/findings, and this is the (better) way when it comes to visually spotting all/most artifacts etc.: at slow(er) playback speed, preferably x0.1 or x0.25 speed.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so again:
1) Lower playback speed (e.g. x0.1, x0.25) is not making the model produce less/more (in quality or quantity), artifacts, warping, blocking, pacing etc. It's all still the same, no matter the playback speed.
2) Our eyes/brain (our perception) simply can't spot/perceive the differences well/fast enough anymore; yes even with RIFE models only estimating from 24 fps to 60 fps.
We humans may distinguish higher differences in light levels (or as the mainstream says "more fps"), but doesn't mean we perceive everything equally. It simply is too fast aka too short in time span, to notice.
Can someone spot a tiny 0.5 % spot of artifacts, when the artifact itself is only 50 miliseconds long in time? Obviously: No. We are not some future Cyborgs/Android who have "10000 fps artificial eyes and brain computing" big_smile
3)Thus concluding, testing done on normal playback speed is flawed, and leads to a fallacy of conclusion aka wrong results/finding.
4)Even v4.25/26 are both full of artifacts etc. but which are only/mosty perceptible at slow playback speed for us humans.
Everyone who has not done the visual testing at slow playback speed, will be surprised how much more artifacts and worse pacing etc. one will start to perceive.


The goal of the Rife developers was not always aligned with what we are looking for here.
Many times the posts from members like dawkinscm,Blackfyre,dlr5668,flowreen91 ...

Fair enough. This subforum has a broad spectrum of topic allowed around the RIFE models.
I don't know what other things/settings you mean. The topic here I started are the RIFE models, thus regarding that topic:
When it comes to visually testing for artifacts etc. (as we do here), my own testing, as somewhat time consuming as it already is with all the low playback speed, dozens of A-B loop-repeat, writing down and doing screenshots, is childsplay and and big time flawed.
If anyone here is not even doing the same, than it's even more flawed.

Going scientfically and accurately, this is how we should do our testing and this/similar methods, is also thow the RIFE developers are doing it.
https://netflixtechblog.com/toward-a-pr … bfa9efbd46

4) The 4.26 has significant artifacts for me even at normal playback speed, which not happens with older models, sometimes even parts of big objects interpolating separately than full object, which still not happens for older models testing, no matter what playback speed was set, I dont say 4.26 will work the same for others, atleast thats how 4.26 works for me, period!

jdg4dfv7 wrote:

@RickyAstle98

Also when RIFE will support new computation levels directly from RT chain, thats increase inference performance from 84 to 100% according to NVIDIA guys!

That was a joke? big_smile
Or was something like that stated by the RIFE developers? They would have to make use of the new features.

The 5090 will have 2x as much CUDA cores than 5080, less power consumption on new compute levels! The 5080 performance is between 4080 and 4090 in rendering tasks, but games? Who knows?!

Correct.
Simply two BW-103 GPU-dies glued together (as Apple is doing with their M1 architecture since 2020 and Nvidia with Blackwell ML).
Of course (given technical leaks) Nvidias milking-strategy will be again, to castrate all GPU-dies of each model of their lineup (by 10 - 15 % as usually), as there is no competition and AMD+Nvidia is an Stackelberg-duopoly anyway for some years. Both companies are both manipulating the market for years, colluding on prices and products etc. There is no real competition; it's a public farce.
The currenlty sold RTX 4080 (super) are in fact relabeled RTX 4070 (AD104 GPU-die). The firstly introduced "RTX 4080 12GB" - which was then canceled - was in fact a RTX 4060 (AD-106 GPU-die).
There is no real RTX 4080 sold; same for rtx 4070 (is a rtx 4060 in fact) and the rtx 4060 (is a rtx 4050 in fact).
Renaming SKUs, giving them lower tier GPU-dies.
Looking at the leaks, it will be the same for consumer rtx 5000 again.





@dawkinscm

If the rumours are true then the 5080 doesn't suck because it will be at least as powerful as the current most powerful consumer GPU on the planet

As mentioned, that will verly likely (if the leaks are true) not happening. Also: don't generalize the metrics.
At best a rtx 5080 (BW-103 GPU- die, so in fact a relabeled RTX 5070), will have 15 - 20 % less rasterization performance than a rtx 4090. In reality it should be more of +25  less%. Similar story with Tensor Cores (for RIFE) and other things.

1) The leaked BW-103 GPU-die (RTX 5080), has a whopping ~ 60 % less shading units, ROPs, RT-Cores, or TMUs, Tensor Cores than the GPU in the current RTX 4090, but should somehow magically achieve the same rasterization performance, machine learning, ray tracing or Tensor Core (for RIFE) performance? This is not happening. The last time there was this huge of GPU-architecture jump of > 50 % from Nvidia, was last in 2007 from the 8 series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_series
As said: Ampere rtx 3090 to 4090 is only so big because of the lithography 12 nm -> 5 nm jump. Two full nodes.
Performance jumps due to GPU-architecture from Nvidia, were all only 10 - 20 % for the last 5 generations. The rest was lithography or simply more transistors.
2) The leaks specifies only the full BW-103 GPu-die for the rtx 5080 (GPU SM 84 (84 Full)). Nvidias has never sold a full GPU-die for consumers, for the last 4 - 5 generations or so. It will be castrated by at least 10 % as usual, just as every other model.
So it won't be 84 SM, but more like ~ 76 again, which means 70 % less units than the current rtx 4090.
3) Moores Law is effectively dead since 2012 TSMC's 28 nm lithography node (whatever other people say is wrong, or lying marketing).
4) For many generations (2012, especially since CUDA) Nvidia's pro/quadro/server and consumer lineup, have the same GPU architecture basis. They only swap out/leave out certain components as display output, video accelerators etc.
TMU, ROP, Tensor Core, RT Cores are verly much alike.
AMD's leading people, finally realized that this unified approach is the smarter way and will soon start doing the same
https://overclock3d.net/news/gpu-displa … nd-gamers/
4) GH100 to B100 has only 30 % overall more transistors (Hopper to Blackwell architecture). Together with the previous things mentioned, this is a leak in itself, already giving away how much better Nvidias engineer can make the RTX 5000 lineup, comparing equal GPU-die to GPU-die.
20 - 30 % in all aspects. The rest will be ML ("AI") marketing-gimmicks as "fake frames" Frame Generation x-4 times, or DLSS 4.

So anyone pondering about buying a graphics card for RIFE for usage of 3840x1600 or 4K-UHD (3840x2160): Either continue with the rtx 4090 or grab upcoming rtx 5090. Sorry to "burst some bubbles".
It's all a illegal, colluding Stackelberg Duopoly since at least 2006 (Nvidia is here the Stackelberg leader)
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidi … ,6311.html
https://hexus.net/business/news/corpora … itigation/
AMD is not selling "cheaper products for less money" aka offering better price/performance for at least 5 graphic cards generations (since 2014).
The simly price them 10 - 20 % below Nvidia's graphics card models (e.g. current rtx 7900xtx versus rtx 4080), but are worse 50 - 200 % in nearly all aspects (efficacy, features as image reconstruction DLSS 3 vs. FSR 2, raytracing or ML-performance, streaming etc.).
Hardly anyone uses a AMD RDNA 1,2,3 graphics card for RIFE, with via ncnn/Vulkan, right? It sucks in performance.

Same goes for Intel+AMD duopoly, controlling the consumer and server market, with their x86/x64 patents for decades, eliminating any real competition.
All company execs only want to maximize product margin to the moon, and please financial shareholders.
The stuff about "fair and legal competition" based on capitalistic markets doctrine and laws, is a lie and a public farce for at least 10 -20 years.
It's all an elaborated show, but 99 % of the media continues to report as if there were some real, fair and legal competition going on ...

Sorry a bit for the offtopic part. I think it has to be commented, especially since hardly anyone mentions it in the current state of nonsense 08/15-media brainwashing. wink

The inference performance increase was claimed by NVIDIA itself, the new features just an assumption!

dawkinscm wrote:
Blackfyre wrote:

@jdg4dfv7

Thanks for all the info, I'll read all of it in detail later, but I skimmed through it and wanted to note that the 4.26 model definitely showed heavy artifacts in certain scenes I tested that were not present in 4.18 and 4.25. I gave the No Time to Die example before, but I noticed it elsewhere too. Maybe I will test again and see how it goes.

Another thing I wanted to note is 3840x1600 is what I call 4K letterbox, but there are a lot of IMAX releases too for the past few years, which are actual full scale 4K (or switch to it in many scenes), this also applies to some TV shows that are full scale 4K and not limited to 1600 vertical pixels.

This is why I use 4.25 v2 for 3840x1600 or lower at x2, and I use 4.16 v2 for full 4K at x2

3090 is only capable of pushing x2 and v2 models perform better than v1

The 5080 news sucks, but I am hoping the 5090 is not ridiculously priced in Australia (but it looks like it will, and I might just stick with the 3090 until it dies out now if the performance difference to the 4090 is not substantial).

If the rumours are true then the 5080 doesn't suck because it will be at least as powerful as the current most powerful consumer GPU on the planet and that would be good enough for me. But if the rumours are true then the 5090 will be so far ahead of it in performance that it will feel like the 5080 sucks.

Also when RIFE will support new computation levels directly from RT chain, thats increase inference performance from 84 to 100% according to NVIDIA guys!

dawkinscm wrote:
Blackfyre wrote:

@jdg4dfv7

Thanks for all the info, I'll read all of it in detail later, but I skimmed through it and wanted to note that the 4.26 model definitely showed heavy artifacts in certain scenes I tested that were not present in 4.18 and 4.25. I gave the No Time to Die example before, but I noticed it elsewhere too. Maybe I will test again and see how it goes.

Another thing I wanted to note is 3840x1600 is what I call 4K letterbox, but there are a lot of IMAX releases too for the past few years, which are actual full scale 4K (or switch to it in many scenes), this also applies to some TV shows that are full scale 4K and not limited to 1600 vertical pixels.

This is why I use 4.25 v2 for 3840x1600 or lower at x2, and I use 4.16 v2 for full 4K at x2

3090 is only capable of pushing x2 and v2 models perform better than v1

The 5080 news sucks, but I am hoping the 5090 is not ridiculously priced in Australia (but it looks like it will, and I might just stick with the 3090 until it dies out now if the performance difference to the 4090 is not substantial).

If the rumours are true then the 5080 doesn't suck because it will be at least as powerful as the current most powerful consumer GPU on the planet and that would be good enough for me. But if the rumours are true then the 5090 will be so far ahead of it in performance that it will feel like the 5080 sucks.

The 5090 will have 2x as much CUDA cores than 5080, less power consumption on new compute levels! The 5080 performance is between 4080 and 4090 in rendering tasks, but games? Who knows?!

dlr5668 wrote:
RickyAstle98 wrote:

Actually that easy to implement as I said earlier vf-append/vf-fps or deinterlace filter, without feature primary target, put black PNG over and over, devs can do that too easy, I dont use AI debugger sorry!

Will it handle fps correctly? For example, start at 24. Triple with rife to 72. Add BF to 144. Then player receives 144 and switches display to 144 Hz mode. GSync and BFI is no no imho. I think its better done inside svp scripts

Yes it will handle fps correctly, just like an filter works ontop, but instead of repeating frames, put black PNGs, no matter what display refresh rates with GSync window, since monitor will synced to output, so 72Hz with 2 black frames instead 2 repeated frames for clear motion, GSync will synced to 72 respectively!