There's a lot of hate around "fake frames", but in reality they can be very useful in certain circumstances. It all depends on the type of game, base framerate, and the user's tolerance of input latency and artifacts. A highly competitive gamer playing an esport title will likely have no use for framegen. Conversely, someone enjoying one of the numerous Truck/Farming/Flight/etc simulators could find it to be basically free FPS. For many games, it's somewhere in the middle.
In any case, I don't see the reason for the hate. If you don't like it, you can turn it off. It's not like you're forced to use it. As we get farther and farther away from Moore's law, we can expect gen-on-gen raw performance increases to get slimmer, at least unless and until some radical new technology is introduced. Until then, software features are what is going to give us better experiences. Upscaling was likewise hated from the start, while as today many wouldn't hesitate to turn on DLSS Quality just for the anti-aliasing it provides, even if they don't need additional frames.
Having situational improvements is better than no improvements at all. While I absolutely agree that games should be optimized enough to run natively, without upscaling or FG, there absolutely is a time and a place for this technology.
AMD uses AFMF and NVidia uses DLSS. These are both frame gen.
They also have scaling features.
Yep, you're completely correct. In fact AMD has more types of framegen than nVidia has. NV has DLSS framegen, which is an in-game implementation that must be added in by the devs and takes into account motion data and UI removal. AMD has this same feature, and it's the FSR framegen. Before MFG was a thing, it was even preferred by some NV users, as it can run on NV GPUs, has comperable image quality and latency, but gives slightly higher framerates than nvidia's single frame gen.
AFMF is a wholly separate form of framegen, completely divorced from FSR, that can run through the Adrenalin drivers on any game, without requiring the devs implement it. However, it only really does more basic frame interpolation, as it lacks access to motion data and UI element separation. Effectively something like a driver version of Lossless Scaling.
So far, AMD has two types of framegen and NV has one. However, at Computex 2025, AMD announced that new "AI-powered" framegen is going to be coming soon to the RX 9000 series. I don't know if this is supposed to be an upgrade to the already existing framegen, or a completely different implementation, but AMD is just as much "in" on framegen as nVidia is. The only feature they're lacking is MFG.
MFG feels like crap even on 2x if your base frame rate is low.
It doesn't "feel" better unless you didn't have a frame rate problem to begin with.
Not a good match for the 5060.
Depends. I would agree with you on <60 FPS, but at the same time I wouldn't necessarily call having 70, 80 or 90 FPS a "problem". However, I would prefer having even more to max out my monitor's refresh rate. That's where MFG truly shines. You can take that base framerate and max out your monitor. You only take a minor input latency hit as opposed to not using framegen, but get a very smooth experience.
This guy is playing on 1080p, so, especially with some of the higher-end raytracing features disabled, and/or with DLSS Q, it isn't wholly unrealistic for him to hit those framerates.