AMD’s Anti-Lag+ Making a Return After CS2 Debacle

amd anti-lag+ technology
Image Courtesy: AMD
In Short
  • AMD released Anti-Lag+ back in September 2023 as a new feature to reduce input latency and make gaming feel more responsive.
  • Shortly after, players who were using it started getting VAC Banned in Counter-Strike 2. Other Anti-cheat software also clearly didn't like the feature.
  • Subsequently, Anti-Lag+ had to be removed. Now, it is confirmed to be coming back soon!

AMD Anti-Lag+, when initially launched in September 2023, was a technology that increased the responsiveness of your gaming experience. This naturally resulted in input lag being reduced drastically. The feature was quite beneficial, especially in competitive games. This was AMD’s answer to Nvidia Reflex. However, after facing a string of issues, it was taken back. Now it seems like AMD just might be re-releasing Anti Lag+ again very soon!

AMD Anti-Lag+: What Went Wrong

Not too long ago, players who were using AMD’s Anti-Lag+ technology were banned when using the feature in Counter-Strike 2. Moreover, the anti-cheat systems of several multiplayer games, such as Call Of Duty: Warzone, Modern Warfare 2, and Apex Legends, had issues and flagged the player if AMD Anti-Lag+ was enabled.

The anti-cheat software in these games would think the user was cheating if that player used the new Anti-Lag+ feature! Below, you can check out Valve’s earlier CS2 update, which reversed VAC bans on players who were using this. The developer also added a check to notify users if they were running an AMD graphics driver with the Anti-Lag+ feature enabled.

counter strike 2 vac bans will be reversed caused by amd anti-lag+ technology
Image Courtesy: Valve

New AMD Anti-Lag+ Is Coming Back Soon

Because of all the horrors, AMD removed Anti-Lag+ from the GPU drivers. Do note that a standard AMD Anti-Lag (non-plus) feature has existed for a long time, and this new Anti-Lag+ feature was introduced as an upgrade. We didn’t know whether or not this feature would even come back. Finally, there is some positive news regarding it.

Today, AMD’s Frank Azor (Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions) has replied to a user’s query on Anti-Lag+. You can check out the post made on X (formerly Twitter) below. With his reply, AMD has confirmed that Anti-Lag+ is coming back soon!

AMD Anti-Lag+ Could Have a Different Implementation This Time

There is a lot of speculation right now about how the new Anti-Lag+ feature will be implemented. Previously, it was a driver-level feature, and that implementation caused issues with anti-cheat software in games, as we previously discussed. If you’re wondering the difference between AMD Anti-Lag and Anti-Lag+, this is what the company states:

“Anti-Lag controls the pace of the CPU work to make sure it doesn’t get too far ahead of the GPU, reducing the amount of CPU work queued up. With AMD Radeon™ Anti-Lag+, applying frame alignment within the game code itself, allowing for a better frame syncing which leads to even lower latency and great gaming experiences.” AMD on Anti-Lag vs Anti-Lag+

AMD could release the updated Anti-Lag+ in the form of an SDK, similar to Nvidia Reflex. With this, game developers would have to add the feature manually in their games. But if it comes as a driver-level feature again, it will be vital to see whether or not it causes any more issues with anti-cheat software in games.

Apart from this, the company has not mentioned Anti-Lag+ recently, so we don’t know how the updated version will work. There may be a beta driver release for Anti-Lag+ soon enough. This would make it similar to how AFMF stayed in beta until its official release much later, in the form of a stable GPU driver update.

Perhaps these anti-cheat systems can whitelist the technology as “not hacks,” and that could work. We will know more soon. For now, all we have is AMD’s confirmation that the feature is finally coming back.

What are your thoughts on AMD’s Anti-Lag+ technology returning soon? Let us know in the comments below.

comment Comments 0
Leave a Reply