77Hz vs 87Hz - Much visual difference?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman


merlocka, would please show me where you get "then start quoting each other out of context"? unless i missed it BFG10K never stated that i quoted him out of context, and best i can figure that is simply becuase, unlike him, i did not. also as for "perhaps people have different requirements?" i have stated that from the begining. however my goal here is to investigate wich of those requirements are true and wich are founded on layers of b.s.
A little defensive are we? Did I hit too close to the mark with my generalized comments?

if you can not apreceate that then you are free to ignore this thead and contenue to accpet dillusions for truths.
Dangit, now ya done gone and hurt my feelins.



 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
my point there was that you are way off the mark actualy, hence i realy dont have anything to be defensive about. if for instance you were to have called me a "worthless cracker" i might have gotten devence seeing is how "cracker" is a derogitory term used to idetify people of my race and might be compeled to defend my "worth" after being insulted with such a hostile half-truth. however in this case i was mearly hopeing my question might prompt you to see the error in what you have said an take that as a good reason to reread the information above and rethink your positoin. as for hurting your feelings, i hope you realise that was not my intent as much as i realise the sarcasim in your comment, i simply find it rude that you have taken it upon yourself to butt in and try to put a premature end to a dissussion that i would like to contenue; and, also i also felt the need to speak up about those feelings in the hopes that it would keep you and others like you from doing the same thing in the future. but this is all straying rather far from the convsaton at hand so if you have any more unrelated quesitons or comments for me i think it would be best if you use the privte mail feature of this forum, that is unless you insist that such things must be carried out publicly as i did here after being publicly atacked. also, as stated before, if you are not personaly interted in contenuing to folow the dissussion i would like to remind you that free will enables you to ignore the thread while those of us interested in exposeing and/or understanding the truth of the mater, regarless of what we may belive that to be, can contenue to do so.


again i am sorry to have found myself on your bad side merlocka, i assure you that it was most certanly not my intent and hope you might find it in your heart to let this converstation contenue without further interuptions.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
as i have already argued that point much earler in the thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hit detection is a server side thing and is limmited to the number of updates a second you share with the server, hence haveing a higher fps than that would not make it any more or less likely that you hit your target.
And the setting that controls the number of updates per second to the server is.... <drumroll>

com_maxFPS, the very same setting you seem to be obsessed with capping all the time. So while everyone elses' machines are barreling on forward and sending everything as fast as they can to the server, you are making your setup "superior" by limiting what the server can see from your machine.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner folks, thanks for playing.

while it is true that you only move in 12 degree increments while doing a 360 at 30fps you can fire at anyone of one of the 200 times
So what if you can fire? Who in their right mind is going to fire when their weapon isn't aligned with the target? Or are you now advocating that everyone should be guessing what they're going to hit in between the weapon stuttering on a low FPS system instead of actually seeing what they're hitting on a high FPS system?

Is this what all your gaming experience has taught you? That it's better to guess where the target is rather than to actually see it on the screen?

Good lord. :Q

i never said you were controling anything at that point,
Then how the hell can you claim that 3D games, which you are directly in control of, can be directly compared to cartoons, which you have no control of?

and the orginal quote with the part you ignored in order to make it apear to suport your argument in boldface:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is with the exception of q3 engine games where i insist on a prety much locked 80fps in order to both assure maximum jump height
Which is exactly what I've been trying to hammer into you during all this time. Picking a magic number tells you nothing because there are many other factors at work. By your own admission 80 FPS makes a difference over 40 FPS because of jumping or more specifically, with the dynamics of the game physics.

Yet despite this you continue to trip over your own arguments and continue to scream about how 40 FPS is enough. Step back for a minute, read all of your arguments and you'll see what utterly flawed logic you're employing. You're constantly contradicting yourself and changing your story everytime it suits you.

btw, i never claimed to be a "hardcore gamer" either
Oh come on now, the way you talked about defending ladders and issued challenges to me made it implicitly clear that you are. Yet I never believed this based on your rather bizarre comments in this thread.

The prog Mingon gave was very informative but of course synthetic and not indicative of real world perf. It is important to rem that this prog was written to purposely show the advantages of high FPS, the synthetic motion involved is very well thought out to demonstrate what will never happen in the actual gaming world.[/
True but as I pointed out before it'll have an even bigger impact in gaming because it's fully interactive. If you can see the difference with a simple rotating rod imagine how much difference you'll see in the game when you're trying to rail someone on the other side of the arena, for example.

Also if you're doing something like standing still and watching an animation in the game it'll have a similar effect to the program.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
And the setting that controls the number of updates per second to the server is.... <drumroll>

com_maxFPS
now i have figured out why there is so much confusion between what you and i belive to be true, you live in a compleatly diffrent reality than the rest of us!

you see, here in our world com_maxFPS simply controls your frames per second. snaps controls the number of updates you will try to send to the server, and sv_fps controls the number of updates the server will accept. the default value is 20, that is for both snaps and sv_fps of course as they are intimitly related. granted i am not speaking to BFG10K, sence he lives in an alternate reality were he runs around with his BFG, useing his BFE(Big Fooking Eyes) to capture ever last bit of his BFF (Big Fooking Framerate) becasue in his world anything less than mad fps would be a BFL (Big Fooking Loss) that is a BFD (Big Fooking Deal)! granted that does not aply to us mortals here in this reality as badwith is not infinate and cost BF$, so we genealy keep our network trafic at a feqency of 20hz while playing q3.

BFG10K,
im sorry i realy didnt ever consider the possiblity that you come from some srange land where what you are saying is actualy true. heck i though the only big diffrence in the constructs of reality in new zeland is that the water in the toilet spins the other direction from what we see on this side of the equator. speeking of water, at least on this side of the globe, your arguments dont hold any, things simply dont work the way you have stated. i just came into this thread to tell the guy that he was going to have to make a choice himself and then i saw you say some crasy sounding thing about 120hz and 120fps being the way to go if you can manage it and it shocked me as i never bothered to try such settings so i figured i would ask why you would say such a thing. granted thats not your fault no one realised the rules dont aply for you and not ony do your eyes work diffrent than most, so does your quake3. however as you are obviously not in a postition to say how things work with others in such situations i recomend that in the future you qualify your statments with the fact that you live in a different reality that the majortiy of the people here on the forums so your knowlage and experance on such topics as quake3 and things such as refresh rate and fps will not nessacarly apply to the rest of us.

btw, assumeing BFG10K finds the altenatle realities explanation accpetable i think we can finaly call that all fine and done. i hope some of you, those that exist in this reality anyway, stuck around to learn someing. granted its something the giant "N" would rather you not know as it will make you less likely to run out and buy their "latest and greatest" every single product cycle. but considereding the fact that many of you are playing the same old games or at least ones useing the same old engines; and they all have prety much the same old hardware requirments it just not nessacary to do so. this holds espesialy true in current times when their latest cards are prety much the exact same thing as the last ones only faster, speaking of nvidia that is. granted if you do happen come acrost a game that realy does stress your current hardware enough to make things look chopy for you at the settings you would like to run at, or maybe you want one of the new trick features in latest offerings from ati or even possably matrox, then sure you have good reason to buy a new video card. however if have to lissen to one more fool on the server whine about how they cant seem to get more than 99fps in cs with their shiney new geforce4 ti4600, only to have them whine even more when they ask me how they can make it higher and i tell them they cant and it doesnt mater anyway im going to start steaming. then when i ask them what games they play that they would need such a fast video card for anyway and they say "just cs," fire will start to come out of my ears. finaly when i ask them why in the world they thew down that much money on such a powerful video card and they tell me that more fps will make them beter, im going to wind up on their front porch just like jay and silent bob did in that movie. ok, so it wouldn't realy upset me nearly that much, but it still does give me that cold chill thing like fingernails on the chalkboard every time i see it happen. after all, when it comes down to it they are just aiding and abeding in a companies path to a big fat coprate giant that only do whats best for itself and has only only a minimal regard to a great porton of its customers needs. sure when that happens they wind up going down eventualy, but its usaualy slow crumble uglyer thing to see happen than the arguments in this thread anyway.


im sorry, i got a little upset there but that whole blatent qeustioning my honesty thing there at the end set me off a bit. i mean there were hints of it before, but it was dismisable as calling me confused or simply ignorent and such things are understandable for someone who holds a diffrent view. one cannot realy blame a preson for that as it is a natural to assume if someone is confedent in their own beleifs and is the esentualy the route cause of arguments when you think about it. however sugesting that i would do something as petty as lie about playing a match in an online gameing leauge with only conjecture to back it up is realy over the top in my book at wich point i felt compelled to vent.
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman


again i am sorry to have found myself on your bad side merlocka, i assure you that it was most certanly not my intent and hope you might find it in your heart to let this converstation contenue without further interuptions.
My comments above were neither specific nor deragatory. They just simply sum up the dozens of FPS debates which have graced the halls here at Anandtech. I've participated in some, but now I just enjoy them from the sidelines.

So, please forgive my intrusion into your private forum and by all means continue this friendly debate. This one, like all the others before it, is fun and informative (despite the fact it will end just as all the others have).
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
And the setting that controls the number of updates per second to the server is.... <drumroll>

com_maxFPS
now i have figured out why there is so much confusion between what you and i belive to be true, you live in a compleatly diffrent reality than the rest of us!
For anyone still confused as to why com_maxfps does NOT control server updates, there is a great Q3 networking info here. It UC also has a good article on how FPS effects Q3 physics.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
sweet link merlocka posted there, i highly recomend that read for a more acurate and compleate explanation of quake 3 network settings then my atempt above. funny i posted the q3 physics link from the same site erlyer but didnt even know about the netcode artical, learn something new every day :)
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
OK, it looks like I was mistaken about com_maxFPS controlling the clients' updates to the server in Quake3 so I apologise for this.

Yet this doesn't change the fact that if you are playing on the server then this setting does control the updates you see, nor does it change the fact that most of Snowman's arguments are utterly moronic.

i am not speaking to BFG10K, sence he lives in an alternate reality were he runs around with his BFG,
No, I live in the reality where when I play on a LAN with my friends my system is usually the server. Therefore com_maxFPS to me does exactly what I mistakenly said it does to clients.

im sorry i realy didnt ever consider the possiblity that you come from some srange land where what you are saying is actualy true. heck i though the only big diffrence in the constructs of reality in new zeland is that the water in the toilet spins the other direction from what we see on this side of the equator.
Seriously, go jump off a cliff.

I may have been mistaken about com_maxFPS but your utter gems are what take the real "alternate reality" crown in this thread, namely:
  • Cartoons are the same as 3D games, despite your own admission that you control games yet don't control cartoons.
  • There is no difference between 40 FPS and higher despite your own contradiction where you then say that 80 FPS helps you jump higher.
  • There is no difference between 40 FPS and higher in the FPS compare program despite everyone else in this thread being able to see the difference between them.
  • Your idiotic comments about evolution, placebo effects and human eye limitations when everyone else here has noticed dramatic improvements in smoothness and gameplay after going from 40-50 FPS to 80-90 FPS (or example) after a system upgrade.
  • Your complete and utter ignorance about an average timedemo score and what that score really means.
  • Your ridiculous comments about how it's better to guess where your target is while you're stuttering around on a low FPS rather than actually seeing the target on a fast FPS system because you can do smaller turn segments.

So as you can see, compared to your comments my mistake is just a drop in the ocean.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
No, I live in the reality where when I play on a LAN with my friends my system is usually the server. Therefore com_maxFPS to me does exactly what I mistakenly said it does to clients.
usaully? so when you were not the server i take it you noticed a great loss in your ablity to aim at your target seeing as how such a difference is so noticeable for you right? but wait, no that cannot be, if such a differance were noticeable to you then you obvously you would not have mistakenly thought that it was the same for both server and clients.

as for the bullet statments there at end, you are realy not understanding what i have said very well at all. i realy think you should reread and pay atention to qualfiers such as games are [/b]esentaily the same as cartoons visualy and there is there is no difference between 40 FPS and higher for me. also noteing the argments i presented to back up my statments would be handy to review in oreder to help you understand that what you have claimed i said i did not say nor did i mean.

lasty dont be sorry that you were mistaken, were all mistaken to some extent or another, if we were not we would be pereict and we cannot be perfect as by definition humans are not perfict. i think if you feel compeled to apolgise for something it would be that saying you though it was a lier thing, espesialy about the ogl game. i mean realy that was out of line dont you think? if you can calm down to a rational state and still dont belive me i supose i could send you some demos from the match. would that help convence you that i am not out to lie to you?
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,139
1,352
126
so when you were not the server i take it you noticed a great loss in your ablity to aim at your target seeing as how such a difference is so noticeable for you right?
Of course but it was on a different (slower) system so obviously that was the more compelling reason as to why it was happening. I don't remember the last time I used my system as a client.

Also when I used to game in computer labs with identical machines I was always the server usually as well since I usually knew the most about the games we were playing.
 

KickItTwice

Member
Apr 28, 2002
113
0
0
Just thought I'd add my bit in this. Not to take sides or anything. My experience tells me that 60 FPS is the minimum that I want to have, anything over 100 FPS is probably not going to make a much of a difference. 40 FPS just plain sucks, I've tested it in game and I can tell you that I can easyly tell the difference between say 50 and 70, but have a hard time telling between 70 and 100 but I barely can. Comparing 70 to 140 would probably be quite noticeable. Refresh rate is very important in gaming as you really do want to see those FPS's displayed. It was an interesting peice BFG10K had wrote on pieces of the frame displayed on the monitor being updated as the video card draws the next frame. I didn't know it worked like that. I figured the monitor would just display the last frame the video card drew without waiting for the next one. If that were the case then a refresh rate of say 75 hz and a video card running 80 FPS would give you exactly 75 distinctly different frames. The monitor would drop 5 frames per second. I guess that explains the tearing with the v-sync turned off. So, if you have a vid card giving 240 FPS (i still play quake2) and a refresh of 60 hz (remember the Windows XP refresh bug) then you'd have 4 different updates as the monitor scans just one frame. Still each 1/4 section of the screen gets updated 60 times a second, it's just that each occured at a different point in time. A tall object that would be in all 4 sections at once that were traveling quickly from left to right would be skewed as the bottom portion would be ahead of the top portion because the screen scans from top to bottom. I just don't see much of a benifit to this, and I can tell you, even though this sounds like an unlikely example, it is presicely what I have just gone through. 240 Fps @ 60 Hz looked to me more like just 60 FPS. After I got the NVRefreshTool 2.0 ( the first nvrefreshtool wasn't working for me) it made an increadible difference. I'm playing at 1024 x 768 @ 240 FPS @ 144 Hz so I get 144 frames displayed to look at. So the bottom line is, for a gaming monitor refresh rate is very important, the more the merrier.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
KickItTwice the more bits the beter, and the not taking sides think is defnealty a good thing too. i want to ask though are you talking about timedemo scores there when you say 40fps sucks, 60fps minumim, and you can see a small difference between 70fps and 100fps? if so i am in the same boat as you; however, if you mean you can see the diffrence between a sustained 70fps and 100fps, man your eyes are considerably beter than mine.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
77Hz vs 87Hz - Much visual difference?
Depends on many things like user and the monitor and resolution etc ,I can tell the difference on mine between 75Hz and 85Hz,also I notice that going higher is not alway better,100Hz on mine is fine & within spec of my monitor but at 85Hz it`s slightly sharper so I use that as my default setting,I game a lot and prefer V-Sync on,I don`t pay too much attention to frame rate etc .

I prefer to go by the feel of the game in question since RPG games which I normally play don`t need high frame rates like Q3 type games,if I feel it`s too slow I upgrade my video card/cpu.In the end it`s a personal thing so no real right or wrong, just what you`re happy with.


:)
 

Mingon

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2000
3,012
0
0
heck i though the only big diffrence in the constructs of reality in new zeland is that the water in the toilet spins the other direction from what we see on this side of the equator.
Now now not another falicy :D :p
 

KickItTwice

Member
Apr 28, 2002
113
0
0
Snowman, I tested again and I can't tell between 70 and 100 fps. I think I may back down a little from my monitor refresh rates too. Probably 85 or so would be just fine.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY