Anybody can explain me: who needs crazy fps like 200fps?

[Hardware]

Human eye is limited to about 25-30 fps so any gfx power over a sustained 30 fps is waste of money or?

 

[AMDPwred]

That number is really around 70fps. Also, the games where benches show 200fps is Q3 in 640x480 res. None of the new cards are getting 200fps in Wolf MP at 1600x1200x32.

 

[Hardware]

To be more exact human raw visual power is 16fps to with double freq 32fps should be optimal for visuals!
(min fps is 32)

 

[Hender]

Well actually it's 60.

It's mostly a matter of pride, honestly, plus it gives you a buffer zone in case you get a lot of activity on the screen all at once. If you always run at 50 FPS, one loaded moment in a game could drop you to 30, and that's a noticeable drop. But hey, if you're up at 100 FPS, who cares?

 

[fkloster]

Boy these fps threads get old. Human eye CAN distinguish between a game running @ 100fps and 200fps.

 

[Insane3D]

"Boy these fps threads get old. Human eye CAN distinguish between a game running @ 100fps and 200fps. "

******CONFIRMED******

 

[Athlon4all]

That's why you might as well take advantage, and enable FSAA @ high-resolutions.

 

[nortexoid]

if your comp can sustain ~30fps min., then u'll be ok
~30fps min. can range from 50+fps average, and is probably around the 60fps ave. mark.

anyway, the question is whether or not u can play your OWN games at 30fps min. and with all the detail/quality/resolution/FSAA/etc. u want...
some games run at 100fps @ 1024x768 32-bit high detail...but people like running them w/ FSAA on, dropping hte framerate quite a damn bit...
or would rather run at 1600x1280...

but as i see it - anything over ~30fps min is a waste...

 

[fkloster]

I won't be satisfied until RTCW runs on average 100fps @ 1152x864x32bit w/4x FSAA with all eye candy cranked...

 

[BD2003]

200fps is a waste. 75 is good for anything. Any leftover fillrate should be put towards FSAA and Ansisotropic filtering. Dont underestimate the filtering, it does wonders!

 

[NakaNaka]

in HL I have it capped at 80. I can go higher but no point. Never any slowdown playing DoD with my Geforce 2

 

[CTho9305]

To clarify WHY exactly it is 60 fps and not 30: people say TV is 30 FPS and looks smooth. However, since it is interlaced, you actually see 60 fields per second, AND they are motion blurred. On a computer, 30 fps gives you 30 non-motion-blurred frames. Movies, at motion-blurred 24 FPS are not smooth.

Now why do we need 200fps? here is why. Lets say it is 5 years back, and you bought this cool computer that gets 200 fps in Doom*. People say, why? Now, you play Unreal Tournament, you get 20. Its not even smooth - its on the boundary of playable. Basically, it is stupid to still use an out-dated game like Q3A in benchmarks, since everything can pump out >100fps. More useful numbers would be from Unreal2, for example, which is barely playable on my Tbird 700 + GeForce2 gts, but playable on a 1.4 + gf2GTS

* Doom is actually supposed to be locked at a max of 35fps, but its just an example.

 

[Hardware]

<< Boy these fps threads get old. Human eye CAN distinguish between a game running @ 100fps and 200fps. >>


LOL!

 

[Pariah]

"Boy these fps threads get old. Human eye CAN distinguish between a game running @ 100fps and 200fps."

How exactly does one distinguish between 100fps and 200fps on a monitor that is only refreshes the picture 85-100 times per second? That's a pretty neat trick.

 

[Informant X]

LOL, Pariah makes a valid point...

 

[fkloster]

1) My monitor refreshes @ 120hz @ 1152x864x32bit

2) If I force my monitor to refresh @ 65hz and then put in a game @ 70 fps & a game @ 170 fps, I will bet you my house that anyone would be able to tell the difference.

 

[teddymines]

If your monitor refreshes 75 times a second, what does it matter if the game updates the scenery once between screen refreshes or 4 times? The monitor is the limiting factor.

 

[fkloster]

My bad. You guyz are correct about the monitor refresh I guess as refresh rates go up beyond 150hz then we will see more differnce.

 

[Pariah]

Hey fkloster, does your house have waterfront or at least a nice swimming pool?

 

[Wingznut]

My machine can run Q3 at over 200fps. But you are right... nobody needs above 125fps (MINIMUM fps) for Q3.

However... At 1600x1200x32, there are plenty of games that won't run above 100fps. Madden2002, NHL2002, FS2002, are a few that come to mind.

 

[fkloster]

<< Hey fkloster, does your house have waterfront or at least a nice swimming pool? >>



Nope. I have a nice crick nearby that gurgles though

 

[Redwingsguy]

I'm sorry but this has been disscussed many many times here! The human eye can't distinguish it in a movie because there is motion blur! But there is no motion blur in Computer games, so therefore its just limited by the refresh rate of your moniter. Plus the biggest conspiracy is that women like men with fast computers and not fast cars.

 

[Sugadaddy]

hehe, fkloster just lost his house...



And no, I don't think anyone would see a difference between 100fps and 200fps on a monitor capable of such refresh rates, IF those were constant frame rates. (meaning it stays at 100fps or 200fps ALL THE TIME)

The reason you'll see a difference in some games is because the fps is changing all the time, what we see in benchmarks is just an average. Say you're getting a 100fps average, it might be 160fps most of the time, then drop to 40fps when there are many people on screen. (yes, I'm exagerating, but who knows? ) If the average is 200fps, and the lowest is around 100fps, then it'll appear smoother.

 

[bluemax]

<< Nope. I have a nice crick nearby that gurgles though >>


Crick?? Sounds awful! Better call a doctor...

(Did you meen "creek"?)

 

[Wingznut]

"Crick"... That's what they call creeks up here.

When I first moved here, a friend of mine told me we'd all meet "by the crick." I had no idea what he was talking about.