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

[cuteybunny]

very true that even at 1000 FSB we will notice that too, and say wow it fast!



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

 

[CraigRT]

my game of q3 starts to look "choppy" at roughly 60 or below fps.. i like having high fps because the higher you have, the less chance you'll be able to bog it down..

 

[teddymines]

SCREEN REFRESH IS THE LIMITING FACTOR!

Yes, I'm yelling. At 75Hz, you will only see up to 75 refreshes a second, regardless if your video card is exceeding that.

 

[fkloster]

...so if your running an ATI 8500 (400mhz RAMDAC) and game @ 640x480 with a monitor that refreshes @ 144++, you will notice faster FPS

 

[boyRacer]

who needs cars that do 200mph?

 

[Thor_Sevan]

In fact, its always a matter of power.
If your computer is able to deliver a constant 85 fps by using lets say 60 % of its ressources, thats great because you will have 40 % free for backround running programs. People don't realise now that this WILL be very important one day.
Lets say my computer can run Q3 at 450 fps when usins all its power and my eyes are maxed out at lets say 120, I don't really need those 330 more fps. I don't want them even more if my refresh rate is 120 hz. "Btw, its usually getter if your FPS MATCH your refresh rate. If not, you will sometimes see weird panning image artifacts. That works also for variable frame rate. The more constant, the more realistic experience you have." For movies, personally I find them really choppy. Try powerDVD and set the movie at 2X (normal 30 fps*2 = 60 fps), you won't get any sounds but you WILL notice how much the smoothness of the movie has increased. Try it when looking at running water or small vibrating objects and you will see how real they look at 60 fps. I wish movies were recorded at 60 fps and more... they would look much more realistic.

Bleh !
Oh, and the human eye isn't at all limited at 30 fps. You think you would be able to catch a ball and play basketball like you do now with only 30 fps ? Ha... thats funny ! In fact, the human eye is able to catch moving objects at an average of 85-120 hz. Some animals have a much higher precision though. But don't ask me numbers for other animals...

Thor

 

[CTho9305]

<< SCREEN REFRESH IS THE LIMITING FACTOR!

Yes, I'm yelling. At 75Hz, you will only see up to 75 refreshes a second, regardless if your video card is exceeding that. >>



Not exactly. You can disable Vsync, and allow one refresh of the screen to show multiple frames (if you had a 60hz refresh, with 120 fps, the top half would be one frame, the bottom another). If the framerate suddenly drops, you will experience "tearing" where the frame boundary is evident, but as long as it stays high, it improves the perceived smoothness.

 

[Mats]

I can see my monitor flicker if the refresh is any less than 85. With a bigger monitor the flicker I think becomes more visible.

I want a minimum of 80fps from games.

--------------------------
MASTER OF *CONFIRMED*
AMD XP2050+
INFINOEON CAS2 FSB150


As I have mentioned before, please explain what this is doing in your sig. AMD XP2050+ ????

 

[Thor_Sevan]

Well here is how it works.
When your refresh rate is 85 hz (who still use 75 ? LOL) and your game plays at 120 fps and you have disabled v-sync, you will get 85 images per second of 120 game frames. This means that each image processed by your monitor is composed of an X (where X is positive! ) number of images from the game or program. This is called tearing I guess. If your frame rate is dropped below your refresh rate, your monitor will show the old image again instead of refreshing it with a different one because there is NO different one processed yet ! This is when the game becomes choppy ! hehe

Thor

 

[yllus]

So much differing input...sounds like a perfect candidate for a new AT FAQ entry.

 

[merlocka]

Hardware is stirring the pot again ****CONFIRMED****

 

[dullard]

<< So much differing input...sounds like a perfect candidate for a new AT FAQ entry. >>



Ok lets put some real proof into this thread, instead of just throwing out numbers.

1) The US electric system runs at 60 Hz. Fluorescent lightbulbs turn on and off at the frequency of the electricity. Thus fluorescent lightbulbs in the US turn on-and-off at a rate of 60 Hz. A large majority of Americans cannot see the room getting repeatedly bright/dim (I'm not talking about a failing light which everyone can see flicker). A small minority of people get headaches when they enter a room with fluorescent lights since they can see the lights turn on and off at 60 Hz.

2) Look at your monitor. Gradually reduce the refresh rate. At a certain point it will look bad (flickering). This might give you a headache, so don't look at it for too long. That refresh rate is the rate at which you can see (it will vary for different people, but is often under 60 Hz).

 

[Hardware]

I hope everybody agrees with a normal crt@85hz everything is capped at 85 fps
even more important with in these days (way to go) TFT eyerything is capped at 30-40fps so onye again who needs these insane fps?
(except of data & lore)
I assume its all marketing!

 

[Rankor]

I get 220 fps in Sach's Marine Aquarium in my Gaming Rig. Yes it's worth it. All for the starfish

It's the same screensaver (mind you) that XP Plus! is touting as the next best thing since sliced bread.

 

[JellyBaby]

More fps than you can see can still be worth purchasing. I'd go for a card that does 50 fps more than I can detect because that card is more future-proof. The next generation of games will reduce that "excessive" fps down to "reasonable" levels.

 

[DSTA]

I'm not into game design at all, so don't flame me if this is way off :

Perhaps the increased "smoothness" some people perceive with higher fps is actually due to finer sampling of the gamer's input? I'm sure it would play smoother if input is sampled 70 times a second compared to 25.

Take a racing sim for example: car goes down a straight at around 85 m/s (190 mph), braking point is coming up. At 25 fps the "on track resolution" is a rather big 3,4 meters compared to just 1 meter at 85 fps. Both games will probably look smooth, but it's not so fun to brake 2 meters too late .

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

YES there is a difference between 100 and 200 fps at 60 or 75hz or even more.

it is called frame tear. the frame updates in the middle of a refresh. there is a difference.

but either way who cares unless you have <30-50fps?

 

[bluemax]

Personally, I'd rather have an absolute constant 60FPS that NEVER drops, than 200FPS one second, 50FPS the next. :| I hate that... It's simply part of the industry and hasn't changed since the XT, but it still sucks.