Anything above 60 Frame per second is useless

[tiejiba]

Hi, folk, I've been puting up a new system. The most confusing part is choosing a right video card.

After some research and thinking, I get to the conclusion that anything faster than 60 fps is a total waste if you are using LCD. In case of CRT, anything above 85 FPS is useless

The reason is most LCD can only do 60Hz, which means it can only display 60 different pictures within one second. So if you videocard can do 130 fps, you Lcd can only show 60 of them. Thus you can only see 60 frames.

Therefore, a videocard that can do 130 fps and one can only do 60 fps will deliver the exact same gaming experience to you.

Anyone agree with that?

 

[Rubycon]

No

 

[tiejiba]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
No

why?

 

[lodmdma]

i tought lcd refresh rate and crt refresh rate are different.i think i read an article explaining it. what u wrote would be true if it was with crt.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You need to look at minimum framerate though, not just average. A card that shows an average of 60 fps in benchmarks might be varying between 10 and 100 fps while the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes.......for now.......but when a new game comes out that takes 2x the processing power as your current games, you'll be happy your framerate is now 65 and not 30.

 

[tiejiba]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
You need to look at minimum framerate though, not just average. A card that shows an average of 60 fps in benchmarks might be varying between 10 and 100 fps while the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps.

Ok.
However, if the minimum frame rate is above 60, that will maximize the displaying ability of LCD.
I still think the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps is a total waste.

A card can produce 60 fps minimum is what we need.

 

[Paperlantern]

actually FPS, and REFRESH rate are two different things. A LCD does not have a refresh rate, because, it doesnt refresh, the picture is static. A CRT "redraws" the screen 60, 72, 75, 85, whatever you can set it to that your eyes prefer, times per second. Also refered to as Hz, 60Hz for example. The redraw rate of the screen is seperate from how many frames a second a video card can render a game. It will impact somehwat your gaming experience on a CRT, but not necessarily on a decent LCD, course then you get into how fast the response time is on the LCD, ghosting.. etc etc. I know i can tell the difference between 60fps, 100fps, and 150fps in games, it gets progressivly smoother, my monitor is set to 72Hz. So no, i dont agree with that

 

[Rubycon]

If you lock (vync) the applications then it will be 60fps if the hardware can sustain that. With vsync off it can go much higher. At 60Hz tearing is more noticeable but I'd rather have tearing than the chugging or even pausing that occurs when the hardware can pump way over 60 but is locked at 60 with vsync engaged.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
If you lock (vync) the applications then it will be 60fps if the hardware can sustain that. With vsync off it can go much higher. At 60Hz tearing is more noticeable but I'd rather have tearing than the chugging or even pausing that occurs when the hardware can pump way over 60 but is locked at 60 with vsync engaged.

Ive never noticed chugging or pausing with vsync. But tearing is ugly too.

 

[Rubycon]

I don't know what the correct term is (hence chugging) but the effect fits.

Not all games do it but many do. I prefer to leave it off UNLESS it runs ok with it on. Of course there's no setting in CCC that allows the user to force VSYNC ON for every D3D and OpenGL application like the NV drivers do.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: tiejiba

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
You need to look at minimum framerate though, not just average. A card that shows an average of 60 fps in benchmarks might be varying between 10 and 100 fps while the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps.

Ok.
However, if the minimum frame rate is above 60, that will maximize the displaying ability of LCD.
I still think the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps is a total waste.

A card can produce 60 fps minimum is what we need.

Depends on your game. A card that can push 60 min FPS in, say, Half-Life 2, may only be able to push a minimum of 30 in FEAR at the same settings. It all varies.

Buy the fastest thing you can afford, and tweak the games settings to get the framerate level that's playable to you.

 

[BucsMAN3K]

Well, don't forget that 80 fps now could be 50 fps the next generation of games.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
You need to look at minimum framerate though, not just average. A card that shows an average of 60 fps in benchmarks might be varying between 10 and 100 fps while the card that averages 130 fps varies between 100 and 150 fps.

i second this man's statement. It never hurts to have too much FPS, and later on when rediculous games like oblivion become main stream, you'll be thankful that your card is beefed up. But annoying map pauses can only be fixed with faster drives more More RAM and 2gigs is max that XP 32bit can handle!!! ARGH stupid pauses...

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: tiejiba
Hi, folk, I've been puting up a new system. The most confusing part is choosing a right video card.

After some research and thinking, I get to the conclusion that anything faster than 60 fps is a total waste if you are using LCD. In case of CRT, anything above 85 FPS is useless

The reason is most LCD can only do 60Hz, which means it can only display 60 different pictures within one second. So if you videocard can do 130 fps, you Lcd can only show 60 of them. Thus you can only see 60 frames.

Therefore, a videocard that can do 130 fps and one can only do 60 fps will deliver the exact same gaming experience to you.

Anyone agree with that?

Agreed. I only use CRT's & I always use V-sync w/triple buffering. = no stuttering. Here's why - w/a good explanation of whya 512MB vid card is preferrable to a 256MB vid card, regardless that some clueless reviewers indicate otherwise:

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2006/articles/DXtweaker/

 

[corkyg]

This is all BS as far as LCDs go. They do not have refresh rates - their pixels are staring, individually on and off. No scanning involved. The 60 fps is simply an arbitrary number that makes things happy. You can manually put any number there you want and it won't change a thing.

For gaming with an LCD, the important thing is RESPONSE TIME - and that is more of a functi0on of the monitor as opposed to the vid card.

 

[Ika]

besides, some people can actually tell the difference between 60 and 80 FPS. i'm not one of them personally, but i have a friend who can.

 

[Paperlantern]

Originally posted by: corkyg
This is all BS as far as LCDs go. They do not have refresh rates - their pixels are staring, individually on and off. No scanning involved. The 60 fps is simply an arbitrary number that makes things happy. You can manually put any number there you want and it won't change a thing.

For gaming with an LCD, the important thing is RESPONSE TIME - and that is more of a functi0on of the monitor as opposed to the vid card.

is there an echo in here? isnt that what i said? but i agree, ppl arent listening, lol

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
No

:thumbsup:

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Paperlantern

Originally posted by: corkyg
This is all BS as far as LCDs go. They do not have refresh rates - their pixels are staring, individually on and off. No scanning involved. The 60 fps is simply an arbitrary number that makes things happy. You can manually put any number there you want and it won't change a thing.

For gaming with an LCD, the important thing is RESPONSE TIME - and that is more of a functi0on of the monitor as opposed to the vid card.

is there an echo in here? isnt that what i said? but i agree, ppl arent listening, lol

:thumbsup:

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Paperlantern

Originally posted by: corkyg
This is all BS as far as LCDs go. They do not have refresh rates - their pixels are staring, individually on and off. No scanning involved. The 60 fps is simply an arbitrary number that makes things happy. You can manually put any number there you want and it won't change a thing.

For gaming with an LCD, the important thing is RESPONSE TIME - and that is more of a functi0on of the monitor as opposed to the vid card.

is there an echo in here? isnt that what i said? but i agree, ppl arent listening, lol

:thumbsup: Sorry about that!

 

[dguy6789]

It is quite simple. Regardless of what you can actually see and what the display can show, higher framerate is better. The higher your framerate, the more room it has to fluxtuate without ruining the playability.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

But you dont want to get just 60 because 60 in a quiet area means 20 in a firefight with lots of effects.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

the minimum frame rate is the key.

Like with SLI 7800 GTs @ 1280x960 2x AA I used to get 250 FPS max...when staring @ a wall. Usually get 50 fps when in a hallway -- 30 when there were many baddies on the screen.

So the minimum is the important part.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: corkyg
This is all BS as far as LCDs go. They do not have refresh rates - their pixels are staring, individually on and off. No scanning involved. The 60 fps is simply an arbitrary number that makes things happy. You can manually put any number there you want and it won't change a thing.

For gaming with an LCD, the important thing is RESPONSE TIME - and that is more of a functi0on of the monitor as opposed to the vid card.

The general concept being discussed applies to LCD's just as it does to CRT's or any other display. How the picture is actually displayed is irrelevant, no matter what type of display you use, there is a limit to how often the picture can be updated. Once your minimum frame rate exceeds that update rate, any additional increase in frame rate becomes inconsequential. With few if any LCD's capable of duplicating the 100+Hz refresh rates that highend CRT's can, the "how many fps are enough?" issue applies even more to LCD's since they are limited to fewer screen updates.