FPS This FPS That

[andrei3333]

Besides those who enter into E-penis contests and have wallets (or their parent's wallets are) the size of my arse,

What difference does it make what the number of Frames Per Second your system is outputting as long as the gameplay is smooth and perfect quality to your liking ?

I am loosing the point of trying to get this or that number FPS in this game at that resolution,, yes it is a way of measuring performance, but all i care about is how smooth it runs

i would bet that people will not notice if a game ran 50 FPS or 60 FPS or any magical number where its so smooth it does not make any difference

So here it comes: i am getting a 22" LCD and need a video card for the best price for performance ratio to run everything (well forget crysis and WIC for a second) at 1600x1200 resolution considering my system specs below...thanks

 

[BassBomb]

It can help to see if your card is running the way it should be.

For example letsay.... 90 FPS (should) but im getting 40FPS which is totally playable. I would be concerned at what is wrong with the card, and that would probably affect me in the long run, so its worth knowing.

 

[andrei3333]

if i was getting perfect smoothness i would not care to check how much FPS i am getting --- thats the whole point man

 

[Tempered81]

do you like perfect smoothness with image quality that is crap?


thats the point of a nice graphics card & high fps. You can always limit it when you turn on all the in-game eye candy & 16xAA & 16xQAF.

you can play cod4 at low at 640 x 480 at 200 fps, or at high with max image qual & 4xaa 16xaf at 1900 x 1280 at a smooth 30-60 fps. Higher quality is where it matters.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I think he's saying after the point of it being smooth at the highest quality and at your desired resolution, how do you notice more smoothness. anything after the smoothness is just proof of smoothness in future games and a number.

 

[andrei3333]

^ right thats what i meant, after you are satisfied with the settings and resolution and i would not be satisfied at 640 resolution obviously, so yeah

anyways for a 22" LCD with a max res of 1600x1200 whats the best video card for bang for the buck ? i dont want to over spend and i am selling my xfx 7800GT OC very very soon

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
do you like perfect smoothness with image quality that is crap?


thats the point of a nice graphics card & high fps. You can always limit it when you turn on all the in-game eye candy & 16xAA & 16xQAF.

you can play cod4 at low at 640 x 480 at 200 fps, or at high with max image qual & 4xaa 16xaf at 1900 x 1280 at a smooth 30-60 fps. Higher quality is where it matters.

The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

 

[TC91]

well i guess some will argue that in super intense parts of a game, having the extra fps (eg 100+) will give you some headroom in the case the action is too heavy so your fps wont bog down so much to the point where you might get fragged or die or whatever. i guess it also makes some ppl feel *special* too so i guess thats another reason too.

 

[CP5670]

if i was getting perfect smoothness i would not care to check how much FPS i am getting --- thats the whole point man

Not sure what you're complaining about. I don't think anyone stares at framerates while they play a game normally. At the same time, I have a good general idea of what kind of framerates look smooth or choppy to me, so the benchmarks published on hardware sites are useful for finding out what kind of hardware or settings I would need to use.

Originally posted by: angry hampster
The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

I wish people would stop repeating these statements around here.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many...mes_can_humans_see.htm

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

The human eye can't discern faster than 20fps.... recorded on FILM with natural MOTION BLUR.

If you take a film camera, and set the shutter speed to a ridiculously small value like 1/3200ths of a second, you definitely can see frame choppiness. There are some movies recorded like this but the first one that comes to mind is Black Hawk Down. In a lot of the action scenes, in broad daylight, you can tell that the shutter speed was very quick and there is very little motion blur, and you can definitely perceive the frame rate.

 

[TC91]

too bad quite a few websites out there use time demos opposed to actual in game testing for benchmarks, but not all of them.

 

[lopri]

Not this human eye story again plz. With my terribly bad eyes I can discern 50FPS from 100FPS easily. All I need is a quick 360 degree turn.

Oh and on topic: Some of us have bigger monitors. (And they're not that expensive any more)

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: lopri
Not this human eye story again plz. With my terribly bad eyes I can discern 50FPS from 100FPS easily. All I need is a quick 360 degree turn.

Except this argument isn't valid, because turning quickly adds a higher load to your GPU. So you can tell that the 100fps video card is faster because it doesn't dip as low as the 50fps-avg-video card when you spin.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i kind of agree, i can get 100-200fps in CS:S but i play with VSYNC ON + Triple Buffering and i get excellent quality + smooth as butter frame rates.

i could not tell between 60fps and 120fps. Monitor: Viewsonic 20.1in VX2025WM+8800gt

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I am the same way, high settings and smooth as silk and the rest means jack shit to me. I use vsync so its not like im going to run over 60 anyhow.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

EVERYONE should try that, if their system can run games at 60+fps, TURN ON VSYNC + TRIPLE BUFFERING and play for about 2 hours and see if they really notice any difference in smoothness.

 

[nevbie]

Basically there are two cases here:

1. Competitive multiplayer games where your reaction speed matters (or perhaps reaction speed related single player games for some). At least in some cases there are game-specific advantages if you run a relatively high fps (compared to monitor update rate, which is often 60). Other than that, it is about VSync and keeping your fps always at least as low as your monitor update rate is. If you don't use VSync, you see the gameworld a bit faster, but there will be tearing. If you use VSync, you pay a small delay for not getting tearing. I don't exactly know what double/triple buffering does, but it will either give you more delay or it doesn't affect the delay (between gameworld and your monitor picture). When we talk about LCD monitors, input lag is added to this delay.

So in this case, higher than 60 minimum fps if you use vsync. For lowest delay between gameworld and your brains, highest fps possible and no vsync. There are probably many other factors too..

2. Everything else. Here you want to use vsync to not get tearing (at least in theory.. I have a strange feeling that I noticed some tearing once.. ah maybe just a false memory). You just want to pump enough frames to feed the monitor (usually 60fps for LCDs). Of course it can be questioned why 60 images per second. Maybe lower is enough. Or maybe 60 isn't enough even. And one important note: 60 images per second will look bad if they don't represent the gameworld at those moments (plus delay, delay is no problem for our vision, only for interactivity experience). With this I mean that the flow of images may look jumpy even with 60hz, if the flow is not consistent.

Personally I'm used to playing quake 3 and thinking in terms of q3 fps values.. so 60fps sounds like a slideshow to me. With 100hz CRT monitor, there is a definite difference between 60fps and 100fps. Vsync also seems slightly delayed. My *guess* would be that I'm sensitive to noticing delay in my inputs.. mouse mostly. I'm quite sure that when it comes to gaming, it's not a discussion about our vision but sensing the response. And that is why "20fps is enough for human vision" can be irrelevant, even if it is true.

 

[Shortass]

For me, and I assume at least some other budget gamers, I tend to buy a near top of the line card and then use it until it's completely worthless. FPS is kind of a big deal, because I need to know how long I can use the card at respectable settings... if a new, high end card is only pulling 40 fps in a modern game that means to me that in only a year I'll have to reduce the settings to stay at a 'smooth', playable level.

Other then longevity, fps is worthless to me as well. But it's good to know and helps gauge overclocks!

 

[MarcVenice]

None of you have answered his question though. What he needs is a 8800gt 512mb. This card should be just fine: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127329 or this one if you want to spend less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127333

And if you guys want to talk about how much FPS is usefull, AGAIN, for the 1000th time, please take it to a different thread ?

 

[flexy]

if you'd be able to play crysis at 80 FPS instead of 20 you would not even have started such a thread..you would know the answer

or any other game for that matter....i cant help but think that people who write things like "who cares about FPS..." must have s***y low end systems, therefore telling themselves that "20FPS are ok"...

Add:

"The human eye...my ***"...how can you even say something like that..first....this is total nonsense and doesnt apply to PC gaming at all...second its not about the perceived FPS but actually how fast a game-engine runs, now 20FPS compared to 80FPS.
And noone with halfway a brain would seriously argue there is no visible difference playing a game at 20....or 50 or 80 for that matter.

I think some people have been brainwashed playing slow and ineffective games like crysis which BARELY make 20 on high even on high-end systems.

--> A few years ago NOONE would've argued that 20FPS is enough....ironically, a few years ago there was barely ONE game which was actually running that SLOW on mainstream/high-end PCs.

Now we debate whether it makes sense to have more than 20FPS...ridiculous

 

[qbfx]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

The human eye CAN discern above 20 or 24fps. If 20fps wasn't different to 50 everyone would buy a $100 card and would be happy saying crysis runs like butter. 200fps or 300fps is a whole other question. There's practically no difference between the two, everything above 70fps seems perfectly smooth imo.

 

[andrei3333]

Wow thanks for the responses, i leave the PC for one day and my thread gets out of control

Basically the moderator got it right, no one except him answered my true question, so thanks to him and thats why he/she is the moderator.
Should i wait for a "new" GT or get one of these cheapies for 200? i prefer more power than a 9600 so an 8800Gt is the lowest i would go

 

[IL2SturmovikPilot]

Originally posted by: andrei3333
Wow thanks for the responses, i leave the PC for one day and my thread gets out of control

Basically the moderator got it right, no one except him answered my true question, so thanks to him and thats why he/she is the moderator.
Should i wait for a "new" GT or get one of these cheapies for 200? i prefer more power than a 9600 so an 8800Gt is the lowest i would go

9600GT isn't that much worse than a 8800GT,and i think its only safe to say that once the 9600GT begins running games like shit,so will the 8800GT,i may be wrong,but i somewhat doubt it,if you go with 8800GT though,get the one MarcVenice posted,or this eVGA card for under $200 Without MIR: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130318

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: jaredpace
do you like perfect smoothness with image quality that is crap?


thats the point of a nice graphics card & high fps. You can always limit it when you turn on all the in-game eye candy & 16xAA & 16xQAF.

you can play cod4 at low at 640 x 480 at 200 fps, or at high with max image qual & 4xaa 16xaf at 1900 x 1280 at a smooth 30-60 fps. Higher quality is where it matters.

The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

lol

I can easily tell the difference up to about 60-70ish Which after that your limited to your monitors refresh rate anyway.

I heard the average human eye maxes at 60, btw.


edit: for the card recommendation i agree with markvenice: 8800gt 512 for the best price you can find. or the 209 AR 8800gts 512.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: jaredpace
do you like perfect smoothness with image quality that is crap?


thats the point of a nice graphics card & high fps. You can always limit it when you turn on all the in-game eye candy & 16xAA & 16xQAF.

you can play cod4 at low at 640 x 480 at 200 fps, or at high with max image qual & 4xaa 16xaf at 1900 x 1280 at a smooth 30-60 fps. Higher quality is where it matters.

The human eye can't discern anything faster than 20 FPS. Your logic is flawed

incorrect, VERY incorrect. It can discern much more then that, accurately. And is doing so again and again in specific fields, like combat piloting. Ofcourse, those are the best of the best, and have been trained for it. But average people can also tell the difference when playing a video game.