How Many fps do we really need?

[robcy]

Lets put two computers
One is 3.2c/9800PRO256mb/1gbDDR3200/875shipset*

Two is 2.26b/9600NP128mb/512mbDDR2100/845chipset*

*Substitute CPU with 3200+ and 2200+ and/or Nvidia 5900ultra and 5600Ultra rev1.0 and/or NF2 and KT266A

System 1 gets 350+fps on Quake3
System 2 gets 130fps on Quake3
both are at 10x7 32bits 85hz with 4AA/8AF

WHILE playing the game will you really be able to tell the diffrence between one and two?
If HL2 plays at 100fps min for 1 and 65fps min for 2 at the same settings will you be able to tell them apart then WHILE playing?

 

[Richdog]

No, but with a system as powerful as the first you use it to play higher resolution with AA and AF turned on. It'd be pretty pointless having all that hardware and not utilising it to the max by running a game the same detail levels of an inferior system. :beer:

 

[Lonyo]

85fps minimum/average at 1600x1200, 32bit, 6xAA 16xAF. That's an ideal hit (put on Vsync to make sure no tearing, hence the 85fps).

Sure, there's not much poin tin 300+fps for Q3, but newer games might struggle to hit 50fps at high quality modes even on the highest end systems.

Yeah, you can tell the diff between 100 and 60fps.
And remember, its variation, not averages that are a bigger issue. If you get 100 average but it drops to 10 sometimes, you'll notice choppiness that you wouldn't get if it was 60fps all the time.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: robcy
Lets put two computers
One is 3.2c/9800PRO256mb/1gbDDR3200/875shipset*

Two is 2.26b/9600NP128mb/512mbDDR2100/845chipset*

*Substitute CPU with 3200+ and 2200+ and/or Nvidia 5900ultra and 5600Ultra rev1.0 and/or NF2 and KT266A

System 1 gets 350+fps on Quake3
System 2 gets 130fps on Quake3
both are at 10x7 32bits 85hz with 4AA/8AF

WHILE playing the game will you really be able to tell the diffrence between one and two?
If HL2 plays at 100fps min for 1 and 65fps min for 2 at the same settings will you be able to tell them apart then WHILE playing?

Will you be able to tell them apart while playing? Yes and no. There is more to consider than you think.

The faster card (the Radeon 9800) will probably have a much higer minimum framerate, meaning it won't fluctuate quite as drastically. Nor should it come to a complete crawl, like the other card might.

Also, if you think you're going to get 100 FPS in Half Life 2 at anything other than 640X480, then you've got another thing coming. It's shaping up like if you really want it playable, with full DX9 effects on, then *only* a Radeon 9700/9800 will suffice.

 

[rbV5]

Obviously Quake3 will run fine on a lessor rig, so if thats all you play...thats all you need. Its not exactly cutting edge anymore.

 

[Goi]

I'd be happy if it plays any game I throw at it at 1600x1200 with 4-6xFSAA and 16xAF, all the eye candy turned up(texture quality, geometry, world detail, etc) at 85FPS.

But of course, that's just a pipe dream.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Goi
I'd be happy if it plays any game I throw at it at 1600x1200 with 4-6xFSAA and 16xAF, all the eye candy turned up(texture quality, geometry, world detail, etc) at 85FPS.

But of course, that's just a pipe dream.

You could with a time machine .

 

[VIAN]

The framerate needed to play a game is an average of 30fps. Although, I would go for the more powerful card because:

1. Its cheaper, in this case.
2. I can set games settings on high.
3. I can turn on quality Anti-aliasing and Anistropic Filtering on - and still play at playable framrates.
Note: Anti-aliasing and Anistropic Filtering increase image quality.
4. I would still have some performance left over for future games that need more power.

If you buy a card and it gives you 30fps on an upcoming game, kiss all other games afterwards goodbye because, most-likely, your card wont be able to meet the demands.

Always get Pro or Ultra versions, because they're worth it.
I would pick the ATI cards over the Nvidia Cards because ATI is more efficient. Efficiency = Brains = Speed

Think of It, isn't it weird how the 9800 Pro with its lower: 380MHz of clock speed and 22GBps of bandwidth outdoes the 5900 Ultra with its higher: 450MHz of clock speed and 27GBps of bandwidth.

It's almost like Intel and AMD. While AMD chooses the more efficient direction of more work per cycles, Intel just says put some more cycles on it. Its efficiency over RAW Power. Efficiency will always win. Think of the David and Goliath story. The Goliath was so big with raw power and David was so small, but he was smart(effecient) enough to kick his ass wasn't he.

 

[Ferocious]

60 fps is an ideal average.

30 is minimum.

But also it depends on the game somewhat as well.

 

[policy11]

com_maxfps 125 in q3

 

[JBT]

When I play CS with my 9500 Pro I am ussually around 100 FPS at 1024x768 the other day some how the win xp bug of 60hz turn backon and the game was surely not as a smooth and fun. I got it back to 100 hz and it was a dream again. so Back to my point well not really a point but I'm just saying that even with some of the highiest fps there is a difference in playability/joyablility.