Is 4850 CF overkill for 1680x1050?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
What resolution do you play your games at?

The problem with uber graphics system is that's it isn't practical for real world PC gaming. Meaning if game publisher tailored every new release for the latest bleeding edge card out there they wouldn't sell as many games because that would exclude 99% of the systems. That's the mistake Crysis made when Crytek released a game that only maybe 5-10% of systems could actually play at a decent frame rate. What am I getting at by saying this? What that means is most games out today run perfectly fine with a decent one card solution. The only reason to need an extra 5-10% boost is if you running at resolutions that are greater than 1600x1200 and to achieve a minimum frame rate of 60 or greater. FYI:Even most console games are optimized for a minimum FPS of 60 if you want to compare. Even if you're running at 120 fps CF or SLI over 80 fps with a single card solution your eye won't be able to tell the difference. (That's overkill)

Here's and interesting article:
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
Ok this is a bit of a side question, but I've seen soooo many guys say things like, "I wanna get 50 fps, 60 fps, minimum,".

Why are so many guys asking or wanting this? What is so magical about 50 or 60 fps? Do they want 60 fps minimum because they want to "future proof" their cards for tomorrow's games? or are really asking/wanting the 60 fps minimum because this fps would look "smoother" for their eyes. In case anyway cares to know, the human eyes only need about 25 fps to perceive smooth & continuous motion. Anything higher than 30 fps and your eyes can't tell the difference. This is for human eyes.
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Actually, they say now that 60 fps is the "ideal" standard. Even though @ 30 fps people generally can't tell the difference recent research has concluded that there is a subtle noticeable difference between 30 and 60 fps. And I guess 60 is a safe number in case your system runs into stuttering problems.
 

dakels

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,809
2
0
Originally posted by: shangshang
Ok this is a bit of a side question, but I've seen soooo many guys say things like, "I wanna get 50 fps, 60 fps, minimum,".

Why are so many guys asking or wanting this? What is so magical about 50 or 60 fps? Do they want 60 fps minimum because they want to "future proof" their cards for tomorrow's games? or are really asking/wanting the 60 fps minimum because this fps would look "smoother" for their eyes. In case anyway cares to know, the human eyes only need about 25 fps to perceive smooth & continuous motion. Anything higher than 30 fps and your eyes can't tell the difference. This is for human eyes.
In fast action FPS games, the difference from 30 fps to 60fps is very noticeable to most people. Animation generally looks more fluid. Over 60fps is when it starts to become less noticeable to most people. Such as 60fps to 120fps. I think the threshold is somewhere around 80fps for the acutely aware.

I would agree though that 30fps is very playable, but in FPS's 60fps is a good target for most serious gamers.

Oh if you want to see for yourself in a simple test, load an FPS game and look at detailed element like text, move your camera around while you stare at the text. You will probably notice that the text is much more legible at 60fps then 30.
 

TanisHalfElven

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
3,520
0
76
Originally posted by: nanaki333
yeah, but you know the saying.... it's like a condom... it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it :)
maybe but unlike the condom it won't ruin the experiance.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: shangshang
Ok this is a bit of a side question, but I've seen soooo many guys say things like, "I wanna get 50 fps, 60 fps, minimum,".

Why are so many guys asking or wanting this? What is so magical about 50 or 60 fps? Do they want 60 fps minimum because they want to "future proof" their cards for tomorrow's games? or are really asking/wanting the 60 fps minimum because this fps would look "smoother" for their eyes. In case anyway cares to know, the human eyes only need about 25 fps to perceive smooth & continuous motion. Anything higher than 30 fps and your eyes can't tell the difference. This is for human eyes.
If you're on an LCD, most have a refresh rate of 60Hz, so 60FPS is significant because that means you're FPS locked at 60 with Vsync on. LCD users and even CRTs at very high frame rates can experience tearing, which Vsync eliminates. Also, an average FPS higher than your refresh rate can minimize microstutter with multi-GPU solutions.
 

ShOcKwAvE827

Senior member
Jul 28, 2001
950
0
0
Yeah, I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 75 fps (max LCD refresh rate for me) when I play any FPS game. It's actually a pretty big difference to me when I play CS 1.6.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: Chosonman
Originally posted by: SergeC
Yes, it's overkill. Except for Crysis, of course.
Cysis is poorly optimized from what I know.
I wouldn't say poorly optimized. It's just that much more eye candy than any other game out there.
 

zod96

Platinum Member
May 28, 2007
2,837
55
91
With my single 4850 in oblivion at 1680x1050 settings at 2xAA and 8xAF everything set to high in game, its pretty smooth indoors or outdoors. I'm getting about 40+ fps on avg...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY