• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Low fps

D

DJFury

Member
OK so I'm running a P4 3.4ghz, 1gb DDR2, X800XT, 160gb w/ NCQ, Dell 2001fp. With pretty much no programs running in the background and in-game video settings at 4x AA 8x AF 1600x1200 I'm getting 50-60 fps in Counterstrike: Source, map de_dust2. Isn't this kinda low? I was hoping for numbers closer to 3 digits. Any ideas?
 
Do you have vsync turned on? 50-60 FPS is great considering you have 4xAA,8xAF runnng in 1600x1200...
 
Hell, I run HL2 w/out any eye candy at around 60 FPS at 1024x768 on a 9700 Pro, it just sounded really good to me...

Is this the normal FPS, or is this when it dips down? In the HL2 GPU roundup, The X800 XT scored around 80 FPS (depending on the time test) at 1600x1200 4xAA (didn't give AF).
 
this might be an aged-old question... but...
what's the point, if we can only detect 30fps or less with eyes?
 
Originally posted by: hoihtah
this might be an aged-old question... but...
what's the point, if we can only detect 30fps or less with eyes?
Click to expand...


Actually, though your eyes only process images at around 30 FPS, this really only applies to the "real" world. Images are blurred (like movies, everr do a freeze frame?). This way, there appear to be many more frames. In games, there is only one frame and it has no motion blur. Some games try to use multiple frames and blur them together so they can run at a lower speed and still look decent, but it is actually slower since you still do the same work for each frame, but then you must combine the images.

Sorry, I'm sure someone can explain it better than me. I know what I'm talking about, just can't get it into the correct words...
 
Originally posted by: SrGuapo
Originally posted by: hoihtah
this might be an aged-old question... but...
what's the point, if we can only detect 30fps or less with eyes?
Click to expand...


Actually, though your eyes only process images at around 30 FPS, this really only applies to the "real" world. Images are blurred (like movies, everr do a freeze frame?). This way, there appear to be many more frames. In games, there is only one frame and it has no motion blur. Some games try to use multiple frames and blur them together so they can run at a lower speed and still look decent, but it is actually slower since you still do the same work for each frame, but then you must combine the images.

Sorry, I'm sure someone can explain it better than me. I know what I'm talking about, just can't get it into the correct words...
Click to expand...

yea didnt anandtech or someone just do a test on the 6600 video processor and part of the test was to see how good it blurred the frames or not, i didnt know that they blurred frames until i saw that little review
 
Your eyes can see 24 FPS, I think. Anything above about 17 creates the illusion of movement.

If you're seeing something run at 25 FPS, your eye is seeing at about the same rate, but what if the rates aren't in sync? Having a higher FPS makes for more fluid animation and also changes some gameplay aspects- try strafing in Quake III at 25 FPS and again at 125 FPS.
 
ingame FPS can vary depending where on the map you look and how many people are there, if they are shooting or not, etc. Try running the stress test to see what you get.
 
Your eyes need 24fps to trick them into seeing motion. But for saying 30fps is the max the eye can see, anyone who says that is either a moron or uninformed. I myself can tell the difference between 60 and 85 fps.30fps, although playable, looks absolutely terrible to me.
 
OP, that seems like a good framerate considering the resolution and eyecandy.

I can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in some games. FarCry for example.
 
Don't start the 30 vs higher FPS discussion again, it's not what this thread is about, and has been done to death.
Check the archives in the video forum for a huge topic on the subject.

As for the OP's speeds, they are good considering the settings.
Check review sites to compare, and remember that review sites use top spec machines (FX-55 etc), so your results will almost always be slower.
 
Originally posted by: canadianpsycho
OP, that seems like a good framerate considering the resolution and eyecandy.

I can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in some games. FarCry for example.
Click to expand...

quake3 was the biggest for me... 100fps always looked better than 50-60!
 
A lot of people with top notch systems cannot get over 70FPS most of the time. Just how the game was built. Like UT2k4. 50-60 FPS is not low.
 
Thanks, everyone's been such awesome help. Yea, the 50-60 fps is in the lower range during big firefights in the open w/ a bunch of other players on the field. I hit closer to 100 in tunnels or closed areas (or when I'm facing a wall hahaha.)

I was only concerned because in the map de_piranesi my avg framerates were much higher, anywhere from 90-120, with the same settings. I figure this may just be because of the way the maps were designed, but piranesi IS a bigger map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top