More FPS or Greater quality picture?

[Sideswipe001]

Which do you REALLY care about more?

 

[Sideswipe001]

bump

 

[Vadatajs]

I hope nvidia's reading...

 

[XBoxLPU]

I like to find an "in-between"

I usually run with 16XAF and 4X AA @ 1280X1024

 

[WhiteKnight77]

Both, but you didn't give that choice and if you are talking about games, it is dependent on what the games developers put in the game.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

All of the above. Once I upgrade, I want to run 1024x768 on a 9700 Pro 2.8C with all settings high, in driver settings atleast balanced on all with 4x AA or 2x AA and 8x AF. I will change according to specific game but I like to have a little bit of everything.

 

[gf4200isdabest]

I run the best quality I can that doesn't jump below 25fps...and i don't want to hear any "your eye can see above 25fps" nazi's either because my eye is perfectly fine (20/20 vision) and mine can't...

/2.26GHZ p4 with gf 4400

 

[Sideswipe001]

Yes, the question is about games.

I'm actually surprised that #1 isn't getting more votes.

 

[0roo0roo]

you only have to choose if your cheap or on a budgeT😛

 

[TheInvincibleMustard]

With the newest video cards pushing 300+ some odd FPS on Quake III, and ripping through other games equally as well, FPS isn't much of an issue. I want to see quality video -- no jaggies, good flowing color, etc. -- and could really care less if I get 100fps or 80fps ...

Within a year, I want to play, in real-time, a game that looks better than the pre-rendered stuff like the Final Fantasy movie, and I think it's going to be coming. Here's hoping. 🙂

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
I run the best quality I can that doesn't jump below 25fps...and i don't want to hear any "your eye can see above 25fps" nazi's either because my eye is perfectly fine (20/20 vision) and mine can't...

/2.26GHZ p4 with gf 4400

Your eyes are fine, your brain is lacking. That's not a dig, 20/20 eyesight has no bearing on the fps you can detect, it's dependent on what your brain can process.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Not another fvcking "the eye can only see XX fps" discussion.

DIE. :|

- M4H

 

[rhawk79]

i want the game to run smoothly. nothing is more annoying then slowdown. that comes first. after that i want to take quality as high as possible without sacrificing smoothness.

but i have a 21" monitor and i like seeing the settings maxed out, so once i can't do that i tend to upgrade. i keep my system up to date so it can max out any game i play.

so i'd say both

 

[Sideswipe001]

I don't care about the maximum FPS my video card - I care about the minimum it hits when there's tons of crap on the screen.

I don't want 300 FPS when nothing is happening. I want 60 FPS when everything is exploding all around me.

And I want those explosions to look dang nice. 🙂

 

[Schadenfroh]

what good is image quality if performance is sacraficed

 

[shud]

If you want to play the closest thing to the CGI rendering of the FF Movie, play Xenosaga on PS2. 😉

 

[Mingon]

I want a minimum of 60fps everywhere - no matter whats on screen, then you can increase quality

 

[magomago]

I am more for how a game looks than the actual FPS. As long as i'm in the 60 range I'm happy (providng that it doesn't ever dip below 40-50ish). IF I can go higher...Yeah! But If I have to sacrifice 80 FPS on some game and go from 150 FPS to 70FPS I would do it in a heartbeat

 

[mchammer187]

if it can stay @ 60 fps and stay there ie vsync (im on an LCD) than im happy

any lower than that than i turn IQ down till i can get to 60

 

[grabadude]

There is no option for both,

Good speed and good image quality

 

[arcenite]

Better image quality, with moderately less FPS

Bill

 

[Boonesmi]

i want fps.
i would much prefer a smooth flow to the game then a pretty picture