New Gaming Rig, lga 1156 or 1366 ?

[truepusk]

wow, you guys both really see things in absolute terms with everything being useless or completely useless ;-) I would ague a worst case and a real world test both give context.

 

[Davidh373]

Wow, I thought we were trying to have a rational discussion about a potential build. Now that you've started with the personal attacks, I'm done with you and this thread.

I told you not to go there... you went there... I'm done too. We were trying to help and you just kept pissing on us (Mainly mfenn). Buy your beast of a build that you'll never really need. For all I care you can waste all the money you want. Buy 480s in SLI for all I care, get a 1200W PSU. Spend $2000 you don't have to. You can buy a car, put that toward a down payment on a house or you can play games lol. It's your money. I'm Out!

 

[spac18]

Personal attacks? What personal attacks? Even the wink sign was not enough for you to realise that it was a joke? Mfenn and david373, if you dont want to answer my questions, then dont. I dont care. And look at the following reply of yours. You said that I was imagining things and I was ludicrous. Those were attacks against my ability.

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI3NDkwNjIzMU92TFU1T1g2VGtfMV8yX2wuanBn

Really... 55 fps not playable enough for ya...

470 benchmark
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI3NDkwNjIzMU92TFU1T1g2VGtfMV8zX2wuanBn

44 fps... still way over what the eye can see.

I'd imagine the 460 SLI is somewhere in the 30s with AA, as it is in the 40s without. That was just the lows, Average was 85. This was also at 2560 x 1600. You could easily cut that in half and still have a playable framerate.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/09/13/nv_gtx_460_1gb_sli_vs_ati_hd_5850_cfx_redux/

You have no idea what you are talking about dude, and you're still trying to talk yourself into wasting money. I guess you'd just imagined seeing those extremely fake low benchmarks :-/.

The 460 Alone would be good enough to play things in 1080p. I play everything on my 4890 at 1080p and everything runs smooth. The 4890 benchmarks LOWER than the 460. Your eye can't tell the difference once you get above 24 fps. Saying something isn't playable around 50 fps is ludicrous.

As my reply showed, your facts were not even correct. I was not going to adress you alligations, but now I have decided to make my stance clear.

 

[Davidh373]

My facts were correct. I just used your standards of proof. The fact that things dip below 24 fps does not mean a game is not playable. Obviously if a 4890 benchmarks a low of 17 fps at 1080p on BFBC2 and I play that everyday and WRECK PEOPLE it shows your ignorance in this matter.
You using the theater 24 fps comment further shows your ignorance, for you commented about things not moving on the screen as much. That is just plain wrong... Have you seen an action movie? Do you know how much MORE detail has to move on the screen? I was ignoring that comment for it wasn't worth arguing about. The human eye will not see over a framerate of 24 fps. It's not my responsibility to teach you how to google properly.
Normally when I don't reply to an irrational argument it means that i'm going to annihilate the person on the other end if I do. I'm not going to purposefully make someone upset if I don't absolutely have to. It's not that important to me to save you $300, it's up to you to spend it or not. I can only give you my valuable advice. If you don't take it and end up sticking around on the forums for another build and you end up saying "Well, last time I got SLI... and it sucked power... and it ultimately wasn't better than that single card that came out a month later that I wanted really bad" I'll probably laugh at you. If not and you're happy with it, why should I care? I'm perfectly content with single cards and a modest framerate, and you're content burning a giant hole in your wallet to play a game.

 

[spac18]

You are googling the wrong sites. Even in action movies, the lead actor remains almost still in the screen, a trolly containing camera moves alongside him. Fast moving racing games like burnout plays at 60 fps because the action is too fast. Halo games are locked at 30fps maximum (due to xbox 360 hardware limitations), and people are complaining of dropped frames. A higher avg frame rate gives a bit of headroom so that even in most graphically demanding scenes the game remains playable. As lcd monitors supports 60 hz refresh rate, 60 fps is the ideal targer for gaming. The monitor wont be able to display frames higher than that. Here is the disadvantage of 24p according to wikipedia:_
In general, 24 frames-per-second video has more trouble with fast motion than other, higher frame rates, sometimes showing a "strobe" or "choppy" motion, just like 24 frame/s film will if shot as if it's video, without careful panning, zooming, and slower camera motion. It is therefore not well-suited for programming requiring spontaneous action or "reality" camerawork.

 

[Davidh373]

You're wrong, spend the money if you feel that way, but i'll have no part in recommending SLI. I'm done trying to convince you, I'm not going to argue anymore. I work in the film industry, I know how things work. I've also been going to school for special effects and Game Design for nearly 4 years, I know how framerate works and I know the limitations of media I work with. You could have posted that on Wikipedia for all I know. Horrible source. Stop trying to convince me. I'm knowledgeable enough to be quoted as a source and you're quoting wikipedia.

 

[spac18]

You're wrong, spend the money if you feel that way, but i'll have no part in recommending SLI. I'm done trying to convince you, I'm not going to argue anymore. I work in the film industry, I know how things work. I've also been going to school for special effects and Game Design for nearly 4 years, I know how framerate works and I know the limitations of media I work with. You could have posted that on Wikipedia for all I know. Horrible source. Stop trying to convince me. I'm knowledgeable enough to be quoted as a source and you're quoting wikipedia.

Really????? You think you are knowledgeable enough to be quoted as a source? Well here is a link to somebody undisputedly knowledgeable, microsoft..
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/269068#appliesto

 

[Davidh373]

That is about getting higher FPS encoding (or rendering) video. This is for creating a video file at a specified frame rate. It says "The higher the frame rate the faster the CPU required" It says nothing about how many frames per second the eye can see. It says how many frames a capture card can capture in fps, but nothing about what we are discussing with graphics cards and video game framerate.


As far as i'm concerned the closest they get to going into detail is " The minimum framerate to avoid jerky content is 30 fps", but this is also referring to video encoding, which is dealing with NTSC video, which is interlaced, so you're actually getting interlaced frames played at twice the speed required (29.97 fps cut in half for interlaced NTSC frames, PAL as it says is 25). So, rendering two frames to play at 29.97 is like rendering 1 frame to play at 15 fps, not to say 15 fps is ideal, but neither is the NTSC or PAL interlacing. That's what we get with old tech I guess. what they are saying in the most basic terms I can verbalize is that the video for interlaced frames is encoded at 30 fps. Every two frames are merged to fit into a single image, which are then projected through the tv or other media at 15. Now at my company, we have 3 1080i (interlaced) cameras, but they shoot at 60 fps to be de-interlaced into full 30 fps 1080p video.

This is actually a very good starting point to understand frame rate, but there is more out there of course.

 

[Davidh373]

Also, that is a locked frame rate. Judging by the website you chose for benchmarks, you'll be sitting in the 30's and 40's most of the time with your frames dipping every so often, which means my point remains the same.

 

[spac18]

Have you read the article properly ? Here are the first paragraphs:----

"Frames per Second (FPS) is a measure of how motion video is displayed. The term applies equally to film video and digital video. Each frame is a still image.

Technological means can be used to suggest the appearance of movement. To create the perception of motion, the brain automatically adds or fills in missing information. It does this first through a concept known as persistence of vision, where a visual stimulus continues to be registered by the brain for a very short time after the stimulus ends. Secondly, it takes advantage of what is known as the phi function. For example, if two adjacent lights alternately flash on and off, we see a single light shifting back and forth. This is because we tend to fill in gaps between closely spaced objects of vision. These are exploited by motion pictures, which consist of rapid successions of still frames in which the "moving" objects are displaced a very short distance from one another.

Because of these phenomena, the higher the FPS, the smoother the motion appears. In general, the minimum FPS needed to avoid jerky motion is about 30 FPS. For high-motion content, an encoding session around 60 FPS may be more beneficial."
It clearly says that the higher the fps, the smoother to motion appears. Thats why sporting evets are broadcasted at 60fps. It does not matters if the video is ntsc or pal or secam. Video games images are a type of digital video, so the fps rule applies here. You are staying away from the relevant information.

 

[jlazzaro]

1156

1366

 

[Davidh373]

Have you read the article properly ? Here are the first paragraphs:----

"Frames per Second (FPS) is a measure of how motion video is displayed. The term applies equally to film video and digital video. Each frame is a still image.

Technological means can be used to suggest the appearance of movement. To create the perception of motion, the brain automatically adds or fills in missing information. It does this first through a concept known as persistence of vision, where a visual stimulus continues to be registered by the brain for a very short time after the stimulus ends. Secondly, it takes advantage of what is known as the phi function. For example, if two adjacent lights alternately flash on and off, we see a single light shifting back and forth. This is because we tend to fill in gaps between closely spaced objects of vision. These are exploited by motion pictures, which consist of rapid successions of still frames in which the "moving" objects are displaced a very short distance from one another.

Because of these phenomena, the higher the FPS, the smoother the motion appears. In general, the minimum FPS needed to avoid jerky motion is about 30 FPS. For high-motion content, an encoding session around 60 FPS may be more beneficial."
It clearly says that the higher the fps, the smoother to motion appears. Thats why sporting evets are broadcasted at 60fps. It does not matters if the video is ntsc or pal or secam. Video games images are a type of digital video, so the fps rule applies here. You are staying away from the relevant information.

you're never going to get it if you couldn't understand my simple terms. Give up, and spend the money. In fact, get a dual Xeon processor config while you're at it. 2 480s. You will get up to 300 fps with that. Have fun.