Non-Gamer wants to know...

[Ratman6161]

Ok, here is a possibly dumb question from someone who knows a fair amount about computers but only dabbles in games.

In all the video card comparisons we constantly see reviewers posting frames per second (FPS) numbers of over 100. Saw one today where there were some benchmarks over 200 FPS. Now, I know that my 22" Samsung LCD monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050 and a refresh rate of 60 Hz (60 refreshes per second, right?). So my question for the gamers is this: What good does it do me to achieve frame rates above 60FPS? Wont anything over 60 just be lost anyway since my panel is only refreshing at 60 per second?

If that's correct, why wouldn't I just select the cheapest video card that would maintain at least 60FPS at my native resolution in the games I want to play? Actually, for what I do, my old GeForce 7900GS is working just fine for me. I'm just curious what the hype is about on these megabuck cards.

 

[Oyeve]

Big-dick bragging rights.

 

[newb111]

The advantage of higher framerates as I see it is to allow for dips without going below 60. If you never dip below 60, then the extra frames are worthless.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: newb111
The advantage of higher framerates as I see it is to allow for dips without going below 60. If you never dip below 60, then the extra frames are worthless.

Yep it's to keep the minimum fps up. Smooths out the gameplay so you won't notice any studder.

 

[yepp]

Game at higher resolution, head room to increase image quality, play future games and crysis more smoothly.

 

[Ratman6161]

Originally posted by: newb111
The advantage of higher framerates as I see it is to allow for dips without going below 60. If you never dip below 60, then the extra frames are worthless.

That sounds reasonable to me. So wouldn't the minimum framerate be a much more valuable number than the maximum or average?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Ratman6161

Originally posted by: newb111
The advantage of higher framerates as I see it is to allow for dips without going below 60. If you never dip below 60, then the extra frames are worthless.

That sounds reasonable to me. So wouldn't the minimum framerate be a much more valuable number than the maximum or average?

the problem with min and max is that a single value will skew the results, which is why average is used.

you could have all sets of 120fps and a single at 29, and the minimum is still 29, but the average is much much higher than that.

 

[Martimus]

I run my monitor at 85Hz, so 85 FPS means more to me than 60 FPS. (60Hz gives me a headache) Minimun framerate is important, altough if you only see it every once in a while, it doesn't mean as much. Average framerate is probably the most important, as that is what you are going to see most of the time. The nice thing about getting average framerates over 60 FPS (or 85 for me) is that you can turn on triple buffering and vertical sync to eliminate tearing. (I notice that most OpenGL games have a lot of tearing for me if I don't enable vertical sync and triple buffering.)

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Martimus
I run my monitor at 85Hz, so 85 FPS means more to me than 60 FPS. (60Hz gives me a headache) Minimun framerate is important, altough if you only see it every once in a while, it doesn't mean as much. Average framerate is probably the most important, as that is what you are going to see most of the time. The nice thing about getting average framerates over 60 FPS (or 85 for me) is that you can turn on triple buffering and vertical sync to eliminate tearing. (I notice that most OpenGL games have a lot of tearing for me if I don't enable vertical sync and triple buffering.)

Does this mean you still have a CRT?

 

[bearxor]

If you're concerned about perfect picture quality, you should have a CRT.

 

[pontifex]

the "mega-bucks" cards are so people can run games with the highest settings. if you're playing CSS at highest settings, a lower priced card might be fine. if you're playing crysis or something similar, the lower priced card isn't going to cut it. also, buying the more expensive card "future-proofs" you for a little bit. you can play newer games at the higher settings without taking a major hit to performance.

 

[ultra laser]

Good websites show you the average FPS and minimum FPS. For example: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...s-performance-update/5

 

[Ratman6161]

Originally posted by: pontifex
the "mega-bucks" cards are so people can run games with the highest settings. if you're playing CSS at highest settings, a lower priced card might be fine. if you're playing crysis or something similar, the lower priced card isn't going to cut it. also, buying the more expensive card "future-proofs" you for a little bit. you can play newer games at the higher settings without taking a major hit to performance.

Hmmm. I never really did buy into the "future proofing" argument for any computer equipment. The theory: Buy a $150 card this year and then buy another one each year. These things seem to become obsolete so fast that spending $150 a year seems like a better way to go that to spend $450 and expect it to last three years.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Ratman6161
Ok, here is a possibly dumb question from someone who knows a fair amount about computers but only dabbles in games.

In all the video card comparisons we constantly see reviewers posting frames per second (FPS) numbers of over 100. Saw one today where there were some benchmarks over 200 FPS. Now, I know that my 22" Samsung LCD monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050 and a refresh rate of 60 Hz (60 refreshes per second, right?). So my question for the gamers is this: What good does it do me to achieve frame rates above 60FPS? Wont anything over 60 just be lost anyway since my panel is only refreshing at 60 per second?

If that's correct, why wouldn't I just select the cheapest video card that would maintain at least 60FPS at my native resolution in the games I want to play? Actually, for what I do, my old GeForce 7900GS is working just fine for me. I'm just curious what the hype is about on these megabuck cards.

The short answer is that the more you get over 60fps the great your E.G.O. gets and we all know there's nothing better than that.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Ratman6161

Originally posted by: newb111
The advantage of higher framerates as I see it is to allow for dips without going below 60. If you never dip below 60, then the extra frames are worthless.

That sounds reasonable to me. So wouldn't the minimum framerate be a much more valuable number than the maximum or average?

the problem with min and max is that a single value will skew the results, which is why average is used.

you could have all sets of 120fps and a single at 29, and the minimum is still 29, but the average is much much higher than that.

What if that 29fps comes at an extremely crucial point? Then you're screwed.

Minimum FPS for life!

 

[CP5670]

Those 60fps scores you see in the benchmarks are averages and not minimums, and they are also only taken from a very small part of the game. There is no guarantee that the entire game will perform the same way (in fact, it usually won't) and it's always good to have additional headroom for those situations.

Also, I use a CRT with 85-140hz refresh rates, and there are a few games where I find 60fps to be too choppy even if it's consistent. A constant 100fps or so feels liquid smooth in a way that 60fps sometimes doesn't.

What if that 29fps comes at an extremely crucial point? Then you're screwed.

Minimum FPS for life!

Exactly, those minimums usually occur during the most intense fights, just when you need the performance the most.

Some sites like Techreport take an average of the lowest 20-odd% of the framerates instead of actual minimums, which helps avoid the issue of a momentary drop (say, from loading content at the very beginning) affecting the result a lot.

 

[OCGuy]

I have the best single GPU on the market, and I still have issues with a framerate dip every now and then. I top out at 250-300 on most games, but I still deal with a dip into the 50s when there is lots of smoke and the map is of high quality. It gives room for AA and AF.

 

[nova2]

playing with greater than 125 FPS in quake 3 can make you miss jumps and rail shots (sniper type weapon). So it is advisable to limit your fps in Q3.

60 to 85 FPS is good enough for most things.

 

[CottonRabbit]

You can circle strafe jump higher at 76 and 110 fps

 

[minmaster]

ha i just got crysis and played the first part of ice level (hovercraft following general) and it was consistently under 10 fps.

 

[RaTaSuM]

for mp games, as far as i know, syncing your fps with the server's produces a better registration. so for example in 100tic cs servers, cap your fps at 100. in quake 3 osp, 125fps gave the best results as nova2 said. however i believe it makes no difference in cpma, and no1 plays osp anyway...

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: Martimus
I run my monitor at 85Hz, so 85 FPS means more to me than 60 FPS. (60Hz gives me a headache) Minimun framerate is important, altough if you only see it every once in a while, it doesn't mean as much. Average framerate is probably the most important, as that is what you are going to see most of the time. The nice thing about getting average framerates over 60 FPS (or 85 for me) is that you can turn on triple buffering and vertical sync to eliminate tearing. (I notice that most OpenGL games have a lot of tearing for me if I don't enable vertical sync and triple buffering.)

Does this mean you still have a CRT?

Yes.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Ratman6161

So my question for the gamers is this: What good does it do me to achieve frame rates above 60FPS? Wont anything over 60 just be lost anyway since my panel is only refreshing at 60 per second?

There?s more than just the issue of the display?s Hz; the other issue is input response.

A higher framerate can give a tighter and smoother input response because the engine?s timing has more precision to work with. As an example, this is one of the reasons why they made it possible for Quake 4?s engine tick to go above 60 FPS in later patches, despite the fact that most of world uses 60 Hz LCDs.

Also if you run without vsync your display will output partial frames and this can also make a big difference to smoothness, particularly with CRTs which handle frames in excess of their refresh rate far better than LCDs.

Additionally, there?s the issue of minimum vs average which has been pointed out repeatedly already. Getting 60 FPS in one 30 second benchmark does not mean you?ll get a constant 60 FPS for the entire game. The higher the average, the more likely your minimums will stay high during heavy scenes.

Originally posted by: CP5670

and there are a few games where I find 60fps to be too choppy even if it's consistent. A constant 100fps or so feels liquid smooth in a way that 60fps sometimes doesn't.

I agree completely; I find games like Quake, Quake 3 and Descent 3 don't feel smooth at a constant 60 FPS while 120 FPS is much smoother, even on a 73 Hz CRT.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Ratman6161
Ok, here is a possibly dumb question from someone who knows a fair amount about

If that's correct, why wouldn't I just select the cheapest video card that would maintain at least 60FPS at my native resolution in the games I want to play? Actually, for what I do, my old GeForce 7900GS is working just fine for me. I'm just curious what the hype is about on these megabuck cards.

In addition to smoothness... buying a megabucks card can also allow you to crank up the eye-candy. Sure you can probably play Crysis with a 7900GS (not sure I don't own the game)... but you will not be able to play with 4X AA or max details for instance.

I don't care to much about eye-candy myself and my monitor is fairly small... so I usually go for the ~$100 or under video card. Which do a pretty good job these days (ATI 4670).

 

[TBSN]

I can have my frame-rates go down to the high 30's and it doesn't really affect me much. As long as it is relatively consistent. It is nice to have higher framerates, but games are totally playable at 30 FPS.