Playing some older games recently, reminded how *smooth* blistering FPS feels :)

[dug777]

Firstly I'll admit that I'm usually a 'maximise the eyecandy while keeping playable' gamer (and 'playable' changes from game to game, but ~50fps in a benchmark situation is usually as low as I like to go for use in 'real-world' gaming).

However, been playing some FarCry recently (surprise, surprise 😉) and using HDR, so AA doesn't work (at least not with the 64-bit extended content patch/pack). Accordingly, even at 19x12 with everything in-game maxed/16x AF/Cat AI off I'm not seeing less than 100fps anywhere, ever with my 5850 😀

It's smooth a butter and a real pleasure to play, needless to say 😉 Also been sampling some deathmatch madness with UT2k4 and some casual HL2 and later episodes, with similar silky smooth results (and in those examples with the AA ladled on in spadefuls).

Anyway, I guess my take-away is that while current gen cards may be 'enough' in a benchmark situation (more on that later) for most games, the overall gaming experience would be significantly improved even if you just left your settings the same and increased your average fps by 50% or so (from 'enough' to 'buttery-smooth in all circumstances' 🙂)

My last thought on this topic was that settings that are just 'enough' in a benchmark often leave you with unpleasant slowdown in slower parts of the game, and to an extent minimums don't really tell that story, a split second lag is likely to be far less painful than a sustained patch of lower FPS in a certain stage or area of a game that isn't reflected in the benchmark average (I think BFG has said most things that need to be said on that topic 😉).

That said and entirely off-topic, I think I'll fleabay the 5850 in the very near future and slum it with my 4850 until it's looking like the right time to pick up something tasty from the upcoming HD 6XXX range. This time I am either tempted to drop for the top single-gpu variant, or depending on price/performance have a play with CF at the upper-middle end of the range 🙂

 

[blastingcap]

Firstly I'll admit that I'm usually a 'maximise the eyecandy while keeping playable' gamer (and 'playable' changes from game to game, but ~50fps in a benchmark situation is usually as low as I like to go for use in 'real-world' gaming).

However, been playing some FarCry recently (surprise, surprise 😉) and using HDR, so AA doesn't work (at least not with the 64-bit extended content patch/pack). Accordingly, even at 19x12 with everything in-game maxed/16x AF/Cat AI off I'm not seeing less than 100fps anywhere, ever with my 5850 😀

It's smooth a butter and a real pleasure to play, needless to say 😉 Also been sampling some deathmatch madness with UT2k4 and some casual HL2 and later episodes, with similar silky smooth results (and in those examples with the AA ladled on in spadefuls).

Anyway, I guess my take-away is that while current gen cards may be 'enough' in a benchmark situation (more on that later) for most games, the overall gaming experience would be significantly improved even if you just left your settings the same and increased your average fps by 50% or so (from 'enough' to 'buttery-smooth in all circumstances' 🙂)

My last thought on this topic was that settings that are just 'enough' in a benchmark often leave you with unpleasant slowdown in slower parts of the game, and to an extent minimums don't really tell that story, a split second lag is likely to be far less painful than a sustained patch of lower FPS in a certain stage or area of a game that isn't reflected in the benchmark average (I think BFG has said most things that need to be said on that topic 😉).

That said and entirely off-topic, I think I'll fleabay the 5850 in the very near future and slum it with my 4850 until it's looking like the right time to pick up something tasty from the upcoming HD 6XXX range. This time I am either tempted to drop for the top single-gpu variant, or depending on price/performance have a play with CF at the upper-middle end of the range 🙂

Time for a 120Hz LCD? 😉

 

[dug777]

Time for a 120Hz LCD? 😉

I'd love one 😀

My thoughts there are that they have to become 'mainstream' at some stage in the none-to distant future, and then I'll pounce 😉

 

[Qbah]

Dug, grab two demos on Steam:

- Blade Kitten - a really enjoyable and fun platformer that was just released. However, it's capped at 30 FPS (no way around that as physics is tied to framerate)
- Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light - grab a promo code from GameSpot and add it to Steam - you'll be able to play the first level (http://www.gamespot.com/event/codes/lara-croft-pc/?coupon=lara-croft-pc). I get 60 FPS maxed details constant in this game (and we run similar setup, yours being a bit faster).

This will show you what a huge difference there is between 30 and 60 FPS. Not to mention both games are loads of fun and are $15 each, should you choose to grab the full versions 😀 I clocked 13 hours in Lara Croft and enjoyed every single minute.

Also, check if you see/feel a difference between 60 and 100. I recon you have a 60Hz LCD now? Run FarCry with and without v-sync+triple buffering (D3D Overrider can easily handle that setting). If you have a 60Hz screen I'm pretty sure you won't feel any difference 🙂

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I agree and feel the same way.

I recently played some Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and love how smooth the game looks at 60 fps and V-sync.

I also played The Force Unleashed and was dissappointed. This is a game where they cap the fps at 30 and there's no way around it. Needless to say, my eyes bled. HUGE difference between 60 fps and 30 fps. 30 fps, even with V-sync, just looked very choppy.

I also played Assassin's Creed and noticed this difference. In some parts of the map I got 60+ but in others I got below 30 and there was a very noticeable difference in smootheness.

Also, on 60 Hz LCD, there really isn't a difference to my eye of anything over 60. But I do notice a difference of anything up to 60. The only game which does feel different over 60 is Counter-Strike, and that's because the game engine is tied to framerate and it behaves differently at 100+ than it does 60.

[I'm really pissed they capped TFU at 30 fps. Since I never dropped below 30 (well, except when there was some hard drive access going on) I know I could have enjoyed a much smoother experience.]

 

[BFG10K]

I’m playing through Far Cry 2 right now at 2560x1600 with 2xTrMS, and all game details are maxed. Most of the time the framerate is over 60 FPS, and it’s great. :thumbsup:

Image quality is stunning too; subjectively it looks MUCH better than Crysis, and there's far less shader/texture aliasing too.

 

[dug777]

@Qbah: I will take a look at those thank you, they sound very amusing 😀

@BFG: SSAA seems to take out most of the shimmering for me, at least in FarCry. Is that right? Everything seems *sharp*. My 5850@950mhz is reasonably forgiving when I crank the SSAA in that title at least 🙂

@all regarding the refresh rate of my monitor: yes, it's 60hz. I will have a play with vsync etc but yes, I feel that I notice the increased smoothness of ~80-100+ fps over ~60-~80fps ranges depending on the settings I am using (or at least I think I do 😉).

 

[Hauk]

I love going back to previously demanding titles with latest gen hardware. Metro 2033 is one I'll use to grade next year's goods..

 

[ModestGamer]

Some you guys are so full of BS. Most consol games are 30fps and no one is screaming

this game is so jerky it making my eyes bleed.

Minimums are always the problem. so long as the game never drops below 30fps "how consoles are" most of you would never know in a double blind playing test.

We allow cussing in P&N and OT, not in the tech forums.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Qbah]

Some you guys are so full of BS. Most consol games are 30fps and no one is screaming

this game is so jerky it making my eyes bleed.

Minimums are always the problem. so long as the game never drops below 30fps "how consoles are" most of you would never know in a double blind playing test.

Or you are just blind.

Consoles never dropping below 30FPS? Are you joking? You ever played a console game? Well let me tell you - I have an Xbox 360 with 30 games and some of them slow down to a crawl. And most of them have borderline acceptable performance. Add low game resolution and low res textures. Most people don't complain because they just don't know better. Ignorance is a bliss. Once you see how fluid a 60 FPS game is and how it should look at FullHD with loads of AA and high resolution textures, you will be in pain playing the jerkniess of 30FPS and less in a blurry mess - what is offered by the consoles (at least my Xbox). Was one of the main reasons I went back to PC for gaming.

This is a major issue for me hence I participate in a discussion about it.

If you can't see a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS then you are either blind or ignorant (or both). I would also advise you to accept that there are people that can see better than you.

 

[tviceman]

I’m playing through Far Cry 2 right now at 2560x1600 with 2xTrMS, and all game details are maxed. Most of the time the framerate is over 60 FPS, and it’s great. :thumbsup:

Image quality is stunning too; subjectively it looks MUCH better than Crysis, and there's far less shader/texture aliasing too.

I agree to a point. I think some of the vegetation looks better in FC2, but character models, explosions, and other physics (including physical interactions) are done better in Crysis. On the same note, in my opinion Far Cry 2 *should* have better looking vegetation since it isn't trying to render anywhere close to the amount of small leaves and plants that Crysis has.

 

[tviceman]

Some you guys are so full of BS. Most consol games are 30fps and no one is screaming

this game is so jerky it making my eyes bleed.

Minimums are always the problem. so long as the game never drops below 30fps "how consoles are" most of you would never know in a double blind playing test.

Some of us are full of what? Okay consol tough guy, try the following: Play Mariokart Wii in single player. It's locked at 60fps. Then play it online split screen. It's locked at 30fps. The difference is extremely noticeable.

 

[dug777]

Some you guys are so full of BS. Most consol games are 30fps and no one is screaming

this game is so jerky it making my eyes bleed.

Minimums are always the problem. so long as the game never drops below 30fps "how consoles are" most of you would never know in a double blind playing test.

Man, who peed in your breakfast cereal?

No swearing in Video, for starters.

I can't even begin to describe the difference between a 30fps and 60 fps or more in a game (neither do I have the bandwidth to upload a video either at the moment), so other than suggesting you try it yourself on your computer I can't really say any more. It would be pretty easy. Fire up the game of your choice, fire up FRAPs, then ladle SSAA on accordingly.

I don't know anyone who would advocate gaming at 30 fps on a computer, or who indeed would do such a thing voluntarily, so you can't reasonably say it's elitism or nonsense...imo of course 😉

Some games are more bearable than others (Crysis is a good example, thankfully), but most games I play (mainly FPS-type games) are downright unpleasant at an average of ~50fps or below.

As an aside, how do you explain away micro-stutter issues with multi-GPU setups? They are demonstrably real (just youtube 'micro-stutter') 😉 There you have examples of 'more juddery' gameplay at the same nominal FPS.

Perhaps not quite the same, but my 4850 512mb could deliver great FPS even with SSAA in some older games, but it felt 'juddery'. That never showed up in a benchmark minimum or FRAPS run (I'd always stay above the 'magical' 30fps barrier), but I suspect what I was experiencing was memory-buffer issues.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Or you are just blind.

Consoles never dropping below 30FPS? Are you joking? You ever played a console game? Well let me tell you - I have an Xbox 360 with 30 games and some of them slow down to a crawl. And most of them have borderline acceptable performance. Add low game resolution and low res textures. Most people don't complain because they just don't know better. Ignorance is a bliss. Once you see how fluid a 60 FPS game is and how it should look at FullHD with loads of AA and high resolution textures, you will be in pain playing the jerkniess of 30FPS and less in a blurry mess - what is offered by the consoles (at least my Xbox). Was one of the main reasons I went back to PC for gaming.

This is a major issue for me hence I participate in a discussion about it.

If you can't see a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS then you are either blind or ignorant (or both). I would also advise you to accept that there are people that can see better than you.

This. I had a friend stop by yesterday, and they exclusively play Xbox 360. I fired up MW2 for kicks, and they immediately started in with the wows and ohhs. After that I demoed GRID to them, and finished up with Metro 2033 and Far Cry 2. By the end of it, they said if they could sell their Xbox 360 (which just RRoD'd and is out for replacement, lol) and buy a full blown gaming computer for the same amount of cash (not going to happen unfortunately), they would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[fffblackmage]

I agree and feel the same way.

I recently played some Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and love how smooth the game looks at 60 fps and V-sync.

Heh, I just finished playing the first Splinter Cell a couple weeks ago. Love the smoothness, even with my underclocked 4890.

 

[tviceman]

This. I had a friend stop by yesterday, and they exclusively play Xbox 360. I fired up MW2 for kicks, and they immediately started in with the wows and ohhs. After that I demoed GRID to them, and finished up with Metro 2033 and Far Cry 2. By the end of it, they said if they could sell their Xbox 360 (which just RRoD'd and is out for replacement, lol) and buy a full blown gaming computer for the same amount of cash (not going to happen unfortunately), they would do it in a heartbeat.

It's too bad the stigma with PC gaming is that it is way more expensive. The initial hardware investment is higher, and of course the two-three upgrades cost money too, but for people that buy plenty of games (12 or more per year) and play online there is plenty to make back in savings. Take away the XBL subscription cost and add in the fact that PC games that are almost always $10 cheaper from the start (and often $20-30 cheaper a few months later) helps recoup a large amount of the initial investment.

 

[Zap]

I clocked 13 hours in Lara Croft and enjoyed every single minute.

I bet you did. 😀

Consoles never dropping below 30FPS? Are you joking? You ever played a console game? Well let me tell you - I have an Xbox 360 with 30 games and some of them slow down to a crawl. And most of them have borderline acceptable performance.

It isn't just the Xbox 360. BITD people were overclocking the NES console because a number of games had choppy performance.

 

[Leyawiin]

Installed The Witcher Enhanced Edition the other day. Yeah, its nice to be able to max all settings and stay pegged at max FPS for my LCD and vertical sync.

 

[lavaheadache]

just started playing half life 2 2560x1600 maxed out... loving it

 

[MrK6]

just started playing half life 2 2560x1600 maxed out... loving it

Install FakeFactoy's "Cinematic Mod" and turn on SSAA. That's currently what I'm playing through and it's awesome 😎

 

[blastingcap]

It's too bad the stigma with PC gaming is that it is way more expensive. The initial hardware investment is higher, and of course the two-three upgrades cost money too, but for people that buy plenty of games (12 or more per year) and play online there is plenty to make back in savings. Take away the XBL subscription cost and add in the fact that PC games that are almost always $10 cheaper from the start (and often $20-30 cheaper a few months later) helps recoup a large amount of the initial investment.

Two things:

1. Not all frames are created equal. Depending on how the game is coded, 30fps may look fine on one game and only "okay" on another. For instance, Crysis with motion blur is more fluid and 30fps on Crysis might look like 45fps on another game. It's because of the way the human eye and brain interpret data... many games don't have motion blur or don't use it right, so for those you can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. There was a good article I read on this a long time ago, but I can't find the link right now. Also, minimums and microstutter might be factors for some situations.

2. PC gaming is not necessarily more expensive. For people who were going to buy a desktop PC system anyway (PC, monitor, mouse, kb, printer, etc.), the marginal cost of getting a gaming-grade PC over an El Cheapo PC can be less than $200. ($190 is roughly the delta between a cheap Athlon II X2 240/1GB/IGP system and the same system with either a faster Athlon II X2 or something like the Athlon II X3 450 [see: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3937/...thlon-ii-cpus-balance-price-and-performance/5 ], 2 more GB of RAM, and a GTS450 or HD5750.) Plus, PC gaming has no XBL charges (if applicable), and PC games tend to be cheaper at launch and afterwards at retail or used. You do lose Blu-Ray though but the cost of such players for PC are coming down, and only the PS3 among all consoles has a Blu-Ray drive, and PS3s are among the more expensive consoles.

 

[BD231]

Some you guys are so full of BS. Most consol games are 30fps and no one is screaming

this game is so jerky it making my eyes bleed.

Minimums are always the problem. so long as the game never drops below 30fps "how consoles are" most of you would never know in a double blind playing test.

First of all, you're retarded to say such a thing. Someone, actually, *anyone* is going to notice the difference between 100fps and 30.

Just because you're to broke to afford anything that could push those kind of frames is not a valid reason to make assumptions.

 

[RussianSensation]

It's too bad the stigma with PC gaming is that it is way more expensive. The initial hardware investment is higher, and of course the two-three upgrades cost money too, but for people that buy plenty of games (12 or more per year) and play online there is plenty to make back in savings.

It's even more true now as consumers tend to gravitate towards laptops, which purchased in the mainstream configurations are mostly useless for games. This means they have to spend $600-800 to get a decent desktop for games that probably doesn't even include a monitor.

Most households already have at least 1 TV to which a console can be easily hooked up. More and more households are also starting to purchase netbooks and tablets such as the iPad for internet and basic work. Therefore, desktops will only continue to have decreasing growth compared to other electronic devices with which they compete. Add to this the fact that consoles can also stream video like Netflix and some can play Blu-Ray, and it's clear why at $299 no PC desktop that can be used for games can compete.

If you have 2+ kids, then both can enjoy gaming at the same time. You'd need 2 computers + 2 monitors otherwise. This makes PC gaming even more expensive for the average family. Also, I wouldn't consider 90&#37; of PC games as all appealing to kids < 10, while the majority of 13-18 year crowd is likely strapped for funds to afford an $800 gaming PC. With consoles, you also get to enjoy playing games online with a ton of your friends (think 10-20), while maybe 2-3 of your friends have a PC and will want to play the same games as you. Consoles also let you enjoy gaming in the same living room and have useful co-op play (these are additional + points of console gaming). These are some of the key reasons for why most people flock to consoles over PCs.

In the last couple years I have started buying PC games only after they fall in price. I end up buying older games for $10-20 (or less, Far Cry 2, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Crysis Warhead, STALKER: Clear sky, etc.). This also negates a requirement forFa buying a top-of-the line videocard to get 50-60 fps in these games 🙂 A win-win situation!

 

[blastingcap]

Not everyone gets desktops anymore as notebooks and iPads and netbooks eat up market share, but that does not change the fact that for *some* people, PC gaming is not necessarily pricier than console gaming (see my post above about marginal costs if you were going to get a desktop anyway).

Consoles have some special strengths, including the "social" element to them (e.g., playing four-way Mario Kart on a big screen TV with some friends/family). They also get console exclusives, though they give up some PC-exclusives like Civ V, WoW, SC2, etc.

Obviously the solution for gamers who want it all--on a budget--is to a) not reproduce, b) get a great desktop gaming PC, and c) go over to friends' places to play on their consoles and access console exclusives. 😉

It's even more true now as consumers tend to gravitate towards laptops, which purchased in the mainstream configurations are mostly useless for games. This means they have to spend $600-800 to get a decent desktop for games that probably doesn't even include a monitor.

Most households already have at least 1 TV to which a console can be easily hooked up. More and more households are also starting to purchase netbooks and tablets such as the iPad for internet and basic work. Therefore, desktops will only continue to have decreasing growth compared to other electronic devices with which they compete. Add to this the fact that consoles can also stream video like Netflix and some can play Blu-Ray, and it's clear why at $299 no PC desktop that can be used for games can compete.

If you have 2+ kids, then both can enjoy gaming at the same time. You'd need 2 computers + 2 monitors otherwise. This makes PC gaming even more expensive for the average family. Also, I wouldn't consider 90% of PC games as all appealing to kids < 10, while the 15-20 year crowd is likely strapped for funds and generally will enjoy playing games online with their friends or in the same living room (that's the key appeal of a console). These are some of the key reasons for why most people flock to consoles over PCs.

In the last couple years I have started buying PC games only after they fall in price. I end up buying older games for $10-20 (or less, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Crysis Warhead, STALKER: Clear sky, etc.). This also negates a requirement for the fastest videocards to get 50-60 fps in these games 🙂 A win-win situation!

 

[RussianSensation]

and c) go over to friends' places to play on their consoles and access console exclusives. 😉

hehe I do that a lot!! Out of all mymale friends, I only know of 1 who actively plays PC games (not talking about Solitaire). Almost all of my male friends have a PS3 or an Xbox360. No matter how many times I tried to convince them to switch to PC gaming, they just don't want to "hassle" or the additional cost.