UT -this sounds like BS- ur comments please

[damocles]

OK, I am talking to a guy on a UT forum. OK he claims that with his P3-850, with a Geforce GTS and 128Meg of PC 100 Ram (don?t know other specs), and @ 1024x768 with all graphics settings on-that he gets a constant 304 frames per second playing UT online (cable modem).

Does this sound like BS to anyone else?

 

[Ultima]

Yes, it does.

 

[StickHead]

Sound and smells like 100% Grade A+ BS.

 

[Priit]

Maybe that is 30.8FPS and guy just can't read ? UT's frame counter shows two places after decimal point so that as well may be 3.08FPS, too

 

[DefRef]

I think Priit has the answer. You couldn't get 300+ fps in ANY game at ANY rez with ANY system, much less UT with those specs.

At 1024 rez, using the Loki OpenGL DLL and the S3TC textures, I get 60+ fps ave. over a game with DecalStay set for 25X duration.:Q Facing a wall, I can go over 100 fps on P3-927/384MB/GF2 @ 210/375.

This guy is either lying or sadly mistaken.

 

[damocles]

Thanks, i said the guy was speaking BS on a forum and all these people said that i 'just didn't know how to tweak my computer properly'. I was like 300fps, wtf?. Offline with everying disabled and no bots i can get over 100fps , way more if i stare at a wall- but online unbelievable

 

[Sunner]

The only way he could get a really constant FPS would be to have vsynch on, and if he does have vsynch on, he have to have a monitor that can do 304 Hz at that res, and in that case, I'd be very interested to know what monitor he's using.

Not to mention how he managed to OC the RAMDAC on the GTS to a few GHz or whatever would be needed for 304 Hz @ 1024x768x32.

 

[Ultima]

Sure, there are games that can run at 300FPS. UT is just not one of them

 

[BFG10K]

LOL!

 

[DefRef]

He may be able to get 300+ fps if he runs at 6x4.

I don't mean 640x480 either. I mean SIX PIXELS by FOUR PIXELS!! (AND 16-bit color!!!)

 

[Priit]

umm, 300FPS in UT may be even realistic with 64x48 pixels (vsyc off), when standing still and stareing at the floor... maybe that's what that dude calls "online gaming" ?

 

[jimmygates]

Total BS considering he's using a Geforce card on a game whose engine is designed for glide. Total crap.



-jimbo

 

[NicColt]

I'm so sick and tired of all the FPS crap.

For example, If your monitor has a 60Hz refresh rate, and you have 5 million FPS it doesn't matter, you won't see more than 60fps and your eyes can't even tell above 35-40FPS anyway. so until High Definition digital monitors are here and you have digital occular implants, it just does not make a damm difference what your fps is when you start to go over 60FPS. When Doom was running at 10-15FPS that's when we needed faster FPS now those days are over. Focus is on quality not speed.

 

[Killer Ape]

I thought you could see greater FPS than the monitor's refresh rate if you disable VSYNCH, you'll just get some image tearing. So you could get over 60 FPS at 60Hz refresh, it just may not look great or be totally smooth.

Am I mistaken here?

 

[DarkManXY2G]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard today!!! Tell him to quit lying.

 

[Killer Ape]

Damocles: An easy way to settle this is just link the guy to any of Anand's (or any other site's for that matter) CPU reviews where he does UT FPS benchmarks with various vidcards, or conversely,link to a vidcard review and note the CPUs used for benchmarking. There's probably one for the P3 850.

 

[NicColt]

you can still get a reading of 200FPS but seeing it is another question. I just don't understand how some people claim to see more than 40FPS.

 

[Vrangel]

NicColt
The difference is in smoothness of gameplay.
When you flip around in 1 sec at 60fps, your field of view
moves 6 degrees per frame.At 120fps its 3 degrees per frame.

 

[damocles]

I offered links aplenty. We have now agreed to disageee (although he has changed his stories a bit). Thanx for the backup

 

[BFG10K]

NicColt:

For example, If your monitor has a 60Hz refresh rate, and you have 5 million FPS it doesn't matter, you won't see more than 60fps and your eyes can't even tell above 35-40FPS anyway.

Rubbish.

so until High Definition digital monitors are here and you have digital occular implants, it just does not make a damm difference what your fps is when you start to go over 60FPS.

That's not true at all. I have no trouble seeing the difference between 120 FPS and 60 FPS. In fact going back to 60 FPS seems like a slide-show after seeing 120 FPS.

When Doom was running at 10-15FPS that's when we needed faster FPS now those days are over. Focus is on quality not speed]

That is false.

The statements you have made suggest to me that either:

(1) You've never played 3D games.
(2) You've never seen high FPS.
(3) You've never played online.

EDIT: I made this post sound less hostile. Sorry, I got carried away with the moment, so to speak.

 

[Vrangel]

You cant argue with BFG10K...

 

[NicColt]

"The statements you have made suggest to me that either:
(1) You've never played 3D games.
(2) You've never seen high FPS.
(3) You've never played online."

Groan.... I've been playing CS since beta 1 and I was the first to grab a Voodoo1 and Voodoo2 off the shelves. I have 3 boxes packed with games. With my TnT2 I was averaging 40-45Fps in CS the only reason I have a Radeon is because the wife got it for me at xmas and also because It lowered my ping in half. 72FPS in CS is way more than enough, ping however is another issue.

BTW: Just to give you an example, even IMAX High Definition movies are made with 48FPS, even they know that higher is not even worth it. Like I said Quality or HD is now more important than High FPS.

 

[BFG10K]

NicColt:

Try a little experiment. Run a game which you're sure exceeds your monitor's refresh rate (say Quake 2 or Unreal) and pick a non-taxing area (ie a small room).

Turn on vsync and do some fast spins with the mouse and look up and down really fast at the walls and the roof. Then turn off vsync and do the same thing again. I guarantee your mouse movements will be *much* smoother with vsync off.

I've tried it in Unreal and Quake 2. Turning on vsync and locking my framerates at 75 FPS is far less smooth than it is when compared to the the framerates being uncapped. The area I picked in Unreal was getting 130 FPS when vsync is off and the mouse movements were *much* smoother.

Just to give you an example, even IMAX High Definition movies are made with 48FPS, even they know that higher is not even worth it.

Comparing movies to 3D games is a flawed course of reasoning. The two are completely different.

 

[j4ckhAir]

I initially thought 3d game frame rates shared the limit that film exhibits, i.e., 30 'percievable' frames per second. But, a game tester friend of mine said he learned at work that, for technical reasons unknown to him as well, in 3d games the percievable range of fps is more around the 90 fps mark.

So can we 'see' 90fps in games. Yes. Can we see more than that? That point is debatable.

But its all about smoothness. At high frame rates, e.g., over 60 fps, quality is much more important for smoothness then quantity.

I have tested just about every mode, and vsync on is undoubtedly better/smoother than having it off.

If your monitor is refreshing and drawing a new frame with each refresh (i.e. simultaneously) then it will look almost cinematic. My iiyama 450 pro, refresh set at 100, maxfps set at 100, is perfectly smooth. In contrast, i used to play with vsync off, for more frames, but very very choppy compared to synced perfection. And if we cant percieve more then 90, i think 100 of synced frames, constant, unwavering frames is just right.

 

[j4ckhAir]

oh, btw, its i do this running ra3(q3a) 1024x768x32, high qual, ghz tbird, oc gts. Even in large scrapes, frames don't drop under 100 too often.