Who/What do YOU blame for this extreme lull for enthusiasts?

[futurefields]

Is there a lull really?

Compared with cpu's aren't gpu's getting more powerful at a much faster rate?

There are tons of 1440p 1600p monitors available now as well, just most people don't need/want them so most people don't have them. But they are there. And multi-gpu setups are getting much more polished now as well. 3D. 120hz. 144hz. Also, next-gen consoles should provide new engines which make better use of higher end pc hardware. I don't really see much of a lull tbh...

 

[Mr Expert]

Is there a lull really?

Compared with cpu's aren't gpu's getting more powerful at a much faster rate?

There are tons of 1440p 1600p monitors available now as well, just most people don't need/want them so most people don't have them. But they are there. And multi-gpu setups are getting much more polished now as well. 3D. 120hz. 144hz. Also, next-gen consoles should provide new engines which make better use of higher end pc hardware. I don't really see much of a lull tbh...

Agreed there is no lull at all just end users apathy to see all the greatness that comes with PC gaming. There are so many great games out right now that tax even the highest end GPU and new Ultra HD resolutions to play with.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Agreed there is no lull at all just end users apathy to see all the greatness that comes with PC gaming. There are so many great games out right now that tax even the highest end GPU and new Ultra HD resolutions to play with.

The thing about all those games is that by changing settings to high instead of ultra you get identical image quality with massive frame rate increases. This leads me to believe that these ultra settings are just in the game to help nvidia and amd sell gpu's.

 

[HeXen]

I havn't been too excited for gaming hardware since around 2006 honestly and that was during the time when all the info on Oblivion and Crysis was going on.
After those letdowns (Oblivion didn't initially look that great and Crysis ran like crap). And with previous letdowns like Doom3..etc. I became rather jaded and don't really give a crap anymore. I just upgrade whenever there are enough graphically intensive games to make it worth doing so and not just for a couple specific ones like I used to. Even then I don't get excited about it like I used to either.

 

[NIGELG]

I believe people should stop whining on forums and actually buy and play more PC games.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I believe people should stop whining on forums and actually buy and play more PC games.

Yeah and while everyone whines that Console games don't get sales like steam does where you can get games that are only a month old for $20, there are millions and millions of console games sold for every thousand PC versions. So...I do agree people just need to buy the games and support the developers so that developers will see the necessity or at least the market for making a visually striking game specifically for the PC.

As it is, they know their games will sell ok on the PC and then when it's on sale it'll sell a few thousand more. Meanwhile it's almost guaranteed to sell the same game on an Xbox 10 times more.

 

[Nec_V20]

The only thing that games tax is the posers wanting to post frame-rates that if they were even half the value they were boasting about would be unnoticeable.

Anything above 26fps is indiscernible to the normal human eye that's just a fact. Posting frame-rates of 97 or so is [pointless].

Infraction issued for derailing thread.
-- stahlhart

 

[blackened23]

The only thing that games tax is the posers wanting to post frame-rates that if they were even half the value they were boasting about would be unnoticeable.

Anything above 26fps is indiscernible to the normal human eye that's just a fact. Posting frame-rates of 97 or so is just masturbation.

Wow. Really? This is just so, so wrong. Going from 30 to 60 to 120 fps on a PC screen is just blatantly obvious in terms of increased smoothness.

 

[NIGELG]

The only thing that games tax is the posers wanting to post frame-rates that if they were even half the value they were boasting about would be unnoticeable.

Anything above 26fps is indiscernible to the normal human eye that's just a fact. Posting frame-rates of 97 or so is just masturbation.

Lol...it's called 'E peen'.

I see so many clowns on the internet who only boast of synthetic benchmarks and frame rates and 120 Hz monitors and PhysX and I wonder if these people actually play games....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wow. Really? This is just so, so wrong. Going from 30 to 60 to 120 fps on a PC screen is just blatantly obvious in terms of smoothness unless one is blind.

^^ This is truth ^^

 

[Lonbjerg]

Perf/watt...it's that simple.
That is what is to blame for the shift in focus from performance...to power consumption

 

[NIGELG]

^^ This is truth ^^

Maybe so but anything over 30 FPS feels very smooth for me.

I can only speak for myself.

 

[Nec_V20]

Wow. Really? This is just so, so wrong. Going from 30 to 60 to 120 fps on a PC screen is just blatantly obvious in terms of increased smoothness.

Ever been to the movies? Have you noticed any huge lag that is blatantly obvious? Standard filming and projection formats are 24 frames per second. You must have just hated watching Avatar in the theatres (hint most of it was computer generated and you were watching it at 24fps).

The only part of the eye that can discern higher flicker rates are the light and dark receptors (grey scale) around the edge of the eyes (which is why you notice fluorescent lights flickering when you look at them indirectly).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Ever been to the movies? Have you noticed any huge lag that is blatantly obvious? Standard filming and projection formats are 24 frames per second.

The only part of the eye that can discern higher flicker rates are the light and dark receptors around the edge of the eyes (which is why you notice fluorescent lights flickering when you look at them indirectly).

Haha...that's cause they have artificial filters and motion blur. Your eye can see more than any screen can present. Good try.

Maybe so but anything over 30 FPS feels very smooth for me.

I can only speak for myself.

Anything that does not ever drop below 30fps I could agree. As long as it isn't running 70fps and then drops right to 30. I can notice that extreme drop for sure. I still prefer 60fps or above as much as possible. There are games which I never felt lagged or played slow but were running 40fps or below at times. Crysis 3 at 1440p is the most recent example I can think of.

 

[OCGuy]

The only thing that games tax is the posers wanting to post frame-rates that if they were even half the value they were boasting about would be unnoticeable.

Anything above 26fps is indiscernible to the normal human eye that's just a fact. Posting frame-rates of 97 or so is just masturbation.

Have any links to share for this "fact"?

What is the point of being inflammatory on an enthusiast graphics card forum?

No need for trolling.

 

[Grooveriding]

Are you kidding ?! 30fps vs 60fps is night and day difference...

 

[Nec_V20]

Have any links to share for this "fact"?

What is the point of being inflammatory on an enthusiast graphics card forum?

No need for trolling.

Very simple, it is simple physiology. You can look it up anywhere. I had to know this kind of stuff for my degree in Psychology which I got from Bonn University.

The human eye is just not as good as the graphic hardware is on a single monitor. So the Salescritters and Markedroids have to invent artificial criteria to sell their products.

There was a time when the advances on the graphics front outstripped the hardware's ability to display it but those times have been over for years now.

I don't mind you conning yourself into thinking that 97fps is better than 60fps, or that 60fps is better than 30fps - most folks in the US think The Flintstones is a documentary - but that doesn't make it so.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The only thing that games tax is the posers wanting to post frame-rates that if they were even half the value they were boasting about would be unnoticeable.

Anything above 26fps is indiscernible to the normal human eye that's just a fact. Posting frame-rates of 97 or so is just masturbation.

Very simple, it is simple physiology. You can look it up anywhere. I had to know this kind of stuff for my degree in Psychology which I got from Bonn University.

The human eye is just not as good as the graphic hardware is on a single monitor. So the Salescritters and Markedroids have to invent artificial criteria to sell their products.

There was a time when the advances on the graphics front outstripped the hardware's ability to display it but those times have been over for years now.

I don't mind you conning yourself into thinking that 97fps is better than 60fps, or that 60fps is better than 30fps - most folks in the US think The Flintstones is a documentary - but that doesn't make it so.

http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

 

[Nec_V20]

http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

As I replied before, you must really hate going to the movies. Those 24fps on the screen must be absolute torture for you.

The human eye is just not all that great. The light receptors around the edges of the eye can discern 60fps, but that is about it.

Whack any game up to the maximum resolution and all the other technologies and the reviews say it is "great" at 30fps. So if it is "great" at 30fps when all the bells and whistles are taken into account when reviewing graphics hardware at the very highest levels then 30fps is just as great when the hardware does not include those added enhancements.

So I would really advise you to take your own link to heart before trying to have a go at me.

 

[SirPauly]

Ever been to the movies?

Movies may be moving to 48 frames and beyond!

 

[Lonbjerg]

Movies may be moving to 48 frames and beyond!

Movies have "build-in" motionblur...comparing game FPS to video FPS is....laughable at best

 

[Nec_V20]

Movies may be moving to 48 frames and beyond!

48fps is a format that is being trialed by the film industry. It is not at present extant.

 

[SirPauly]

Movies have "build-in" motionblur...comparing game FPS to video FPS is....laughable at best

Agree, they're different! The key, though even the movie industry is thinking about moving to 48 frames and beyond!

 

[SirPauly]

48fps is a format that is being trialed by the film industry.

Indeed it is!

 

[cmdrdredd]

As I replied before, you must really hate going to the movies. Those 24fps on the screen must be absolute torture for you.

The human eye is just not all that great. The light receptors around the edges of the eye can discern 60fps, but that is about it.

Whack any game up to the maximum resolution and all the other technologies and the reviews say it is "great" at 30fps. So if it is "great" at 30fps when all the bells and whistles are taken into account when reviewing graphics hardware at the very highest levels then 30fps is just as great when the hardware does not include those added enhancements.

So I would really advise you to take your own link to heart before trying to have a go at me.

http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/

So it would seem from this data that 60fps is approaching the upper limits of human perception. But movie frame rate perception is a harder effect to quantify since the images aren't flickering

Then you have resolution. At a screen size of 70feet you need a horizontal resolution of 15120 to match the maximum resolution the human eye can perceive. That means 16k res.

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/