I was just bored and downloaded the newest demo for quake3 and it ran on my p3-700 laptop with a 4mb savage ix pci and it ran it at 41.5 fps. Sure i had to take geometric detail down to low but it still looked good, and was very playable. i still dont get why people need 100 fps, but whatever, 41.5 fps is great for me.
why do people need 100fps?
- Thread starter hans007
- Start date
damnit everyone got to my thought first..."penis envy"
we can see 30 fps so 120 fps isn't better than 40.....
we can see 30 fps so 120 fps isn't better than 40.....
we only see at 30 fps but actually unless your eyes are synced up with the monitor you'll probably notice a slowdown or something at 30 fps..........
i think.......
i think.......
i guess 100fps leaves more room when the fps starts dropping when there are a lot of intensive graphics in first person shooters.
EXACTLY. So when there is too much action on the screen, FPS can drop to 60's and I'll still be OK. However, if you were in 60's to begin with, you'd drop to maybe 20's and that's NOT acceptable.
<< we only see at 30 fps but actually unless your eyes are synced up with the monitor you'll probably notice a slowdown or something at 30 fps..........i think....... >>
hehe don't bring that up again, there was a post in general hardware a while back linking to a long ass article explaining it.
Ok, so let's say that you get 100fps in Q3. That certainly doesn't mean you are going to get 100fps in Giants or B&W.
Yea dont bring that up again, I remember reading the long ass article too,basically said that we see 30fps with image blur, and computers use on and off or something and we dont get image blur, so therefore we can see up to 200 some fps or something of that figure
cuz if we hittin 100+fps right now then its a good chance the newer games will be playable on our current systems and we wont need to upgrade
thats why i do it any
havent got a new vid card in over a year
thats why i do it any
havent got a new vid card in over a year
How do I find out the fps on my new machine?
I'm dying to blow this sucker up and spend another $1000
I'm dying to blow this sucker up and spend another $1000
I play NFS 5 (Porsche Unleashed) on my rig (in sig)
It gots a Matrox G450... and believe it or not, the quality is decent...
It gots a Matrox G450... and believe it or not, the quality is decent...
<< we can see 30 fps so 120 fps isn't better than 40..... >>
Nope, wrong. We see at 24fps. That's why movies played in the theater are 24fps. Television is 30 fps.
Why do you want 120fps instead of 40? Lets see... how many degrees are in a circle? 360. How many frames would it take to render a circle so that your eye could not tell that it was dropping frames? 360.
If you're playing QuakeIII and you're getting 40fps, and you spin around really fast (180degrees in 1 second) to nail the guy behind you, what do you get? Well, you need 180 frames to render the full 180 degrees, but you're only getting 40. So what does that leave you with? It leaves you with your computer rendering 2/9ths (22%) of the number of frames needed to make it look smooth. When you turn, it will look like your computer lagging more and more. It's not lagging. It's just dropping frames that are needed to make it look smooth.
Now... lets say that you're running 120fps. That means, in order to spin around to nail the guy behind you, you'll need 180 frames to render all 180 degrees, right? Well, with 120fps, turning 180 degrees in one second, you only render 66% of the number of frames needed (180). Not bad, but would be better if you had more fps. Is it going to matter at this high? Depends on how fast you're needing to turn around. It's easier on the eyes when you're just running forward or backwards, because the fps needed aren't as high.
And just think... when you're playing QuakeIII and are getting screwed from behind by someone's rocket launcher, are you going to take the full one second to spin around like that? Hell no! You're gonna whip that mouse around as fast as you can. And that's going to take more frames per second to render smoothly.
Get it?
<< Nope, wrong. We see at 24fps. That's why movies played in the theater are 24fps. Television is 30 fps.
Why do you want 120fps instead of 40? Lets see... how many degrees are in a circle? 360. How many frames would it take to render a circle so that your eye could not tell that it was dropping frames? 360.
If you're playing QuakeIII and you're getting 40fps, and you spin around really fast (180degrees in 1 second) to nail the guy behind you, what do you get? Well, you need 180 frames to render the full 180 degrees, but you're only getting 40. So what does that leave you with? It leaves you with your computer rendering 2/9ths (22%) of the number of frames needed to make it look smooth. When you turn, it will look like your computer lagging more and more. It's not lagging. It's just dropping frames that are needed to make it look smooth.
Now... lets say that you're running 120fps. That means, in order to spin around to nail the guy behind you, you'll need 180 frames to render all 180 degrees, right? Well, with 120fps, turning 180 degrees in one second, you only render 66% of the number of frames needed (180). Not bad, but would be better if you had more fps. Is it going to matter at this high? Depends on how fast you're needing to turn around. It's easier on the eyes when you're just running forward or backwards, because the fps needed aren't as high. >>
Actually, the eye can see far more than 24 fps. The only reason movies are so low is that they use motion blur. If it wasn't for the motion blur, movies would appear extremely choppy. As for your 180 degrees argument, it is laughable. I don't know where you came up with that 1 frame per degree argument, but it sounds to me like you pulled it out of your @ss. If you are spinning around extremely quickly, the game doesn't attempt to render every degree. Just like if you are spinning your head really quickly you don't focus on every degree. The reason you may seem to notice a lag when you are spinning around has far more to do with your input devices than frames rendered.
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
<< Nope, wrong. We see at 24fps. That's why movies played in the theater are 24fps. Television is 30 fps.
Why do you want 120fps instead of 40? Lets see... how many degrees are in a circle? 360. How many frames would it take to render a circle so that your eye could not tell that it was dropping frames? 360.
If you're playing QuakeIII and you're getting 40fps, and you spin around really fast (180degrees in 1 second) to nail the guy behind you, what do you get? Well, you need 180 frames to render the full 180 degrees, but you're only getting 40. So what does that leave you with? It leaves you with your computer rendering 2/9ths (22%) of the number of frames needed to make it look smooth. When you turn, it will look like your computer lagging more and more. It's not lagging. It's just dropping frames that are needed to make it look smooth.
Now... lets say that you're running 120fps. That means, in order to spin around to nail the guy behind you, you'll need 180 frames to render all 180 degrees, right? Well, with 120fps, turning 180 degrees in one second, you only render 66% of the number of frames needed (180). Not bad, but would be better if you had more fps. Is it going to matter at this high? Depends on how fast you're needing to turn around. It's easier on the eyes when you're just running forward or backwards, because the fps needed aren't as high.
And just think... when you're playing QuakeIII and are getting screwed from behind by someone's rocket launcher, are you going to take the full one second to spin around like that? Hell no! You're gonna whip that mouse around as fast as you can. And that's going to take more frames per second to render smoothly. >>
There are so freaking many things wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin.
Can someone explain what this "motion blur" crap is? It's certainly not what motion picture projectors use to show a series of images on a screen.....
A motion picture projector stops and starts at 24 fps, showing a single, non-moving picture 24 times a second. Each frame is projected on a screen as an individual picture. The reason humans see this progression of still images as seemless motion is a phenomenon known as persistance of vision, the retina's ability to hold onto an image for a moment after its disappeared.
A motion picture projector stops and starts at 24 fps, showing a single, non-moving picture 24 times a second. Each frame is projected on a screen as an individual picture. The reason humans see this progression of still images as seemless motion is a phenomenon known as persistance of vision, the retina's ability to hold onto an image for a moment after its disappeared.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter