| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 12:33 Post subject: fps. vga. why.? |
|
 |
I have a question why people buy the most expensive video cards
that giving 1xx fps for every game
if 30 fps is enough (movies playing 30 fps write)
Last edited by 666Lestat666 on Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 12:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HubU
VIP Member
Posts: 11353
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 12:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Because later they will only give 30FPS =)
"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." ~Berthold Auerbach
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 12:43 Post subject: Re: fps. vga. why.? |
|
|
| 666Lestat666 wrote: | I have a question why people buy the most expensive video cards
that giving 1xx fps for every game
if 30 fps is enough (movies playing 30 fps write) |
First of all, movies playing at a certain FPS is only relevant to older equipment, where the bad projection of the image made the time between images make it so it "blurred", take any high-definition modern TV, and you'll start realising that 24-30fps isn't enough for television/cinema either.
Our computer monitors are vastly superior, thus our eyes detect the "gaps", which we experience as lag, and therefore a higher FPS is required.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
fisk no1 can really notice a consistent frame frate of 100 more than one of 80. that really is faster than the eye can react especially in a series of movements. try playing a game like CS and have the frames capped at 70fps and then capped at 100 and then uncapped, there is no change at all. if you drop it down lower though it does change gameplay wise, jumps get longer for instance but that's an engine limitation really. People buy top end cards because they can. I can see the point in shelling out £300 on a new graphics card (if your old one is well past it, not if you want to upgrade from say a x850 to a 7800 now) but i dont see the point in spening another £100 on a different company's version which literally will increase FPS by 10. Because they both have the same structures and features (directx 8 for example) they will both become obsolete at the same time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 13:44 Post subject: |
|
|
I buy expensive cards when I need an update - they last longer in terms of game support
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
for me 60 fps is perfect as i can see perfect fluid motion similiar to what i experience in real life, i dont need 100 fps hence, but 30 isnt enough either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
A video-card running a game at 40 fps will not run it with a constant rate of 40 frames.
Since this FPS is the average it will have some slowdowns and because of those slowdowns it's good to have a high average FPS, as they will become less noticeable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sublime wrote: | | fisk no1 can really notice a consistent frame frate of 100 more than one of 80. that really is faster than the eye can react especially in a series of movements. try playing a game like CS and have the frames capped at 70fps and then capped at 100 and then uncapped, there is no change at all. if you drop it down lower though it does change gameplay wise, jumps get longer for instance but that's an engine limitation really. People buy top end cards because they can. I can see the point in shelling out £300 on a new graphics card (if your old one is well past it, not if you want to upgrade from say a x850 to a 7800 now) but i dont see the point in spening another £100 on a different company's version which literally will increase FPS by 10. Because they both have the same structures and features (directx 8 for example) they will both become obsolete at the same time. |
I don't see how this is relevant to my post, but anyhow.
CS is hardly the most demanding game nowadays.
The reason people need better GFX-cards is because games start pushing more and more polygons.
Getting ~80-100fps is easy with older games, but with newer ones you need more power.
Why is this even worth a discussion?
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 23:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Also, it's pointless to buy a £200 card, which might run the current series of games at lets say 60 FPS as it'll be struggling in a year or so.
It's better to buy a £300 card now, and have it as futureproof as possible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Aug 2005 23:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | Also, it's pointless to buy a £200 card, which might run the current series of games at lets say 60 FPS as it'll be struggling in a year or so.
It's better to buy a £300 card now, and have it as futureproof as possible. |
Yep 
Thats the way i think in terms of cpu's...I once bought some ATI card 64mb, when it was the BEST around...fuckin 2 months later, every company came out with the 128's...and my card dropped from like 250 to around 100 bucks after tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
