What is your FPS ?

[Noble Rotter]

http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al..._scaling&pg=12

just an example,google will have loads more :)

^ True up to a point. :nod: There is a "threshold" level in procesing power for top end GPU card to really give its full worth. Going below gives diminshing returns in performance. And likewise you need larger screen size for top end cards to really shine otherwise again....diminshing returns (particularly your wallet).

However, not all games are as solely GPU intensive as the likes of NFS: Carbon. Some games place a much higher workload on the CPU, like complex AI and so forth. STALKER is probably a bad example of this. Flight Sim X is a real heavyweight example in both departments....I've seen this game (at high settings) bring an uber quad core system with a 8800 Ultra to its knees. Of course at the opposite end are games like Rome: Total War were the game is primarily CPU intensive and GPUs at the higher end will more or less twiddle their thumbs.

So those benchmarks you've linked to really only demonstrate approximately were the "threshold" level is in relationship to CPU processing power and a top end GPU card's performance, rather than what one might actually expect from other games. Shame they didn't use a broader mix of games or higher resolutions....too one sided (flawed) test in my eyes.

[Oli]

3.5 Billion

[signa]

i would like to see some in game framrates where there is some action ,like artillery going off ect...

I'll have to try that when I get a chance. Fraps can keep a running log of your min/max/average frame rates as you play. maybe someone should come up with a Battle recorder demo we could all run to see an actual comparison.

[jesus]

250FPS
1600x1200
AA Off, dynamic lighting off, shadows off


When I turn on AA I get about 130-150FPS

I like to run at high framerates, makes it easier to maneuver choppers / tv missiles.

lol...

[CreativePL]

signature- all on low and geometry, textures on medium, 1280x1024 and average fps 26, when is some fight with a lot of nades and player it goes down to 18fps ;/

[waaah_wah]

lol...

Lol indeed. AFAIK the human eye doesnt recognise more than 60 fps

[thissitesucks]

250FPS
1600x1200
AA Off, dynamic lighting off, shadows off


When I turn on AA I get about 130-150FPS

I like to run at high framerates, makes it easier to maneuver choppers / tv missiles.

can u post a s/s of you shooting your gun straight at a tree and fraps on so i can ur fps

[signa]

Lol indeed. AFAIK the human eye doesnt recognise more than 60 fps

ah that old argument. Higher FPS in some games do give you an advantage. Take Quake3 for example, it was found (and mathematically proven) that if you could maintain certain frame rates (125 for example), you could jump farther and reach higher strafe speeds which gave you an advantage in the game.

[#1 LoGoS.^CyN.TV*]

ah that old argument. Higher FPS in some games do give you an advantage. Take Quake3 for example, it was found (and mathematically proven) that if you could maintain certain frame rates (125 for example), you could jump farther and reach higher strafe speeds which gave you an advantage in the game.

Mhmm. The same applies to helicopters. I don't think it looks any different when I fly at 99FPS or 250FPS. That's pretty silly to think that your eyes can tell the difference. However, you can control the vehicle in a more precise manner when the screen is renderering 250 images in a second rather than 100. You might think it doesn't make a difference but it does.

Ask my old pilots Saggins or redsand210... they both unlocked their FPS as part of a routine before scrims/matches because they both flew better with it rather than without it.


When you have 1000 hours in a helicopter you can discern the difference.

[=sds=god]

Lol indeed. AFAIK the human eye doesnt recognise more than 60 fps

I thought the naked eye can not realize anything above 20-25 fps. Atleast thats what Nvidia developers 1st said when playing Half-Life.

[#1 LoGoS.^CyN.TV*]

I thought the naked eye can not realize anything above 20-25 fps. Atleast thats what Nvidia developers 1st said when playing Half-Life.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between 20FPS and 60FPS, there's something wrong with your eyes. I can most definitely tell the difference. I can't tell the difference when you get over 100FPS and I don't really know what the exact cutoff is, but 20 - 25 is way too low.

[chaos555]

i get around 5-30 fps

[AllFoamNoBeer]

I believe its 30FPS.

Because most televisions are tuned to 29.98 FPS (PAL that is, no idea about NTSC).

[Noble Rotter]

It's known the human eye can register 220FPS, possible we can see up to 300FPS and higher. USAF did a test where pilots could regonize a plane's silhoette in 1/220th of a second from a series of fast flickering images.

In actuallity the human eye does not have a FPS, we see a continuous stream of data (light) rather than a moving image made up of static images played at high speed.

[Rugerdog]

Yes, but realize that distinguishing a much different image at 220 fps is not the same as telling the difference between 150 and 200 fps on a moving image. At that point it becomes hard to tell as the rendered frames are so similar to each other that it makes no practical difference on the eye. It likely doesn't make much of a difference on control (you control movement the same whether you have 1 or 100 fps, it's just you can see what you are doing better), but the slight difference if there is one may be multiplied by the placebo of having 200+ fps (omg how can I fly without my fps unlocked?).