Bokuho wrote..yeps...good point. so half of that will still be in sync with the refresh.
Not to mention most monitors won't show more then 80FPS or so anyway.
-
-
I play in 1280X960 specifically so I get 100Hz for my monitor refresh rate as X1024 only gives me 85.
I COULD run in 1600X1200 but I hate flickers.Comment
-
I actually picked up 10 or 15 fps for some reason, haven't changed any settings on my system.Comment
-
I don't know what you high end guys are talking about with FPS.
Athlon 64 3000+
1gb pc3200 DDR
ATI X800 XT PE
All high, 1600x1200, no AA and it almost always runs like a dream. Maps like assault (why, Cliffe?) and Inferno have lower framereates because they contain a lot of needless polygons just sitting around. But those maps are pretty much all I play cuz they're so good and the FPS are never THAT bad, it's always playable. I can't imagine the guy who said he couldn't run medium 800x600 with that system he had, Source should run flawlessly on those settings on a midrange system.Comment
-
This is a stupid argument, really.
That said, the only part I'll comment on is this: more fps is better no matter what. Until you're pushing well past 200 fps many of us can still tell the difference in framerates, and it does make a difference, even if it's a small one, on how quickly and accurately you can zero in on an enemy and track their movements.
As far as the "your monitor can only do 80 fps" comments, my monitor, which is 6 years old and definitely not the pinnacle of modern technology, will display 800x600 at a 150hz refresh rate. Even if it couldn't, the fps boost beyond what it can display still helps with response times for movement, so long as you're not retarded and don't turn vsync on.
So no, you don't have to have a minimum of 100fps to have an enjoyable playing experience or anything, but if you play at a high level and don't want your computer holding you back in the firefights where your response times matter the most... keeping constant, very high fps is mandatory.Comment
Comment