NVIDIA to Name GK110-based Consumer Graphics Card "GeForce Titan"

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by Calin Banc

I can notice frame drops below 57, 58FPS or so. FC 3 at that FPS (30-50FPS), for me, it's a stuttering mess. That shows once more how relative this can be from one person to another.

well again i can crank the aa up and the other setting and get around 20 to 40 and still its smooth as on FC3, and id be more than happy to try and make a vid and run around, the only reason i turn the aa and select ssao is because of heat issues, and thats the only reason im changing my card tbh, and £265 for a Palit GTX 680 4GB JetStream was too good to turn down otherwise id be just as happy with a 7950 or 670, id like the 660ti to if it had a little more bandwidth, but again it not just the hardware in play here, its the games you play too, if you have a card with 2gig of ram you should be fine, and a good fast SSD helps too, with out knowing what your hardware is it hard to say, just remember blu ray is only 24 FPS and the best part it plays smooth, tends to judder when camrea is panning around but best part its smooth as tho a few more FPS here would help out there but im talking 10 FPS more

[Calin Banc]

Don't compare movies with games, they are using different techniques for "render". If you feel it smooth at 20-40FPS good for you, for me it isn't and there is a serious gap between 30FPS and 60FPS, even capped.

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by Calin Banc

Don't compare movies with games, they are using different techniques for "render". If you feel it smooth at 20-40FPS good for you, for me it isn't and there is a serious gap between 30FPS and 60FPS, even capped.

just had another go and maxed it all out, got low 17 high 27 and mostly 20 to 22 FPS, it was just playable but defo not smooth plus Vram almost maxed out too, smooth with no AA and set at SSAO just dont look as nice, but thats i can live with

[WhiteLotus]

Originally Posted by Calin Banc

Don't compare movies with games, they are using different techniques for "render". If you feel it smooth at 20-40FPS good for you, for me it isn't and there is a serious gap between 30FPS and 60FPS, even capped.

Question:

When you watch a film, does it feel "life like" or "suitable to be watched without any issue"?

Because films are played back in 24fps as standard, only more recently you had The Hobbit come out in 48fps - a format you can only watch a select theatres that have the ability to play 48fps films.

And to me, movies look just fine as they are. It is that reason why I always "lol" at people claiming they "need" 50+ fps for good game play.

[Finners]

im firmly in the 60 camp, bf3 and far cry 3 to me are not smooth below 60. each to the own i guess.

I dont think there is a need to be abusive towards other members and TAZ you mock people buying high end cards and have just brought a second hand 680? for £265 + a 560Ti 448. you conveniently missed that second part out

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Question:

When you watch a film, does it feel "life like" or "suitable to be watched without any issue"?

Because films are played back in 24fps as standard, only more recently you had The Hobbit come out in 48fps - a format you can only watch a select theatres that have the ability to play 48fps films.

And to me, movies look just fine as they are. It is that reason why I always "lol" at people claiming they "need" 50+ fps for good game play.

Tbh with you, when at the cinema i cant recall noticing any juddering or flaws, its only in certain scenes on blu ray when the camera pans left to right fast do i see it, could be down to the hardware or the tv, but to be fair, 3D gaming is totally different tho because its much harder to to make a game look fluid, hence the reason you have motion blurring to try and make it more natural, i never look at how high frame rates are, i look at what the lows are cos its minimum frame rates you should worry about

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by Finners

im firmly in the 60 camp, bf3 and far cry 3 to me are not smooth below 60. each to the own i guess.

I dont think there is a need to be abusive towards other members and TAZ you mock people buying high end cards and have just brought a second hand 680? for £265 + a 560Ti 448. you conveniently missed that second part out

Abusive? for not sharing the opinion that 200 FPS equals smooth game play?

Mocking? i was going to get a New AMD 7950 for £250, mostly cos i need more than 1.25GB of ram, not cos i want need more FPS and cos i intend to buy Crysis 3, so what i was mocking as you say, making a point is what i say, and that is if i had a one 680 now never mind two, id not feel the need to sell up to buy the 780, now if thats being abusive or mocking then best ban me now, otherwise im entitled to think your slighty mad for parting with £800 or what ever they will be priced at when you had two 680's already then im guilty as charged, As for QUBIT, pointed out it was just my opinion and not to take it personal but sounds like you cant handle that, but it ok for some to argue the toss over something that is yet to be released, maybe its just me that mad

As for missing out the £265 + a 560Ti 448 maybe you should read the post where i did not forget to mention that, and if you be so kind as to read every post start to finish you would see that this is not about noticing a difference below 60 FPS, but the difference between 100 and 200 FPS being noticeable

[Calin Banc]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Question:

When you watch a film, does it feel "life like" or "suitable to be watched without any issue"?

Because films are played back in 24fps as standard, only more recently you had The Hobbit come out in 48fps - a format you can only watch a select theatres that have the ability to play 48fps films.

And to me, movies look just fine as they are. It is that reason why I always "lol" at people claiming they "need" 50+ fps for good game play.

Like I've said, cameras are using a different approach compared to a video game engine to "render" a movie. I don't know for sure and you'll have to look it up if you want to, but in a movie, the way frames are located during a second, creates some sort of more natural motion blur (they sort of overlap) , which gives the illusion of movement. In a game, those 24FPS are rendered straight in a row without overlapping. Of course, some advanced motion blur technologies in games may help, but they don't really recreate the same illusion - that's way some games like Crysis are smoother at 30FPS while others are not.

A game session filmed and then put on youtube, usually hides stutter, low FPS and frame drops pretty well. As for the 30 vs. 60 fps, take a look at this - http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

I'm sure if I can make a guy play for whole day (even a few hours would be enough) games at a rock solid 60 FPS and then make him play at 25 to 30FPS, it will observe the gap in a second. A friend of mine already did that while we were playing some racing games. The higher you go in FPS, the more life like experience you get.

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by Calin Banc

A game session filmed and then put on youtube, usually hides stutter, low FPS and frame drops pretty well. As for the 30 vs. 60 fps, take a look at this - http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

I'm sure if I can make a guy play for whole day (even a few hours would be enough) games at a rock solid 60 FPS and then make him play at 25 to 30FPS, it will observe the gap in a second. A friend of mine already did that while we were playing some racing games. The higher you go in FPS, the more life like experience you get.

Good example, i think thats why in FC3 i can get away with lower FPS compared to BF3 because most of the time the action is slow, where in BF3 there is a lot more going on, but as have said above 60 FPS is the sweet spot, but after that i really dont see anything as obvious as in the link you put on here

[Calin Banc]

You'll probably need a 120hz monitor for that.

[Slizzo]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Question:

When you watch a film, does it feel "life like" or "suitable to be watched without any issue"?

Because films are played back in 24fps as standard, only more recently you had The Hobbit come out in 48fps - a format you can only watch a select theatres that have the ability to play 48fps films.

And to me, movies look just fine as they are. It is that reason why I always "lol" at people claiming they "need" 50+ fps for good game play.

Originally Posted by TAZ007

just had another go and maxed it all out, got low 17 high 27 and mostly 20 to 22 FPS, it was just playable but defo not smooth plus Vram almost maxed out too, smooth with no AA and set at SSAO just dont look as nice, but thats i can live with

FFS, it's been mentioned here before but film 24fps CANNOT be directly compared to video (and PC) games' framerates. Films use technologies such as motion blur and other tricks to make the 24fps seem smooth. I hate motion blur in games so I turn it off; that may be a reason why you think that 20-30FPS is smooth in a game if you have it on.

If my game is not running at 60FPS or more, I notice a very negative impact on my gaming experience. It jolts you out of the world that you're trying to be immersed in.




Also, realize that low framerates have an impact on not only the visual experience of a game, it can also have negative impacts on the control you have in the game. Mouse inputs and keyboard inputs can be slow/not smooth when your framerate dips.


EDIT: I also want to add, if you watch a film before they add all the post processing to make the film appear smooth, you'll see what I'm speaking of. It will look like you're watching a colorful flipbook, for lack of a better term.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Slizzo

FFS, it's been mentioned here before but film 24fps CANNOT be directly compared to video (and PC) games' framerates. Films use technologies such as motion blur and other tricks to make the 24fps seem smooth. I hate motion blur in games so I turn it off; that may be a reason why you think that 20-30FPS is smooth in a game if you have it on.

If my game is not running at 60FPS or more, I notice a very negative impact on my gaming experience. It jolts you out of the world that you're trying to be immersed in.

Also, realize that low framerates have an impact on not only the visual experience of a game, it can also have negative impacts on the control you have in the game. Mouse inputs and keyboard inputs can be slow/not smooth when your framerate dips.

Very well said.

I'm considering writing a forum post or editorial about frame rate (low to the very high) judder, motion blur etc as there's a lot of misconceptions about this and I want people to understand the subject.

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by Slizzo

If my game is not running at 60FPS or more, I notice a very negative impact on my gaming experience. It jolts you out of the world that you're trying to be immersed in

Also, realize that low frame rates have an impact on not only the visual experience of a game, it can also have negative impacts on the control you have in the game. Mouse inputs and keyboard inputs can be slow/not smooth when your framerate dips.

I agree with you, and im not saying any different, what i do not agree with is that you can see a difference between 100 fps and 200 FPS, below 60 FPS yes, but in some games you can get away with it as i can in FC3 im getting 40 to 60 and its perfectly playable, 17 to 40 tho it is not so playable, like you said it much harder to control, not so bad visually tho

[TSX420J]

In my opinion; I'd like to have the best possible setup, that way I don't have to upgrade for a few years. Although it would be cool to see games that are so realistic that they would utilize the power of these new cards. Kind of like when Crysis came out, except I don't want a game to shit on my ultra powerful card and then piss on it too like Crysis did.

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by qubit

Very well said.

I'm considering writing a forum post or editorial about frame rate (low to the very high) judder, motion blur etc as there's a lot of misconceptions about this and I want people to understand the subject.

well might save you some time but seeing is believing, and i trust my eyes, the thing is without having something side by side its going to be very hard to convince people with words, never mind prove, and even then they might not see what you see, same with music, some cant tell the difference between mp3 file and FLAC, even when play through ipod vrs cowan with ipod head phone vrs sennheizer's its just the way of the world, some cant see the wood through the trees and that me when it comes to 60 fps or more

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by TSX420J

In my opinion; I'd like to have the best possible setup, that way I don't have to upgrade for a few years. Although it would be cool to see games that are so realistic that they would utilize the power of these new cards. Kind of like when Crysis came out, except I don't want a game to shit on my ultra powerful card and then piss on it too like Crysis did.

i know what ur saying mate, think Crysis 3 going to be like that BF3 was what force me to change from 775 platform to 1155, but i did not do my research on the 1GB vrs 2GB cards, so had to adjust on the i candy to get decent FPS

I think that Nvida and AMD and game makers are all in cahoots with each other in order to get our money from us

[TSX420J]

Originally Posted by TAZ007

BF3 was what force me to change from 775 platform to 1155

Me too! That and my mobo finally crapping out on me. Ended up parting out my computer about a year ago. Been without a desktop for a year (waiting to see what happens with hardware). Just put together my new desktop a few weeks ago and now I'm just waiting on the video card to come out. Cant wait to play BF3 again (was playing on the old setup but it couldn't handle BF3 too good).

Originally Posted by TAZ007

I think that Nvida and AMD and game makers are all in cahoots with each other in order to get our money from us

Lol, its a conspiracy. I swear man, these companies love taking our money over and over. Look at 4k TVs, there isn't any media to support it and people are already anxious to buy them for $$,$$$.$$ to watch 30 second 4K clips. LOL we're being brainwashed.

[TAZ007]

Originally Posted by TSX420J

Me too! That and my mobo finally crapping out on me. Ended up parting out my computer about a year ago. Been without a desktop for a year (waiting to see what happens with hardware). Just put together my new desktop a few weeks ago and now I'm just waiting on the video card to come out. Cant wait to play BF3 again (was playing on the old setup but it couldn't handle BF3 too good).

well i had time out too after BF2 all the hacker kinda got me down tbh, and lost touch with what was going on in the pc world, so got back into it a few weeks after BF3 came out, bought is and my duo core and 4850 could just about play it on low everything but it was pants tbh, so i got the 560ti and that made no difference at all, so changed to a Quad core and that made a really big difference, more so than changing from quad to i5 2500k to be honest, but all in all im happy as now, like you i buy with the hope that it will last years rather than months, il be quite gutted if Crysis is to much for the 680 4GB, i dont play that many game tbh, plus i suck at them lol, i shud have stuck with pacman

Originally Posted by TSX420J

Lol, its a conspiracy. I swear man, these companies love taking our money over and over. Look at 4k TVs, there isn't any media to support it and people are already anxious to buy them for $$,$$$.$$ to watch 30 second 4K clips. LOL we're being brainwashed.

Yep i know, and thats what im getting at with people wanting to sell up there 680's in order to get the 780, whilst i dont get why im glad they do, cos it drives the price down for the rest of us that sit and wait, plus flood the market with second hand bargains, Nvida well over priced but people are happy to pay for it, but at the moment AMD driver have come good, and now they on par with the 680/70/60 on nearl every game including BF3 where there was a big gap in FPS making the 7950/70 with up to five free on some making it a great buy, tho they was price on release date, cos they know some will pay it

[qubit]

Originally Posted by TAZ007

well might save you some time but seeing is believing, and i trust my eyes, the thing is without having something side by side its going to be very hard to convince people with words, never mind prove, and even then they might not see what you see, same with music, some cant tell the difference between mp3 file and FLAC, even when play through ipod vrs cowan with ipod head phone vrs sennheizer's its just the way of the world, some cant see the wood through the trees and that me when it comes to 60 fps or more

Yeah, people may not see or understand these things sometimes and that's a shame. However, this article or forum post will be drawn from my own experiences, knowledge and general reading about the subject and I know it quite well (not bragging). I do this, because I want to educate people, not score points as some mistakenly think. Unfortunately, one sometimes tends to get flamed for putting good info out there, but that's never stopped me...

I want to stress that I'm not pointing fingers here at anyone in particular, it's just what I've generally experienced when writing articles like this.

I've got so much on nowadays, that I don't know if I'll get round to it any time soon, so best not to hold your breath!

[sergionography]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Question:

When you watch a film, does it feel "life like" or "suitable to be watched without any issue"?

Because films are played back in 24fps as standard, only more recently you had The Hobbit come out in 48fps - a format you can only watch a select theatres that have the ability to play 48fps films.

And to me, movies look just fine as they are. It is that reason why I always "lol" at people claiming they "need" 50+ fps for good game play.

yes that's because filming is consistent fps and includes no interactivity. 3d gaming renders different, techreport explains the in the second theory were the gpu might be stuttering for half a second then pump all 60frames in the second half, the reading will say 60fps but for the viewer that's a half a second lag which in a first person shooter that can be the game changer. And this is why consoles are much better optimized its because developers pay very close attention to optimize the hardware not only for peak or average fps but for consistent rendering because that burst of 60 frames in the second half of the second can be filling up all the memory buffers for no practical reason and causing inefficiencies, even amd mentioned they're still working on fully optimizing the memory on GCn for best efficiency.

[Calin Banc]

The console world is not a perfect one, there are still moments when the FPS drops and stutters. It only feels much better when it's at a constant 30FPS, which you can manually set on PC also.

As an example, without a cap at 59FPS, BF 3 is not that smooth even though it hits 70 or 90FPS. Once I set the limitation in place, all is good. At least on the PC, if a setting gives you trouble, it can be left out and after a while, with a new hardware, it can be used and by that, the game has a new life. On a console, it would be left out from the start.

[Prima.Vera]

Exactly my point. Almost all of the latest games on consoles are capped at 30fps and nobody is complaining. I think people are just getting to depended on numbers and stupid FRAPS.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Exactly my point. Almost all of the latest games on consoles are capped at 30fps

That's really rubbish - laggy and juddery all the way. I'm glad I don't have a console.

I game at 120Hz with LightBoost on and it's awesome. Yes, the difference is highly visible.

[Calin Banc]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Exactly my point. Almost all of the latest games on consoles are capped at 30fps and nobody is complaining. I think people are just getting to depended on numbers and stupid FRAPS.

Yeah and some never complained about DVD quality, or HD quality or... Just because some gamers out there are fine with a low quality product, it doesn't mean it's good enough for everyone. Or that value of 30 can't be significantly improved and with it, the end user's experience.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by qubit

That's really rubbish - laggy and juddery all the way. I'm glad I don't have a console.

I played Crysis as a FPS and NFS Hot Pursuit as a race game, and both looked OK and very playable even if they were capped at 30fps. I have no issues either, so I think people are overreacting and exaggerating with this FPS crap discussion...