How many frames per second is enough.. ??

[Dethroy]

I think this thread will ultimately lead nowhere...

The thread is called: How many frames per second is enough.. ??
But there is no definitive answer that can be applied to every single individual. Everybody's own perception will differ.

Having said that, in a perfect world, where power efficiency, hardware constrains and money are absent, unlimited fps would be ideal. So I guess the more the better

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

i assume you mean me.. i dont own any "watt" monitoring software directly as you well know.. i do own software that gives me a pretty good idea of what power is being used.. cpu-z does that..

CPU z is innaccurate in that respect. I will prove it if you like. It merely shows TDP it doesnt show real time power use. ( and yes, i just tested this)


You arent factoring in all the other components in your case.

Guessing is one thing....proof is entirely different thing and the wattmeter on your shelf will demonstrate these facts.

My last post in this thread...i have offered assistance and it seems to have been declined.........i tried.

 

[trog100]

i actually thanked you for your post caps.. didnt you notice.. it provided a simple example of actual power savings when you v-sync your own card down to 60 fps..

so thanks again for doing that.. but honestly i dont need an accurate measure of power savings.. i know in my case that with some higher frame rate games they will be substantial..

i also know with some games like Witcher 3 for example i wont see any power savings at all at.. unless i frame rate limit down to 60 fps..

dont get me wrong here.. most folks play witcher 3 at less than 60 fps.. maybe 60 fps is enough for games like witcher 3.. i think the new tomb raider fits in the same category..

which again does come right back to my how many frame rates are enough..

so far playing mad max my current game.. i can choose anything from say 60 fps up to 160 fps.. i really have tried a wide variety looking for any perceivable difference..

i for sure cant see any between say 100 and 160 i maybe need to keep going lower until i can..

the snag with this "subjectively" thing is trying to figure out exactly what is entirely in the imagination and what is actually for real..

maybe a nice smooth dynamically synced 60 fps is enough for most games and gamers.. f-cked if i know and i am trying to find out.. he he

one conclusion i have come to is.. dynamic syncing g-sync or free sync might have changed the entire ball game..

and dethroy the idea that we all see something different does scare me a bit.. its kind of like saying nothing means f-ck all.. its all in the mind.. i am pretty sure a lot of it is.. but i am hoping that not quite all of it is..

and caps.. as for guessing.. it aint really guessing.. i know that running my pair of overclocked 980 tI cards balls out will pull at least 600 watts from the wall over and in addition to the rest of my system.. i am also pretty sure that running mad max at say 60 fps as opposed to 160 fps is gonna make a huge power usage difference at the wall..

maybe i am being a bit lazy for not measuring exactly what that difference is.. i aint gonna argue that one.. he he

my only attempt at an excuse is that my PC power plug goes into a rats nest of cables hidden under a very low foot high shelf.. the purpose of the low shelf is to hide the rats nest of cables.. i would not be able to see a wattmeter very easily..

trog