Games that need a specific frame rate at different resolutions...

[EastCoasthandle]

As the title suggested, different games need a specific frame rate at different resolutions in order to enjoy it the way the developer intended. Does having a video card providing higher frame rates then what is needed any real benefit then a video card that provides the recommended frame rate (yes both min and max FPS)? In other words does the game get any faster or smoother then what you noticed before?


It's easy to identify when a particular video card is not playing a game as intended. When you upgrade to a better video card (already have a better CPU and ram) the games plays much better. I'm talking about those times when you buy another video card on impulse when what you already have plays the game at or above what the developer intends.

Let me provide an example:
Lets say Front Line: Fuels of war needs 60 FPS in order to play it as intended at 1920x1200 with all settings enabled or max'd.
If you have a video card that can provide 60 FPS and there are no hitching, hiccups, microstuttering, etc you should conclude that what you have is playing the game well enough, right?
Ok, lets say you buy another video card on a impulse buy. This time that video card provides 70 FPS. Again, no hitching, hiccups, micro-stuttering, etc. Even though fraps says 70 FPS did you gain any additional immersion from it? If the answer is no, IE:
-game did not move any faster
-was not any smother
-etc
then what are you getting out of the purchase beside fraps telling you that you are now at 70 FPS instead of 60 FPS?

In the example above we would see a good case of diminishing returns. But do people know about that if they fall in that category?

 

[Azazel]

i think it does... allot...just feels more fluid...especially in mmorpg and fps games...i think scientist say the human eyes cant distinguish between anything 30fps or higher...but i think that its just bs

 

[mandelore]

i think it does... allot...just feels more fluid...especially in mmorpg and fps games...i think scientist say the human eyes cant distinguish between anything 30fps or higher...but i think that its just bs

I think it was meant to be 60fps, but it was proved wrong.

I can tell the difference in "fluidity" in the frame rates well up into the 70-80 FPS region. My eyes just notice that its much more smooth, where at lower frame rates I almost pick up micro stutter in the frame rate when its around 50-60ish fps

 

[Azazel]

I think it was meant to be 60fps, but it was proved wrong.

I can tell the difference in "fluidity" in the frame rates well up into the 70-80 FPS region. My eyes just notice that its much more smooth, where at lower frame rates I almost pick up micro stutter in the frame rate when its around 50-60ish fps

ah sorry my mistake but yeah what you said

 

[EastCoasthandle]

...

I can tell the difference in "fluidity" in the frame rates well up into the 70-80 FPS region. My eyes just notice that its much more smooth, where at lower frame rates I almost pick up micro stutter in the frame rate when its around 50-60ish fps

I honestly haven't that's why I am asking and provided the example in the OP.

 

[imperialreign]

I think it was meant to be 60fps, but it was proved wrong.

I can tell the difference in "fluidity" in the frame rates well up into the 70-80 FPS region. My eyes just notice that its much more smooth, where at lower frame rates I almost pick up micro stutter in the frame rate when its around 50-60ish fps

same here - but I also think the refresh rate of the monitor has a bit to do with that too. A lot of games don't seem to support the higher refresh rates of a lot of LCD monitors, and perhaps it's just me, but I think sometimes running a higher refresh rate actually lowers average FPS just a bit, too.

For example, I've been playing STALKER recently - I have everything maxed out, and have been running at 1280x800 screen resolution with my monitor set to it's native 75Hz refresh rate. Average FPS is 30-60FPS, but I still notice some skipping and stuttering now and then, especially if you're turning around quickly. If I lower the refresh rate to 60Hz, all that stuttering goes away, but then I start noticing odd looking bands in the display which bugs the crap out of my eyes.

 

[WhiteLotus]

In my opinion yes, some cards do are soley sold as overkill and you do not need a card that boast to play game X at 80 FPS when you can get another for less that can do it 50 FPS with no real difference. Although yes i do also agree that the quality of the picture may be different between the two cards. That is where each comes into their own.

 

[pbmaster]

True some games don't get any better past a certain FPS mark, but higher is always better lol. But on a serious note, I can usually tell if any of my games is lagging even if it's just WoW or something...it just looks funny to me. I didn't spend that much money on my system and it plays everything I ever wanted it to just fine with no lag. That shows that most high end PC parts are just overkill lol

 

[Kreij]

You should not buy a graphics card to get acceptable frame rates on a specific game.
Every game will perform differently depending on the way it is coded. You see this in the difference in benchmarks between NVidia and ATI.

The other reason for not doing this is the games that have not been released yet. If you buy a VC that will give you acceptable FRs on current games, that does not mean that you will get solid gameplay on upcoming games.

You should always buy the best VC that you can afford at the time.
If that is not the latest, bleeding edge card, then you should get your butt to work, make extra money and then buy the latest bleeding edge card.

This is TPU ... There is no such thing as "overkill".
MO GHZ ! MO RAM! MO POWER!

Okay, I'll shut up now.

 

[imperialreign]

You should always buy the best VC that you can afford at the time.
If that is not the latest, bleeding edge card, then you should get your butt to work, make extra money and then buy the latest bleeding edge card.

This is TPU ... There is no such thing as "overkill".
MO GHZ ! MO RAM! MO POWER!

Screw doing more work! Sell the car instead!

 

[department76]

same here - but I also think the refresh rate of the monitor has a bit to do with that too. A lot of games don't seem to support the higher refresh rates of a lot of LCD monitors, and perhaps it's just me, but I think sometimes running a higher refresh rate actually lowers average FPS just a bit, too.

refresh rate? exactly. that's why i run ALL my games with vertical sync on -- i rarely drop below 60fps at 1680x1050 @ 60Hz. i laugh at my friend who plays CAL cs:s and insists on turning down settings so he gets over 100fps but his game looks like crap because of it.

please, for all that don't know, 60Hz refresh requires 60fps, which translates to 16.7ms. so please, if you have a crappy LCD that doesn't respond at least that fast, or game on a connection with extremely low ping, those are all wasted fps. the only difference that there might be is how often the game stutters while your comp loads soemthing ion the background, or w/e

 

[Kreij]

Screw doing more work! Sell the car instead!

LOL .. your poem on this had me laughing like an idiot.

 

[jbunch07]

maybe its just me but i cant really tell a difference in game play on anything much above 55 or 60 fps everything seems the same from then on up, like i see no diff in 70fps and 90fps

 

[pbmaster]

refresh rate? exactly. that's why i run ALL my games with vertical sync on -- i rarely drop below 60fps at 1680x1050 @ 60Hz. i laugh at my friend who plays CAL cs:s and insists on turning down settings so he gets over 100fps but his game looks like crap because of it.

The best part about a PC like mine and most people's on here is that settings can be turned all the way up and still get really high FPS.

 

[jbunch07]

The best part about a PC like mine and most people's on here is that settings can be turned all the way up and still get really high FPS.

 

[imperialreign]

refresh rate? exactly. that's why i run ALL my games with vertical sync on -- i rarely drop below 60fps at 1680x1050 @ 60Hz. i laugh at my friend who plays CAL cs:s and insists on turning down settings so he gets over 100fps but his game looks like crap because of it.

please, for all that don't know, 60Hz refresh requires 60fps, which translates to 16.7ms. so please, if you have a crappy LCD that doesn't respond at least that fast, or game on a connection with extremely low ping, those are all wasted fps. the only difference that there might be is how often the game stutters while your comp loads soemthing ion the background, or w/e

I agree, but some monitors just don't like being below their native refresh ratings. Mine, for instance, is actually a damn fine LCD monitor (even considering it's an eMachines) - 8ms response, great contrast/brightness ratios . . . but it just doesn't like being below 75Hz. It can do 70Hz just fine, but below that I start noticing a lot of display issues.


Unless whatever game your running is actually moving along always faster than your monitors refresh rate, I don't recommend using vsync in most games, especially FPSers because your display FPS changes so quickly and so often, as a lot of the times that'll translate into lagging images as well - unless you feel like enabling triple buffering in your video cards driver software, but that tends to impact performance quite a bit, too.

Now, taking a look at most modern LCDs run refresh rates typically 70Hz and higher, especially the widescreen LCDs . . . how many people can actually game with a FPS rate that's ALWAYS above their monitors refresh rating?

 

[nick_1992]

Cod4 is intended to play at 125fps or 250fps anything else and you can't do some of the special jumps or go to certain places

 

[candle_86]

i think it does... allot...just feels more fluid...especially in mmorpg and fps games...i think scientist say the human eyes cant distinguish between anything 30fps or higher...but i think that its just bs

no they dont, the human eye can detect up to 117 images per second to be excat. The reason movies and TV's running at 30FPS or even games dont is because a blurring happens. Each frame lingers for a few nano seconds and gives the illision of fluid movement and our eyes do the rest. If this effect didnt occur everything would be a super fast slide show. And it has to do with the refrash rate to be excat. The higher the refreash rate the more blurring.

 

[candle_86]

Cod4 is intended to play at 125fps or 250fps anything else and you can't do some of the special jumps or go to certain places

that has nothing to do with FPS, it has to do with talent and skill and also above your refrash rate you notice no diffrence, as your screen only refreashes that often per second, even if your getting 400FPS you are only seeing say 60 frames per second if your using my 22in CRT for example (I love this beast, i paid 60 bucks for it, its an older Sony Trinitron, i just hate picking it up) But you will never see more than your refreash allows you. Also over 117 and your eyes cant see it either.

 

[Black Panther]

Taking Oblivion as an example I do not notice if the framerate is 30 or 60, unless I monitor with fraps.

 

[3870x2]

The HZ is the frequency at which your screen displays frames per second. So if you have 60, you wont see any difference beyond 60fps, 75, and so on. Put your resolution down to where you can get 90+ HZ refresh rate on your desktop, and look how smooth it is. Some people cant see beyond 60FPS, some people can see well beyond 120FPS, in fact in the air force, fighter pilots are required to see atleast at 120FPS, and have unadultered vision.