What determines the FPS??

[-0MEGA-] · 02-25-2008, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil-xxx

ok,looks you are pretty pro on video tec.could you answer me a question puzzling me for long?thx.

I'm not a pro, just someone who knows a fair bit.

What is the question?

evil-xxx · 02-25-2008, 03:38 AM

as we all know the usual freshrate for lcd is 60hz,which means 60 images per second.of course you can switch your crt to 60hz which means the same as lcd.
so the question is,even though the monitor can only show us 60 images per second,why can we feel obviously smooth with the games which got fps higher than 60???

hermeslyre · 02-25-2008, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil-xxx

as we all know the usual freshrate for lcd is 60hz,which means 60 images per second.of course you can switch your crt to 60hz which means the same as lcd.
so the question is,even though the monitor can only show us 60 images per second,why can we feel obviously smooth with the games which got fps higher than 60???

Butt in here, If I may? Your first assessment that VRR equals maximum FPS is correct, with that in mind, how can a game show obvious difference, on a lcd, between 60fps and say 100? It cannot. Could be that people who see the difference are just looking too hard, if you get my meaning.

Average 30fps in a game is fine. Dips are obviously going to happen, unless you're extremely anal, you can get through it, with a minimum of self-inflicted damage. I've not got a top of the line card, so I play games in the 20-25 fps as much as I can, pushing the settings till it hits that. Once you stop letting the disappointment of low frames get to you, you tend to stop noticing those little bumps that happen along the way. My opinion.

evil-xxx · 02-25-2008, 04:49 AM

welcome everyone join discussion lol.
I cant agree with you exactly...have you ever played quake3 or unreal tournament?even my sister can tell the difference between 70+fps and 200fps.in my opinion it is obvious especially in furious game.

hermeslyre · 02-25-2008, 05:33 AM

I've especially heard people citing a very fast game like UT. I agree that UT is fricken fast, and 30fps will not cut it for smooth gameplay.. But this is how I understand the rest; The video card produces a frame and all elements of it are stored in the cards frame buffer, which is to say a non-static portion of memory, capable of holding more than one frame at a time. The monitor requests a new frame on the refresh rate signal, VRR being 60hz, every 16ms. It is pulled from the buffer and uses a rendering mode known as rasterisation to "paint" the image on screen.

All this mumbo jumbo said.. I can't see that's there would be a noticeable difference like stated, unless using a CRT with refresh rates capable of exceeding 100hz. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, Just rambling what I know and think. I've actually spent some time searching for a definitive answer on this, and come up far short. People claim they can see the difference between 100 and 200, no-one argues technically but anthropological restrictions, I can't understand it.

fortyways · 02-25-2008, 09:12 AM

I just turn my settings down. Actually, the only game I play right now is BF2 and I get 70-130 fps in that on medium/low settings and 1440x900. No AA or anything.

I also sometimes turn settings up to high and play at 30fps depending on my mood.

Narzinor · 02-25-2008, 09:13 AM

im fairly sure alot of faster games look much much better with higher framrates than 60 is that when it says 60, its showing you an average FPS. areas with more detail and faster rendering would slow down (even if for half a second) to below 60 and make it look different. rather than an 80 FPS where you have 20 frames average of leeway before it might dip below that noticeable 60 frames. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me

Darkserge · 02-26-2008, 01:09 AM

You wont see different if your FPS gone more than 60 FPS.

30FPS is good.
60FPS is the best.
much way more than 60FPS are you nut?

[-0MEGA-] · 02-26-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil-xxx

welcome everyone join discussion lol.
I cant agree with you exactly...have you ever played quake3 or unreal tournament?even my sister can tell the difference between 70+fps and 200fps.in my opinion it is obvious especially in furious game.

The problem most likely isn't that theres a noticeable difference between 70 and 200FPS, but rather that when you have an average of 70FPS, it often dips down to the 50's and 60's.

You should turn VSYNC on if you want to have a more stable framerate (if your computer can already handle 60+ FPS).

Vizy93 · 02-26-2008, 11:20 PM

Wait, sorry, but r u guys saying NO MATTER WHAT Halo, the 1st once, will never display more than 30 fps.

02-25-2008, 03:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
evil-xxx Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: China Age: 25 Posts: 294	as we all know the usual freshrate for lcd is 60hz,which means 60 images per second.of course you can switch your crt to 60hz which means the same as lcd. so the question is,even though the monitor can only show us 60 images per second,why can we feel obviously smooth with the games which got fps higher than 60??? __________________ GO!Rockets!

02-25-2008, 04:49 AM	#14 (permalink)
evil-xxx Gold Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: China Age: 25 Posts: 294	welcome everyone join discussion lol. I cant agree with you exactly...have you ever played quake3 or unreal tournament?even my sister can tell the difference between 70+fps and 200fps.in my opinion it is obvious especially in furious game. __________________ GO!Rockets!

02-25-2008, 09:13 AM	#17 (permalink)
Narzinor Bronze Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: California for now Age: 19 Posts: 71	im fairly sure alot of faster games look much much better with higher framrates than 60 is that when it says 60, its showing you an average FPS. areas with more detail and faster rendering would slow down (even if for half a second) to below 60 and make it look different. rather than an 80 FPS where you have 20 frames average of leeway before it might dip below that noticeable 60 frames. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me __________________ MY GAMING RIG : PROCCESSOR : Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66Ghz 1333Mhz FSB MOTHERBOARD : FOXCONN P35A Dual PCIe Slot Motherboard setup for Crossfire RAM : Corsair XMS 4gb(2x2gb) DDR2 800 with heat spreaders VIDEO CARD : SAPPHIRE 512mb RADEON HD3870 HARD DRIVE : Seagate Barracuda 250gb SATA drive CASE AND PSU: ULTRA GRID Black Steel Case and ULTRA V-Series 500w Power supply

02-26-2008, 01:09 AM	#18 (permalink)
Darkserge Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 182	You wont see different if your FPS gone more than 60 FPS. 30FPS is good. 60FPS is the best. much way more than 60FPS are you nut? __________________ Mainboard: Intel DG33TL Chipset: Intel G31/G33/G35 Processor: Intel Pentium Dual Core @ 2400 MHz Physical Memory:4x1024MB PC26400 DDR2-SDRAM VideoCard: Radeon HD 4870 Hard Disk: SATA WDC (232GB) DVD-Rom Drive: SONY DVD RW DUR-840A ATA Device Monitor Type: Envision G22LWk-22 inches Operating System: Window Vista (TM) Home Basic DirectX: Version 10.00

02-26-2008, 11:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
Vizy93 Diamond Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The Angels Age: 15 Posts: 3,058	Wait, sorry, but r u guys saying NO MATTER WHAT Halo, the 1st once, will never display more than 30 fps. __________________ Ludacris (On Top Of The World): they say what goes up must come down but i ain't reached my cruising altitude take a look at what i did but can you imagine what I'm about to do the places I'm bout to go and the money im bout to see gave bill gates some binoculars and said look out for me private planes help me travel in peace to four cities in one day and four countries in one week

02-25-2008, 05:33 AM	#15 (permalink)
hermeslyre VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 18 Posts: 4,973	I've especially heard people citing a very fast game like UT. I agree that UT is fricken fast, and 30fps will not cut it for smooth gameplay.. But this is how I understand the rest; The video card produces a frame and all elements of it are stored in the cards frame buffer, which is to say a non-static portion of memory, capable of holding more than one frame at a time. The monitor requests a new frame on the refresh rate signal, VRR being 60hz, every 16ms. It is pulled from the buffer and uses a rendering mode known as rasterisation to "paint" the image on screen. All this mumbo jumbo said.. I can't see that's there would be a noticeable difference like stated, unless using a CRT with refresh rates capable of exceeding 100hz. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, Just rambling what I know and think. I've actually spent some time searching for a definitive answer on this, and come up far short. People claim they can see the difference between 100 and 200, no-one argues technically but anthropological restrictions, I can't understand it.

02-25-2008, 09:12 AM	#16 (permalink)
fortyways banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,134	I just turn my settings down. Actually, the only game I play right now is BF2 and I get 70-130 fps in that on medium/low settings and 1440x900. No AA or anything. I also sometimes turn settings up to high and play at 30fps depending on my mood.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
fps flucuation w/ css	kitmk	Computer Games and Consoles	2	10-04-2006 03:40 PM
Low Fps	1337m4v3rick	Desktop Computers	15	05-10-2006 04:42 PM
fps log	diduknowthat	Video Cards and Monitors	3	12-12-2005 06:58 AM
ATI 9800pro VERY low fps	Anathema	Video Cards and Monitors	9	07-13-2005 10:40 PM
counter-strike fps problems on laptop Help	plowexvii	Computer Games and Consoles	3	05-31-2005 03:21 PM