Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 I saw good to 164 fps in Joint ops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUTILATER Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yes, Athlon saw 164 FPS ... His monitor showed him in the corner of the monitor the digits/numbers from his reported FPS from the console command. However his eyes never saw ANY difference from the picture displayed upon the screen above the rate of 56 FPS. (With perfect 10/10 eyesight this is the maximum distinguishable amount the eye can comprehend) His monitor was not able to display any frame rate increase upon the screen above 75 FPS. (This figure is a TOP end LCD's maximum rate, most only do 65. Only a Sony G520 CRT can top that at 120, Normal cheaper Crt's fall back to a max of 75-85) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Back then I had a crt. More in likely so. But samsung has come out with new LCD hideff monitor that will do 150. Alienware has a new parabolic DLP monitor with a 2ms responce time. Its listed in the 2008 CES international computer show post. Edited July 9, 2008 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inimigo~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yes, Athlon saw 164 FPS ... His monitor showed him in the corner of the monitor the digits/numbers from his reported FPS from the console command. However his eyes never saw ANY difference from the picture displayed upon the screen above the rate of 56 FPS. (With perfect 10/10 eyesight this is the maximum distinguishable amount the eye can comprehend) His monitor was not able to display any frame rate increase upon the screen above 75 FPS. (This figure is a TOP end LCD's maximum rate, most only do 65. Only a Sony G520 CRT can top that at 120, Normal cheaper Crt's fall back to a max of 75-85) Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that -as a (mortal) human being- you will not (regardless the monotor, graphics card, application/game) see any difference as from 56 FPS on your screen? If that's so, on what basis do you need to choose your monitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 i would say he is right, it is 50FPS interlaced that is why the USA run 25FPS none interlaced for TV & DVD the UK running 30 FPS NI for TV & DVD (or double this if interlaced), I have alsways said, above 60 FPS is a waist of time. A friend of mine use to run a CRT @ 120 FPS and get Quake scores of 30+ FPS, I said whats the point? he said it ran smoother..... I did not understand. If as a human, I can only see 60 FPS as a super sighted person, why was 120FPS better....... still don't know. viii I looked at tomshardware.com and the 280 (current top range card, not 260) did only 10-15% better in tests with real games that are here today, playable, DX10 & DX9. It may hav a gazillion more transistors and pipes but in reality they add 10-15% real performance. I look because I thought they our classed the cards of today on today's games by 100+% not so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) This is a interesting article on that subject http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm Click the little 100fps to change page at bottom. Edited July 9, 2008 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUTILATER Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Interesting article, However as i previously stated your monitor is only capable of X FPS or refresh rate in Hz as you would know the term. So in fact anything past this point is not displayed as even if V-Sync is on or off the device is not capable of showing the frames as some would have you believe. The human eye can easily distinguish the difference between 25 and 50 FPS as the signals received are able to be transmitted to the brain yet once the frame rate rises you then simply "Perceive" what is happening within the constraints of the media viewed and the limitations of your equipment displaying this media. So one can assume that after a given point in FPS each individual will receive different signals to the mind and a different result will be forthcoming. Watching a simple movie is far easier to compare notes upon where as a fast paced FPS game will have a different perception from the viewer and this is where the argument becomes clouded, as what the equipment drops and also shows upon the screen at any given point in time will be conflicting between all concerned, thus everyone will get a different perception of what they just saw. Throw into the argument packet loss and latency and also type of panel and color representation and on it goes ... However one thing that can not change and stays constant is that your monitor is the overall governing fact to FPS viewed, This is one area you can not argue with and will not make 160 or even 200 FPS stand up as if your refresh rate is only 75Hz .... 75 FPS is the MAX you can get Period ! Now don't confuse response time with refresh rate, 2ms response is the time taken for one pixel to change from a certain color to another color, this alone can be misleading information as well. Some manufactures state GTG or Grey to Grey which is faster than WBW White Black White which should be the governing factor as its going full spectrum to full spectrum. This is how they fudge response times for LCD panels. Another fact is the type of panel 6 bit or 8 bit, the 6 bit or primarily a TFT panel will be faster however it suffers viewing angle and colors available. So just because it says 2ms ...Don't be fooled. Ghosting in a FPS usually is not apparent on any of the newer LCD's today however not all panels are what you perceive and thorough investigation should be done prior to purchase or you may be sorry. Now getting back to the FPS part or the refresh rate in Hz, i currently do not know of any LCD capable of 150Hz maybe someone can produce a link to the said equipment as my knowledge is that LCD's are not capable of this rate. They also are not capable in the mainstream versions of producing "True" color representation or the refresh speed of a CRT. Anyone who owns an LCD who had a quality CRT like a G520 will know the difference, thus not be swanned over by market hype, or fanboi reviews or simple idiotic posting with absolutely no data to back up there claims. LCD panels have come a long way and some are very good at a high price 2k, however you can not beat a CRT for computer game viewing or any high end photo work. SO now i just threw all that mumbo jumbo into the debate about frame rate, adds another perspective to what the individual "Perceives" and what they consider to be a FPS rate that they can distinguish between. So maybe you can see a difference over 60 FPS, Great is all i can say, i do know this that it will not keep you alive in a shooter game any longer but your game play experience may be ... Well "Smoother" or a less distinguishable jerky sense of motion between the blurr or movement between the frame refresh rate of your monitor. This point can come at a very high price and bleeding edge bragging rights can leave your wallet well and truly empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Oh sorry not 150 but 120 Thats HZ not responce. here is the link to the post is 47" Remember New stuff it comming out all the time, What was the top dog isent any more. Face it the old stuff is old and the new stuff beats it and thats that. http://www.legionofspartans.com/forums/ind...?showtopic=1793 In the future= If I post about something new, Im Not gonna argue about it, If you don't beleve me give the freaking MFGER A call and contest them. I will supply you with their phone ######## Have A good day! Edited July 9, 2008 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THS_THEDDLE Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Hi guys. First post here. Good way to start. LOL. We had a post on our forums to check out your post on these cards. We are drooling over them also. I found a good article today at Tom Hardware. I run at 1680 by 1050 with a 22 inch monitor. So it had my size and good perspective. I love Nvidia however for bang for buck and Frames Per Second the 4870 looks interesting. If they come out with the X2 soon Nvidia will have to drop the 280 GTX more. Newegg has a EVGA 280 GTX for $470 after rebate in the US. Anyways I will add fuel to your fire debate. They compare a good number of cards here. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964.html Later. THEDDLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 That's the exact thing I'm saying, look at this page http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon...870,1964-6.html Flight simulator X uses 3D landscape mapping, the 8800 GTX Ultra (over a year old) Why is the 280 not kicking but with all it's toys 4 gazillion pipes etc.... My money is in the wallet. The 280 just does not kick enough arse, Even Crysis, the 280 only rides with the group, where is the kick arse FPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeno~SPARTA~ Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 HI Athlon great info on the FPS and thanks for keeping us up to date with the latest and greatest techno stuff. There will always be those who challenge claims, but through these discussions, I think we end up more enlightened in these matters. So keep the info coming. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) Well I have found that different review sights say different things. One review sight was ran buy a 18 year old kidd, who dident know his @#$# from a hole in the ground. What I suggest that every one do is to look at A few sights like I do and then draw a conclusion from there. When SLI first came out, I built one, and TOMS hardware said that all 6600gt sli cards were the same, and that were all compatible. NOT SO! the BIOS in each vid card is different between different MFGERS. TOMs was wrong! So I look at different sights from now on due to the hole in the ground thing. One sight will say that this card it the best, anouther sight will say this CPU is the best. And some folks can rattle off all the boreing GIGAFLAPERS AND CRAPSNAPPERS @ 1254252x4646 @ 1/1000000 of a second in the dark@ 3 meters wile poking your self in the eye with a sharp stick Is the best. Anyone that gets Sandra soft , and Aqua mark 2006 is a expert now days. And there will be 5 guys there to argue it with you. SO my advice to you my good friends is, Draw your own conclusion and GAME ON! Edited July 10, 2008 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The only part I disagree with is the testing software, all simulated test are just that, they are not real world. All my tests are on proper software (games) that exist now, where I can install on my PC and compare the real world loading ( not a simulated loading). I use 3D mark for kick/ a laugh, I never take it seriously , You want real tests then use real world applications like zip rar, unrar, par, games, applications like photoshop, ray trace renders what ever, but there something fake about silicon programs like 3D mark and the club. viii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts