Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: bad fps in farcry with 9800pro




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    It depends on what you're doing...

    Any refresh rate under 72 will have some flicker, but you still want as high FPS as possible for games. There is no motion blur in games, so the higher the framerate, the more realistic the game is. You do need to find a balance point though. If it means much better image quality, I'll run a game at 30FPS with no complaints. It's different with TV and movies, so people can watch those at 30FPS and 24FPS, respectively, with no complaints.

    Human eyes, however, do not see in frames. No achievable framerate (the monitor's refresh rate is the problem, actually) will ever duplicate light reflecting off of an object. It just becomes incredibly difficult to notice past the 70 in terms of framerate.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    476

    Default

    just run fraps from fraps.com and you'll see

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sunderland, England
    Posts
    529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR
    just run fraps from fraps.com and you'll see
    youll see what?
    the frame rate. hows that going to help establish the difference between 70 and 100 fps?
    <img src="http://gfx.statgfx.com/old/folding.cgi?&username=metallicat666&teamid=33272&t rans=yes&.jpg" alt="www.Statgfx.com" />

  4. #14
    01001101 Guest

    Default

    in all your bickering, no one noticed Eaglee never said what those 'bad fps' numbers where. we could be talking about anything from 10 to 100. Who knows what his definition of 'bad fps' really is.

    Personally, I only condsider it 'bad' when it's under 30fps, but I prefer it to over 70. Imo anything over 100 is a waste. Eaglee, however, could have an entirely different scale. It's entirely possible that he thinks anything under 100 is 'bad'. The point is, this entire thread is pretty pointless until we know what we're are working with.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01001101
    in all your bickering, no one noticed Eaglee never said what those 'bad fps' numbers where. we could be talking about anything from 10 to 100. Who knows what his definition of 'bad fps' really is.

    Personally, I only condsider it 'bad' when it's under 30fps, but I prefer it to over 70. Imo anything over 100 is a waste. Eaglee, however, could have an entirely different scale. It's entirely possible that he thinks anything under 100 is 'bad'. The point is, this entire thread is pretty pointless until we know what we're are working with.
    good point. haven't u noticed the other thread? its a double post. ive no idea why someone decided to post in this thread.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    476

    Default

    hehe.....my bad.........listen, there's some other contributing factors......when i'm considering frame rate, i'm considering response time when i'm gaming..........if 100 gets me over the top in a dogfight great........but, used together with image quality, something has gotta give....... i play all my games in 1600x1200 resolution including far cry.......so, what's important to me is that i have a card that's able to run that resolution with the best frame i can muster.........i can drop al the bells and whistles to get my frame rate going, but, i don't like it...........the new cards out are just the ticket for me..... unreal?.........i pity the foo

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •