BF2S Forums Tempting gfx cards...

CrazeD wrote:

cospengle wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

really?  isn't it practically just CoD 4 reskinned?  CoD 4 was so smooth.

40FPS is plenty anyway.

FUCK no! 40FPS is jittery and laggy as all hell, completely unplayable.

Not unplayable, @ 20fps and lower we can start talking unplayable, but 20-60 is definately playable and anything above 60 is fluid if you have a 60Hz TFT

Naturn wrote:

Right now my 8800GT is more than enough to play all games.(Except Crysis...)  But, my 2.8Ghz AMD is chocking it.

lol I play crysis on medium-low with my 7900GTO on a E6600 CPU just fine

Last edited by FloppY_ (2008-12-22 02:30:05)

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

HELL NO 20 FPS is not enough for me. I CAN tell the difference if the games is running at 20 or 80 FPS...

Anyone can tell the difference between 20 and 80, what's your point -.-

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

HELL NO 20 FPS is not enough for me. I CAN tell the difference if the games is running at 20 or 80 FPS...

Anyone can tell the difference between 20 and 80, what's your point -.-

that 20 fps is not smooth for me

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Anyone can tell the difference between 20 and 80, what's your point -.-

that 20 fps is not smooth for me

It isn't smooth for anyone -.-

So why say it isn't for you?

hell there is the dude who was playing fallout 3 maxed out with 8600gt or something and complaining how his buddy wan't able to play at high with a 9600gt

ghettoperson wrote:

For all you guys that claim you can see 80fps, you're talking crap. Given that your monitor (well, almost all) has a refresh rate of 60Hz, you won't be able to see anything over that. And movies run at 24fps. I think 30 is perfectly adequate.

try playing lets say... counter-strike at 24fps... the game feels laggy.
you can't see it but it feels slow.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-12-22 09:05:27)

ghettoperson wrote:

For all you guys that claim you can see 80fps, you're talking crap. Given that your monitor (well, almost all) has a refresh rate of 60Hz, you won't be able to see anything over that. And movies run at 24fps. I think 30 is perfectly adequate.

Every time. Every, fucking, time.

Every time an FPS subject emerges, someone has to pull the whole "you can't see that much FPS". Which by the way is incorrect, the human eye can see 80FPS.

Furthermore, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE what your eye can see. The game is hardcoded to only produce a certain amount of visible frames. Notice how the images don't appear faster when the FPS increases.

I can tell you for damn sure that I can tell the difference between 80FPS and 125+FPS. It's very clear.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

for those who think 30fps is enough, be happy and game with your 8800GT...

I have to buy a GT300 for my smoothie frames

Buy me one.

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

for those who think 30fps is enough, be happy and game with your 8800GT...

I have to buy a GT300 for my smoothie frames

Buying Nvidia atm is just dumb.. the ATi cards perform just aswell at half the price...

Not anymore.

GTX260 = <$200 and performs better than the 4870. Two in SLI is cheaper and performs better than a 4870x2.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

for those who think 30fps is enough, be happy and game with your 8800GT...

I have to buy a GT300 for my smoothie frames

Buying Nvidia atm is just dumb.. the ATi cards perform just aswell at half the price...

erhm... no... a XFX Black Edition GTX 260 bests all in its price range atm. hell it best the GTX 280 too.


And I was talking about GTX 3xx

The stock 260 is the same price as the OC'ed 4870 which beats it by a long shot...

CrazeD wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

For all you guys that claim you can see 80fps, you're talking crap. Given that your monitor (well, almost all) has a refresh rate of 60Hz, you won't be able to see anything over that. And movies run at 24fps. I think 30 is perfectly adequate.

Every time. Every, fucking, time.

Every time an FPS subject emerges, someone has to pull the whole "you can't see that much FPS". Which by the way is incorrect, the human eye can see 80FPS.

Furthermore, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE what your eye can see. The game is hardcoded to only produce a certain amount of visible frames. Notice how the images don't appear faster when the FPS increases.

I can tell you for damn sure that I can tell the difference between 80FPS and 125+FPS. It's very clear.

You goddamn sure can not see the difference between 60 fps and 9000 fps on a monitor that has a refresh rate of 60Hz. No matter how many frames your video card can produce, you will simply not see more frames per second than your monitor can display. On a high-refresh-rate monitor this is totally different of course. Picture will look way smoother on a 100Hz+ monitor than on a 60Hz one with same fps, if it's over said refresh rate boundries.

And there is no certain value that human eye can see. It is generally around 100 individual frames per second, but the "blur effect" makes more frames better for the eye. Thus if you have two sources of picture, one producing 100 fps and one 200 fps, the 200 fps one will look better, even that your eye can't make much difference on individual frames. The picture will just appear smoother.

The "movies are 24fps, that's all you need for gaming" -debate, however, is stupid. Games are certainly affected by laggyness at 24 fps.

Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2008-12-22 09:44:12)

CrazeD wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

For all you guys that claim you can see 80fps, you're talking crap. Given that your monitor (well, almost all) has a refresh rate of 60Hz, you won't be able to see anything over that. And movies run at 24fps. I think 30 is perfectly adequate.

Every time. Every, fucking, time.

Every time an FPS subject emerges, someone has to pull the whole "you can't see that much FPS". Which by the way is incorrect, the human eye can see 80FPS.

Furthermore, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE what your eye can see. The game is hardcoded to only produce a certain amount of visible frames. Notice how the images don't appear faster when the FPS increases.

I can tell you for damn sure that I can tell the difference between 80FPS and 125+FPS. It's very clear.

So why then are movies smooth at 24fps? And yes, fair enough about minimum FPS Max, that makes sense. I don't really know a whole bunch about it, I'm just going on a little of what I've heard and common sense. If your monitor can only show 60Hz, logically speaking anything over than is going to be lost. And if you're saying the human eye only registers 80fps (I heard a lot less hence my post) then surely you're not going to see anything above that?
No need to turn this into a bitchfest, but your only evidence appears to be that you claim you can see this. If anyone can add some facts to this it'd be nice.

Sydney wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

You goddamn sure can not see the difference between 60 fps and 9000 fps on a monitor that has a refresh rate of 60Hz. No matter how many frames your video card can produce, you will simply not see more frames per second than your monitor can display.

Not literally see, no. However I can tell the difference in performance.

Same, I can feel the difference between 60, 80 and 100 fps on a 60Hz monitor.

I still say that is mostly placebo, I would like to know how you recognize between them if no one has told you what the fps is locked at.

Keep in mind that this is also game specific. Some games where physics are directly linked to fps, like many quake3 engine games, are best played on certain fps spots (125 is often the best spot) and might seem laggy if the fps is not locked.

FloppY_ wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

The stock 260 is the same price as the OC'ed 4870 which beats it by a long shot...

Well you're right, it was actually the 4870 that was <$200. So they're a little cheaper, but that's for the 512mb versions which perform a lot slower at high res. The GTX260 and 4870 1GB are the same price, but the GTX260 is faster. Look up benchies.

You would have to play in 1920x1200 before the 1Gb 4870 start to outrun the OC'ed 4870

actually no. Crysis for example runs about 10% faster even at 1280x1024 with 1GB VRAM.