At how much fps would you consider the game being unplayable?

[Rupertvdb]

anything that actually makes the game jerk is useless for me i just get frustrated. Any framerate that means the game is playable is enough for me, then again i'm on a p3 550 300 meg ram and a geforce 2. Just getting stuff to run gets me off.

 

[Organizer]

What's the difference between the 800 Pro and 800 XT?

 

[sharp]

What's the difference between the 800 Pro and 800 XT?

:x

google it!

 

[Jack_Karverboy]

I saw some benchmark the Geforce fx 5900 got like 50 fps average! :cheers:

 

[Axyon]

Bah! you kids are spoiled.. I remember the old days when the early 3D games would chug along at 2fps if you were lucky.. And you know what, they were like the most popular games too. Nobody really minded.

You know, if you turn down your x2462497 AA and use a smaller resolution, all the modern games play brilliantly.. You can't even tell the difference at such high resolutions and high AA settings anyway. It's just showing off to yourself (since nobody else cares)

You should all go have a game of Driller on a spectrum sometime, you'll appreciate anything above 10fps then

This would only come from someone who has a 9600XT and is worried about their HL2 performance

What's the difference between the 800 Pro and 800 XT?

The XT has 4 more pipelines than the Pro, plus higher memory and core clocks - 475 core/900 memory for the Pro and 520 core/1120 memory for the XT.

 

[The Dark Elf]

This would only come from someone who has a 9600XT and is worried about their HL2 performance

You still trying to convince yourself you NEED a 800xt eh?

 

[Axyon]

You still trying to convince yourself you NEED a 800xt eh?

I convinced myself a long time ago mate, I don't enjoy slideshows

 

[Kangy]

I'd be okay as low as 25fps. The eye can't even register anything above 30fps, so I don't see the point in crying because you're "only getting 30".

 

[Crusader]

9600XT will give fine frame-rates in HL2, so I hope that's not all you bought your 9800XT for

*runs away*

 

[Axyon]

I'd be okay as low as 25fps. The eye can't even register anything above 30fps, so I don't see the point in crying because you're "only getting 30".

Wrong. The eye can register way, way higher than 30 FPS... it's closer to 200.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I convinced myself a long time ago mate, I don't enjoy slideshows

Oh jesus not this again ;(

My 9800SE will be fine in HL2..

 

[Brian Damage]

I always used to hear that 60 was the upper limit. Is that out of date now?

 

[Kangy]

Probably, with the amount of TV kids watch now-a-days.

 

[Tom.]

Just for the record, PAL television is 25 frames per second, NTSC is 29.97 frames per second, and most cinema is shot at 24 frames per second.

Myself, I'll be happy if I get at least 30fps, but I'm still going to have to spend a couple of hundred quid to get there.

 

[Crusader]

Meh.. feel free to read my post on why this comparison can't be made for computer games.

However if you're not interested in why it can't be made, you can take a look at the following lecture on Data Visualization Color by David Thompson of the University of Montana.

http://www.cs.umt.edu/CS/COURSES/CS486/color/color1.html

Here is an excerpt:

"We know from study that humans can not discern still images at a rate of 24 images per second.
However, we can see 10 separate frames per second. So somewhere in between is our physical capacity of visual information. "

However as I said in an earlier post it is an erroneous concept to measure how fast the eye sees in FPS, and most of the problems with low fps in computer games come more from the fact the computer screen updates at a refresh rate which is higher and out of sync with the displayed frame rate.

 

[Jack_Karverboy]

Anything above 25 fps Im happy!(Ive had lots of horrible computers)

 

[Axyon]

Oh jesus not this again ;(

My 9800SE will be fine in HL2..

Yeah, but not at those high, high resolutions with pilings of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, mmm yeah!

 

[The Dark Elf]

The human eye can see a lot more than 25fps

The only reason you can cope with 25fps on a TV screen is interlace. Montiors are progressive displays not interlace

You "can" get down to 18fps without it being noticed TOO much.. But it doesn't mean you can do the same with a video game.

So just cause TV is 25fps (UK PAL) and 24fps (US NTSC) and 24fps (film) Doesn't mean video games are seen the same, cause they're not.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Yeah, but not at those high, high resolutions with pilings of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, mmm yeah!

You can barely tell the difference at those super high resolutions using AA.. You'd just be crippling yourself for the sake of saying you've got AA running at those resolutions.

AA is simply a way to do the same that very small pixels do. So using both is pointless.

The lower the resolution the more you need AA, the higher the less you need it.

 

[Wildhound]

The human eye can see a lot more than 25fps

The only reason you can cope with 25fps on a TV screen is interlace. Montiors are progressive displays not interlace

You "can" get down to 18fps without it being noticed TOO much.. But it doesn't mean you can do the same with a video game.

So just cause TV is 25fps (UK PAL) and 24fps (US NTSC) and 24fps (film) Doesn't mean video games are seen the same, cause they're not.

Uh huh - he's correct folks.

I personally can see between 120 and 150 fps. For other people it's higher, for some it's lower.

 

[Axyon]

You can barely tell the difference at those super high resolutions using AA.. You'd just be crippling yourself for the sake of saying you've got AA running at those resolutions.

AA is simply a way to do the same that very small pixels do. So using both is pointless.

The lower the resolution the more you need AA, the higher the less you need it.

Higher resolutions may reduce the severity of aliased lines, but it doesn't remove them altogether. That's why I use AA even at high resolutions. At 1280*960/1024 resolution, you can still notice aliased lines even when using 2 samples of AA. 4 samples just about does the job, and 6 is total perfection.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Yeah, but not at those high, high resolutions with pilings of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, mmm yeah!

Actually, it'll be fine at 1280 x 1024 and FSAA

So ner.

 

[Axyon]

Actually, it'll be fine at 1280 x 1024 and FSAA

So ner.

We'll see, we'll see.

 

[Crusader]

Repeat after me:


Erroneous concept....

 

[Gunner]

Uh huh - he's correct folks.

I personally can see between 120 and 150 fps. For other people it's higher, for some it's lower.

Hmmm I seriously doubt you can. Besides on what resolution are you playing that you can have 150 or 120hz refresh rate?

 

[Crusader]

Hmmm I seriously doubt you can. Besides on what resolution are you playing that you can have 150 or 120hz refresh rate?

*Watches with interest*

 

[GhostBoi]

Since when did HL2 become FarCry, I for one beleive that HL2 will be way more optimised than FarCry. Everyone is acting like, Oh, I need a x800 to get 50 fps and 9800 will barely get above 30. Oh well, I guess I'll just see how it goes when the game comes out...

 

[Strifer]

I once played a game in which I only achieved about 0.1 FPS and below. And I goddamn beat that game! So don't give me crap about "anything under 60 FPS is lame" and stuff. If you feel so bad about your comp why don't you just give it to me?

BTW. Remember that peculiar game "Summoner"? Yeah, that's the one I beat with 10 FPS tops. And I had to play isometrically so less things were rendered. :imu:

 

[Crusader]

Yeah, I mean according to the benchmarks, a 9600 PRO got 40-50 fps in full blown DX9 mode, granted the resolution was only 1024*768, but that's what I play on anyway

Even if it has got more demanding since then, that still bodes well for 9600XT users

 

[Mad Dog]

Since when did HL2 become FarCry, I for one beleive that HL2 will be way more optimised than FarCry

I think the point is, if you can run Far Cry smoothly, you probably have no HL2 worries.

 

[Crusader]

I could run Far Cry with everything maxed perfectly

W00t, roll on HL2

 

[adulus]

All you guys are thinking you have to get 30 fps? I'm gonna put it into perpective. Movie quality fps is *24* fps. So there you go.

 

[Sideswiped]

All you guys are thinking you have to get 30 fps? I'm gonna put it into perpective. Movie quality fps is *24* fps. So there you go.

Which is why a number of directs and the like are pushing for digital projectors/films which can project images closer to 60fps. With standard film anything faster than a slow pan shot blurs the frame. This isn't necissarily a bad thing, but it is far from real and can be a pain in the butt in many instances.

BTW I'm hoping for about a 50-60fps sweet spot with my newly bought 9700pro($134 ).

 

[Mad Dog]

All you guys are thinking you have to get 30 fps? I'm gonna put it into perpective. Movie quality fps is *24* fps. So there you go.

Yes, but it's also a 100% constant 24fps. If a movie dipped to below 15 fps off and on throughout the running time it would drive you INSANE.

I could deal with a game at a constant 25 fps, but it's still desirable to get your FPS as close as possible to your monitor's refresh rate. If you think of PC game devs as movie directors, 60 FPS is the Widescreen Director's Cut - what they intended for you to see.

 

[jameth]

All you guys are thinking you have to get 30 fps? I'm gonna put it into perpective. Movie quality fps is *24* fps. So there you go.

I hate, hate hate hate hate hate people who believe this. The reason a movie screen looks smooth is due to being rendered differently (like said before) This is because of motion blur, video games DO NOT use motion blur. This is why people can load up Half-Life and set a max fps of 30 and then 100 and tell there's a massive difference.

The eye can certainly see more then 30fps ffs. (I'm just repeating info here.)

 

[N0N1337H41]

Bah! you kids are spoiled.. I remember the old days when the early 3D games would chug along at 2fps if you were lucky.. And you know what, they were like the most popular games too. Nobody really minded.

I've got a P4 3.0 w/HT, 1gb ram, and a 9800 pro. SWG would bog down to 2-5 fps when in cities. This was completely unacceptable and i cancelled my subscription before my first month was over. Anytime I notice that the screen can't keep up with my mouse movements, i stop playing it. When I had my lesser rig I tried to over look this sometimes, but i'm runnning something that's well above average.

DAMN IT! I started rambling again. Sorry.

 

[Someone]

heh...this is always one of those arguments which will never die. Everyone "knows" the answer one side or the other and opinions rarely change.

For me I'm not interested in all the "whys", although I do think you can't compare movies to games for the reasons many have stated. They just don't work the same.

But, if I have a steady 25-30fps than I can enjoy about any game...of course no game is steady with fps though. So, I would think anything above 50-60+ would be enough to compensate for those peaks and valleys in heavy graphics, or action scenes.

 

[Seppo]

When I used to play Quake 3, I always capped the frame rate at steady 33fps. I didn't notice any lag, it was smooth. But for example Halo needs more than 30fps to look smooth, I don't know why, maybe games are different....duh

 

[mutt]

i am a nice guy so my old stuff i just simply give away to my friends for free because i want them to enjoy games to the way i play them for example i purchased x800 pro and i just gave my friend my old 9800 pro for free plus my 19 monitor too. and i gave a guy at work 512 mem stick and amd 2800+cpu motherboard and all..for free i like to make people happy, what do you guys think

your a very kind and rich person!

 

[Seppo]

Are you serious. I mean, there is a line between being nice and ultimate stupidity