FPS, can you tell the difference?

[Helevitia]

I can tell the difference....

[frankymail]

100 FPS

However, I can tell when 32 bits, 2X and 4X AA, double, triple and aniso, geometry complexity, texture resolutions and other "quality" features are enabled or disabled...

[Dr Mordrid]

Biology limits you to sensing about 60-80 fps anyhow, and that's if you have blue eyes. Brown eyes are slower.

If VSYNCH is on then your frame rate won't exceed the monitors refresh rate anyhow, so why bother measuring or worrying about it unless it can't achieve that level.

With VSYNCH off it's liable to tear & artifact. Some gain.

Dr. Mordrid

[Helevitia]

Dr. M,

I don't know about you, but I run vsync off most of the times. The tearing & artifacts are not that noticable. Tell me a time where you stopped a game and said, "wow, that tearing was horrible! and those artifacts! I am enabling vsync again!"? And the main difference with higher frame rates is that you usually get to up your lower frame rates where it really gets bothersome. The smoothness I got form my G400 compared to my Radeon was very noticable. I would get over 150+(I don't remember what settings) in UT with the Radeon, but the low frame rates were so bad that it was actually worse to me than the G400.
My goal wiht the new Parhelia is to have stable frame rates(atleast 60fps as minimum) with all eye candy on. Oh and btw, I know everyone touts that you can't tell the difference between 100 and 200 fps, but I can. My eyes are very sensitive to flicker and refresh rate. I can see flicker on my monitor even at 100Hz. I have not tested too much past that rate. I am not saying that fps is end all be all, but the game is much more enjoyable with a stable, smooth fps. I think that P will be ble to offer me all of the above.

edit: Added the name of the game I was referring to.

Dave

[Reverend Maynard]

I voted 100, but that's not exactly right. I can definitely tell the difference about 50, but anything over 80 or 85 looks the same to me, thats why I always just enable vsynch.

[TdB]

I can tell the difference up to 75 fps(voted 100 fps), when v-sync is off, Im asuming you are talking about a sustained framerate of course.

when v-sync is on, I notice it everytime, the framerate drops below the refreshrate, atleast if refreshrate/2 < 75hz

[Wombat]

Hele,

1. I notice the tearing. Maybe not in MW4, but I can see it in fast FPS games, ever since playing qwtf.

2. I really doubt you can see 100Hz. More likely you're seeing a beat frequency with some other device in the room, such as a flourescent lamp. With my eyes, I can see 70Hz refresh, 72 hurts within minutes, 76 is bearable, and I can look at 85 all day.

3. Even if you have the game running at 200fps, you can only see as fast as your monitor refreshes.

[david-e-lewis]

There are two issues: the refresh rate of the monitor, and the frames per second.

I can still see flickering on the monitor screen when the refresh rate is 75 Hz (must be my blue eyes ). Upwards of 85 Hz, I cannot tell the difference. I keep my 19" monitor at a healthy 100 Hz refresh ...

The frames per second is much more subtle. Earlier today, I posted the following question in Matrox Hardware:

What about if you are playing a game - such as a first-person shooter, and you are rotating on a fixed spot? Let's say that in a game you can rotate 360 degrees in 1/2 second. At 60 fps, this means that there will only be 30 frames for the entire rotation, with each frame offset 12 degrees from the previous frame. In this situation, the picture will look rather jagged while rotating. This is the only case that I know of that a high frame rate (100+ fps) really pays off.

In this situation, the problem with a lower frame rates is that there is no motion blur that simulates what would actually happen, if you quickly spin in one spot.

[Helevitia]

Originally posted by Wombat
Hele,

1. I notice the tearing. Maybe not in MW4, but I can see it in fast FPS games, ever since playing qwtf.

2. I really doubt you can see 100Hz. More likely you're seeing a beat frequency with some other device in the room, such as a flourescent lamp. With my eyes, I can see 70Hz refresh, 72 hurts within minutes, 76 is bearable, and I can look at 85 all day.

3. Even if you have the game running at 200fps, you can only see as fast as your monitor refreshes.

1. I totally agree. I can see tearing, but not to the point where it makes the game not fun. It's just not that noticable. Anyone is welcome to show me where it is so bad that it effects game playing.

2. Honestly, I can see 85Hz right away. I can see the flicker but it is not bothersome. At 100Hz I can notice it but it takes a while. Admittedly, in certain situations I cannot tell. Anything past that is hard to see.

3. hmm, this is where I am always confused. Everythign I've read says that you can see faster than your refresch rate if vsync is off. Is this not a true statement? If I am correct, 200fps is smoother than 100fps. Although it may not make much of a difference(unless the low fps drops considerably).

Dave

[Indiana]

I voted for 50fps, but I with that I mean the mininum framerate, not a stupid average (which doesn't tell anything about smoothness).

Still, if the 160fps in QIII single-mode are achieved using medium detail you HAVE to ask yourself: why use medium detail on a card that is supposed no to lose much performance at HQ settings?! And 55fps in an old engine like QIII (and here only medium detail) might suggest that surround gaming isn't worth it it anything newer....

Or did Matrox only f*ck up the OpenGL driver again??

[Wombat]

Hele:

If your monitor is running at 100Hz, and you're getting 200fps (assuming even distribution)...

v-sync on. When it is time for the monitor to refresh the ENTIRE screen, the video card takes the most recent frame it has complete at the time. So, if Frame 1 is ready when the monitor starts to refresh the screen, then Frame 1 is displayed on the monitor. Even when the video card would have Frame 2 ready, the monitor is only 1/2 way done displaying Frame 1, so the entire screen will have Frame 1. When the screen scan is finished, Frame 3 should be ready, and the cycle repeats, with the monitor using Frame 3.

So: v-sync on would give you Frame 1 on the screen for 1/100th of second, and then Frame 3 for 1/100th of a second. There would be a little bit of time where Frame 3 is being drawn over Frame 1, but that shouldn't be too bad, especially since Frame 1 would be displayed in its entirety during the flyback, and that's what you will register.



Now, with v-sync off:
Frame 1 is ready, so the monitor starts to draw Frame 1. When Frame 2 is ready, it replaces Frame 1 in the blit, and the monitor is told to draw that instead. The two images are basically cut-n-pasted together, and that's how it looks during the flyback: the top half of your screen will be Frame 1, and the bottom half will be Frame 2, and that's the way your brain will likely register it. That's the "tear."

[Marshmallowman]

85fps for me, thats the minimum refresh rate I like to use, anything lower and I notice flickering.
However since my video card ain't cutting edge 75 fps is the target frame rate I try to get for newer games FPS games(detail down).
I always play with vsync on , it reduces tearing and I think it can also help to maitain a consistant minimum frame rate.

[Dr Mordrid]

Just a question born of curiosity;

How many of you who say you can see refreshes >60-85 hz have blue or green eyes?

I ask because the FFF (fusion flicker frequency) for blue and green eyes is higher than for brown eyes at any given brightness level.

Once you get a frame rate >FFF the sequence blurs into smoothness. For interlaced displays this runs 26 fps for brown eyes and 28 fps for blue/green. For a non-interlaced display this doubles to 52 and 56 fps respectively.

I noted brightness because it is a primary factor in the FFF. At lower intensities the FFF is lower than at high intensities. Since most games like Quake, UT etc. spend a lot of time in dungeons and tunnels....

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

I'm a blue-eyed Celt.

Also, I meant to add as another difference between refresh and FPS: Your pupils change to adjust to intensity far faster than your retina and brain handle changes in the make-up of an image.

Monitors refresh because the phosphors dim out in milliseconds. That's what affects your pupils and causes eye-strain. FPS affects different parts of your biology, unless you're running an epilepsy generator.

[Rags]

I have dark brown eyes and I can easily tell the difference between 85 and 100 hz.

Rags