Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 703
The monitor doesn't matter. You won't visually see the difference, you will feel it, and have better scores.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
the most practical card @ 1920x 1080
- Thread starter Predicament
- Start date
Then it is your subjective feeling. There is no way to output more than 60 fps information if the monitor is running at 60 Hz, unless you mean when min fps is below 60 you could feel the lag.
Sorry your right it is overclocked, 900/2100. I forget about the overclock sometimes.
Yeah thats another factor not to forget about, most high end monitors arent 120Hz!!, only the cheaper TN panels boast 120Hz. Most will be 60hz so you'll only be seeing upto 60fps on these monitors anyway, in which case is pointless getting a stupidly fast and expensive card that will do well over 60fps if you only have a 60hz capable monitor!
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 703
Again, the monitor does not matter. Your box is connected to the game play, not the monitor to the game. Monitor < Box > Game. And the monitor is not even required to play the game. The box can transmit much more than "60fps of info" to the game play. fps drive the game not Hz. Even if you disconnect the monitor, the game will go on. The monitor only lets you see (monitor) a very small part of what's going on.
Not a "subjective feeling" at all, I maintain as close as possible to 125fps in COD. Default of the game is 91fps. If I play you at 125fps vs your 60fps, I will win, skill and connection being equal. That is not subjective, it is a fact. Literally, I could disconnect my monitor, watch (monitor) the game on my -not even connected to my box- laptop, and still beat you.
The human eye cannot see movement of more than about 60fps, so the 120Hz monitors are used for other reasons. Again though, as above, the monitor's speed has little to nothing to do with MP gaming. You guy's are talking about form (eye candy) over function, when as it applies to MP gaming, function is all that matters. Even a mouse/keyboard that refreshes at 1000Hz will matter, as it is a direct connection to the game, and you can't "see" that either. Even when I blink my eye's or turn my head, the game goes on, and all that matters is how my hardware is interacting with that game.
You guy's clearly are not MP gamers and are all about the eye candy. And that's fine, to each his own. But don't be misleading others with flat out wrong information that hardware over 60fps doesn't matter. You're the ones that join a MP game and accuse the guys like me of hacking because you just can't beleive the things you are 'seeing'. If you want to MP game, steady fps up in the ~125fps range are needed to be able to win. Even a very breif (think millisecond's) explosion that drops your fps down to 60fps is enough to get you killed. If you only SP game and just want to "'watch the show', then yes, 30fps or so is all you need.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,142
- Location
- London
@TropicLightning: so 60 fps should be fine for MP playing?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 703
Really it depends on the game engine, some are more sensitive to fps than others. The COD games like 125fps. Fps are only a part of it too, your connection is important too, in fact I just got off and had a bad connection and was getting owned with my 125fps and all, well not owned but I wasn't winning...lol.
The human eye can see much more than 60fps.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,142
- Location
- London
I think I might just do that.
No, having a high framerate is more about having very responsive controls, quite simply the higher the framerate the smoother the mouse movement becomes.
You don't need a 120hz display to benefit from higher framerates.
Then according to your theory, you don't even need more than 30 fps to play the game. It's the graphics card which is responsible to render the game and output signal to the monitor, while it is the CPU which is responsible to calculate the coordinates/data. A slow (bottlenecking) graphics card wouldn't slow down the calculation of the CPU anyway. Your mouse/keyboard is directly connected to the game thread inside the box, not the graphics card. In other words, if you run Crysis with a GT 210 low end card and an i7 980X@4GHz, your character wouldn't run slower than the others if you keep pressing the "forward" key. You claim that you could anticipate the game without getting high enough fps. So I bet you could defeat me with GT 210 + 980X, is that what you are trying to say?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,223
Lol the op got some arguements about frame rate but i think the best answer is a 6950 2gb. I have a 6870 which handles 1920x1200 fine but i like the idea of 2gb memory for games that eat memory plus the unlock to 6970 shaders.
Yes higher frame rate has a bigger impact in responsiveness most of the time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 5,239
- Location
- London
intresting atricle about human fps perception
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,142
- Location
- London
also I will be running a 27" screen if that makes a difference.
Not even a 580 can handle Crysis? I heartily disagree!!
580 can easily handle crysis, and crysis 2 is going to be less demanding
I think when Crytek said "less demanding", they meant relative to the original Crysis, which needed a monster system to run it well in 2007. Think the min GPU for Crysis 2 is 8800.
You could try to duel me in Crysis. The rules are:
a) Both of us run it at max settings at 1920x1200;
b) You use a single 580;
c) I use a more reasonable spec for max settings, e.g. 2 x 570 SLI or 2 x 6950 CF.