680 SLI owners + BF3

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:07

I notice when my frame rate plummets from say 120 to 70ish but running flat between 90 and 120 I don't think the human eye is capable of noticing the difference. I can tell a noticeable difference when I do drop under, say 60, but is it enough to detract from the action on screen? No. Do I get more benefit from having the IQ on maximum all the time? Absolutely.

Paying for a 7970 or a 680 or even two of the cards and then not having the IQ on maximum is absolutely ludicrous. But hey, it's your money as they say

p.s. I'm not having a go or anything it's just frustrating to see dodgy information coming out. If you are that bothered about getting 120FPS then fine do it, but it's not going to stop annoying a***holes like me piping up saying it makes no difference - because it just doesn't. As above, stick the IQ on maximum - especially on a card(s) that are built for this situation - and enjoy.

Anyway, back to your original point I still don't think everything is right with your CPU usage. I'd be surprised if an i5 2500k at that clock speed is actually causing a bottleneck. Interested to see if you can lock down the issue.

Skynet5 · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:09

Rusty0611 said:
It's not confusion you idiot - I was simply saying that if you can actually tell the difference between 90 and 120 then you're lying. I have a 120hz monitor as well??

I'm not on about going back to 60hz either am I? 120hz is the pinnacle in my eyes but 120 FRAMES PER SECOND ain't no difference to 90-100. Don't get caught up. Put the settings up and enjoy the IQ.

I'm far from an idiot...I think it is the way you expressed yourself that got us confused.

And yes I can tell the difference between 90 and 120. easily.

No need to get like this. I'm not trying to offend.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:17

lnoton said:
And yes I can tell the difference between 90 and 120. easily.

You can't.

lnoton said:
I'm far from an idiot...I think it is the way you expressed yourself that got us confused.

Yeah sorry not my finest hour

Final8y · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:32

Rusty0611 said:
You can't.

Just because you cant tell the difference that does not mean that others can't and your no better than the people saying that you cant tell the difference past 30fps and that your lying if you say you can.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:45

Oh no, you can definitely tell the difference at 30 - it always made me laugh how people said you couldn't back in the day. But 90 and 120? Definitely not. Comparing the debate about how you can't see the difference at 30 is laughable. It's a completely different context.

p.s. it's *you're* lying not your lying. I don't have a lying so why is it my lying?

OK - now I'm being facetious but you did bring in a stupid argument as well.

Final8y · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:49

Rusty0611 said:
Oh no, you can definitely tell the difference at 30 - it always made me laugh how people said you couldn't back in the day. But 90 and 120? Definitely not. Comparing the debate about how you can't see the difference at 30 is laughable. It's a completely different context.

p.s. it's *you're* lying not your lying. I don't have a lying so why is it my lying?

OK - now I'm being facetious but you did bring in a stupid argument as well.

Your in no position to tell anyone that they cant see the difference and the only fact that is certain is that you cant.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 20:53

You're in no position to have a debate with me about high end gaming performance with grammar like that

I'll stand my ground though - what is perceivable is a drop in FPS. Which will always happen in a fast paced game like BF3.

But in a lab sample, running say 20 side by side instances, with 10 at 90 locked and 10 at 120 locked you would be guessing which is which.

Final8y · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:03

Rusty0611 said:
I'll stand my ground though - what is perceivable is a drop in FPS. Which will always happen in a fast paced game like BF3.

But in a lab sample, running say 20 side by side instances, with 10 at 90 locked and 10 at 120 locked you would be guessing which is which.

You have a link to that lab test that no one could tell the deference ?

You have a right to your opinion but you don't have a right to state it as fact without the professional studies to back it up.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:07

Do you have a link that says that the two guys here can tell the difference between 90 and 120?

Final8y · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:11

Rusty0611 said:
Do you have a link that says that the two guys here can tell the difference between 90 and 120?

I didn't say that they can or that they cant and your bringing it down to a petty juvenile level now so i will bow out.

chipachap · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:23

Rusty0611 said:
You're in no position to have a debate with me about high end gaming performance with grammar like that

I'll stand my ground though - what is perceivable is a drop in FPS. Which will always happen in a fast paced game like BF3.

But in a lab sample, running say 20 side by side instances, with 10 at 90 locked and 10 at 120 locked you would be guessing which is which.

Are you trying to tell me what I can and cannot see? It's easy to see the difference. When you're constantly turning around in circles looking for enemies telling the difference between 90 and 120 gets easy, there's considerably less tearing and 'warping' (which is what I'd call it) at 120, who said I didn't have it on max settings? My point was that even if I OC to bring up my min FPS, usage just decreases instead of an FPS increase.

chaparral · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:24

Rusty0611 said:
Paying for a 7970 or a 680 or even two of the cards and then not having the IQ on maximum is absolutely ludicrous. But hey, it's your money as they say .

Plus i no understand the people that pay out for one or two 7970 or a 680 GPU cards and then play on a crapping TN monitor screen.. :confused:

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:25

It was because it was quite clearly a theoretical statement. Of course that hasn't actually been done. Are you pulling my leg or something? I'm confused now.

chipachap · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:27

chaparral said:
Plus i no understand the people that pay out for one or two 7970 or a 680 GPU cards and then play on a ****ping TN monitor screen..

Playing fast paced FPS on an IPS screen is horrible, makes it feel false and I can see corners of objects on screen ghosting, they're good for RPG games like WoW and such and are too expensive to be feasible to most FPS gamers.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:30

chipachap said:
Are you trying to tell me what I can and cannot see? It's easy to see the difference. When you're constantly turning around in circles looking for enemies telling the difference between 90 and 120 gets easy, there's considerably less tearing and 'warping'

Yes I am. It's your perception. But that's OK - you continue in your pursuit of 120 FPS like it's the Holy Grail and let your IQ suffer. It's your experience after all.

Frame rate deviations.

I mean, I hate to tell you because you are going to be disappointed when/if you do find the Holy Grail that these same phenomenons still exist.

You need to take this journey for your ownself.

10 points if you can tell me where that phrase is from and then I'll stop lecturing you

chaparral · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:30

chipachap said:
Playing fast paced FPS on an IPS screen is horrible, .

It only been the last few years that GPU cards have come that have been fast enough to play the lastest top games at over about 50fps

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:34

chaparral said:
It only been the last few years that GPU cards have come that have been fast enough to play the lastest top games at over about 50fps

And now we need 120 FPS to declare it smooth :rolleyes:

chipachap · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:36

Rusty0611 said:
Yes I am. It's your perception. But that's OK - you continue in your pursuit of 120 FPS like it's the Holy Grail and let your IQ suffer. It's your experience after all.

Frame rate deviations.

I mean, I hate to tell you because you are going to be disappointed when/if you do find the Holy Grail that these same phenomenons still exist.

What are you even talking about anymore? What holy grail and phenomenons?

Since 120 fps in the maximum if I can keep my minimum at 120 fps it eliminates nearly all screen tearing and warping which gives a much better experience than ****py motion blur or having an extra can on the ground in the distance.

It makes the game a lot more realistic than having a few extra objects I won't look at when playing the game. I bought the game to play not to look at the scenery, but maybe you do I don't know, I'd rather have a smoother sharper image.

EDIT: Have you played a game with Crossfire/SLI? 60 fps feels like 30 fps on a single card so 60 fps on Crossfire is far from smooth, it starting to show you don't really know what you're talking about.

bobert50 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:42

Rusty the clown

I'm in agreement with the rest.

Chipachap clearly knows far far more than you but you are too stupid to see this.

Rusty0611 · 6 Apr 2012 at 21:45

Phenomenon = your alleged noticed difference between 90 and 120
Holy grail = 120 FPS

A few extra cans on the floor? What?? Are you really trivialising the increase in IQ to that?

And anyway, why is 120 FPS the maximum? Do you play with vsync on or something!? If so try removing that for a start and you might be half way there. It ain't as bad as it is on 60hz panels but still not ideal for fast paced games...

I'll repeat - buying 2 7970's or 680's and not playing with maximum IQ is incredible. That is the point of these cards. I won't call it stupid or ridiculous but it is verging on crazy.

I've said everything I need to say now anyway. Going to play BF3 with maximum IQ at my paltry 80-90FPS

p.s. I hate the changes to tanks