• 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.

How future proof would a 7950 be?

Uncle Petey said:
So may I ask why you just went for a 2nd 670? :)
Click to expand...

Yes. Personal reasons. Come May I will no longer be able to afford any luxuries at all so I am doing my best to make this PC last as it will be the last high end gaming rig I ever own.

Sleeping Dogs and Hitman produce worryingly low min FPS (30s) so I am just trying to make sure my system remains current for as long as possible :)
 
Fair enough.
Btw, I know Sleeping Dogs is AMD optimised, but is it really that bad or are you running it on extreme AA? If so, I can barely see much, if any difference compared to high.
 
I'm running it with everything on max mate. Just how it should be when you've spent over £300 on a GPU and expect nothing less.

I haven't had much chance to alter the settings yet. SD is like, poo so I don't play it now* but Hitman seems much more involved and better.

* I can't stand the game. The fighting is constant and you just end up pressing Y to counter. If you don't you die so it's terribly boring and repetitive. The cars handle like a schizo on speed and are completely unrealistic. Shame,as it sure does look pretty :D

Hitman feels far more solid tbh.
 
Aside from the scientific proof that you seem to desire so much for no real reason that I can tell: I can tell the difference above 60 FPS. Up to about 90 FPS then I can tell no difference. I'd be confident I could tell the difference between 45, 60, 75 and 90 pretty consistently.

It doesn't matter that there's no 'scientific' proof - science is only one way of many of proving and not a definitive way of proving something. My eyes are telling me that something at 60 FPS doesn't feel as smooth as 90 FPS and this is without an FPS counter (later verified by checking when it doesn't feel right).

And anyway, buyers remorse would kick in for most people if they'd bought something and could tell no difference and they would send it back.

120 Hz monitor for me of course.
 
I dunno why people keep say ya cant tell the difference between 100fps and 60, you ask any CS player who played up to CS 1.6 and they will tell you otherwise.
 
ALXAndy said:
Prove it. Show me some scientific fact to back up what you are saying. I'm not going to take your word for it, much like I would not have taken the word of some one who claims to have seen Jesus reincarnate.

I want facts if you are going to make such bold statements.

But let me save you some time here. There are no facts and you can't prove it, and I am not taking your word for it.

Discussion over.
Click to expand...

I don't need to, I don't need to prove anything about this. I notice the difference, I feel the difference and responsiveness in it. It's a hell of a lot smoother at 90-100fps than 60-90fps.

Have you used a 120hz monitor / do you have a 120hz monitor?
 
Rusty0611 said:
It doesn't matter that there's no 'scientific' proof
Click to expand...

What tends to annoy me more than the fact people are fooled are statements like that one. Of course it matters, it brings the entire existence of 120 HZ into question !

You'll have to forgive me for not believing you because you know? there is no proof. Of course you're going to say that, you have a 120hz monitor :rolleyes:

It all goes back to the placebo. Scientific research was performed using such techniques to debunk 'miracles'. It was proven that 70% of case studies automatically felt better when going to the doctor *if* the doctor was wearing white medical attire.

As I said, no proof to back up what you are saying exists. However, from my point of view over a century of research data has been put forward and for any one to see over 120FPS you need to be something like 0.000000001% of the world's population.

Now either something very odd is happening in our universe (all of the 0.000000001% are playing PC Games and claiming they can see a difference) or they have been fooled into thinking they can spot the difference.

I would love to take these people to task and could trick them very easily but what's the point? they will just shove their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la". Ignorance is most certainly bliss, especially when it comes to justifying monetary purchases :rolleyes:

I never thought I would meet Super man, but I think I have many times over in the world of PC parts :rolleyes:

I mean really, if it wasn't for the fact that a video will be recorded at 27.6 FPS I would shoot a video of a game being played and then get these people to watch it and tell me how many FPS were being put out at any given time.

If you want to test the simple theory yourself then be my guest. Turn off the counter in the screen and then play a game and guess the FPS. Record with FRAPS - then see just how wrong you have it.
 
Last edited:
As I stated, it's a lot more complicated than that...motion blur, input lag, etc all contribute to how you perceive "smoothness" relative to FPS.
 
Scientific proof? :p
I'm a removal contractor, but i'll tell you one thing. I can tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps (120hz screen) instantly. Besides, the human eye doesn't see in frames per second rather in a constant stream of photons hitting the retina.


The placebo effect is scientifically proven however.
 
gurusan said:
As I stated, it's a lot more complicated than that...motion blur, input lag, etc all contribute to how you perceive "smoothness" relative to FPS.
Click to expand...


+1, if your frame rates get to low it can cause input lag, it may still look smooth but you can tell the difference in the accuracy of hit detection.
 
Trying to argue 60fps is optimal is nonsense. Over the years of playing TF2 I went from playing it on release at around 60fps, I used to do okay nothing special, then I changed cards and always got 60+fps usually around 100 and noticed my scores improved, now running it near enough 300fps at all times and my scores are higher than ever and I don't play the game anywhere near as much as I used to. You may not be able to detect more frames but I definitely think it helps increased reactions.
 
ALXAndy said:
What tends to annoy me more than the fact people are fooled are statements like that one. Of course it matters, it brings the entire existence of 120 HZ into question !
Click to expand...

As I have said, objective scienctific proofing is just one method. To disregard other methods, even ones as simple as people just saying that they can tell the difference is not intellectually acceptable. What would be acceptable would be to place more emphasis on one particular method of proofing and explain why this is so. You can't just flat out disregard peoples own experiences though.

To put it another way and not to wanting to go down the whole religion/science debate but you only need to look at this particular thing to admit that there isn't a clear winner of this debate as neither can completely disproved.

Anyway, you can turn your whole argument around and say where is your proof that these peoples experiences are not valid and that they are just purchase justiftying their 120 Hz monitors and experiencing the placebo effect?

:rolleyes:
 
humbug said:
+1, if your frame rates get to low it can cause input lag, it may still look smooth but you can tell the difference in the accuracy of hit detection.
Click to expand...

If they get too low meaning if they dip below 27.6 FPS.

This is just a clear case of people believing something just because loads of people say it.

If loads of people said that drinking coffee prolonged life then loads of people would start believing it and drinking lots of coffee. The fact remains that there would be no actual scientific proof.

That's how religion took hold, word of mouth. In this day and age you need to go a lot further than just saying something, it needs to be backed up with scientific fact or it isn't fact in any shape or form.

It's a simple cut case really. Word spreads, people believe in it. Then they buy into it and from that moment on it's game over. All common sense goes out of the window because they have spent money on the word of some one else.

Input lag happens because of sudden drops to unacceptable FPS. However, the Xbox 360 is, for most of the time, capped and locked at 30 FPS. I don't see people saying that they can't complete a race on a driving game because of input lag or anything of the sort.

That would (in the word of people posting here) make the Xbox 360 unplayable. Erm, newsflash, millions if not billions of people worldwide have the console and all get along with it fine, even if it does dip below the acceptable FPS range at times (and it does, I've tried one).

Sorry, but as I suspected no proof or evidence has been put forward other than -

I can tell the difference.

Which isn't proof, evidence or fact. All it says is that people are prepared to make themselves look really silly.
 
Rusty0611 said:
As I have said, objective scienctific proofing is just one method. To disregard other methods, even ones as simple as people just saying that they can tell the difference is not intellectually acceptable.
Click to expand...


Yes it is it's completely acceptable. Just like it's completely acceptable for people to say that they don't believe that religion is based on fact. Why? because now we actually have proof that life was started by a particle and not a god.

It's when you allow yourself to be confused by what people say without facts that life becomes confusing. It isn't, it's really simple. Don't believe anything unless it can be proven.

How FPS work in the very essence has been researched and proven. Thus, when some one wants to argue that proof and science on word alone it's utterly ridiculous.
 
ALXAndy said:
Yes it is it's completely acceptable. Just like it's completely acceptable for people to say that they don't believe that religion is based on fact. Why? because now we actually have proof that life was started by a particle and not a god.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it's just not acceptable. You can't just factor out peoples own experiences because you don't want to listen to them if you're trying to form a balanced argument.

In the eyes of scientists, yes, but how do you know for certain it wasn't created by 'God'? How are you sure that the conditions re-created by scientists are definitely the same in which 'life' was created? You aren't sure as you weren't there - the science is a theory not definite proof. I'm not even religious in the slightest but it's impossible to disprove as it's always open to the comment of: "ahh but how do you know?"

ALXAndy said:
How FPS work in the very essence has been researched and proven. Thus, when some one wants to argue that proof and science on word alone it's utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Just like the world being flat? Brash example but the point behind it still holds. Nothing is completely certain but can only be proven to a certain degree. You may be right, you may be wrong. I - and many other users who are telling you that perhaps your argument is flawed - would probably be able to distinguish between 60 and 90 FPS quite consistently. How would you explain that? Luck?
 
You can see the difference with a 120Hz screen on the desktop by just moving tabs around quickly. It's quite a bit smoother at 120Hz so your eyes must be seeing it.

Personally in game I could not really tell the difference between 60 and 120Hz. You do gain a lot by turning off V-sync though which does make things smoother.

I have settled for an 1440p IPS screen as I feel the image quality outweighs the minimal differences in smoothness to my eyes anyway.



As for the original question, A 7950 should be future proof for now but who knows whats around the corner. A top end GPU is not top for long but I think at the moment we have hit a bit of a wall with games. The new consoles will help but even these are no more powerful than a current decent spec gaming pc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom