• 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?

gregster said:
The human eyes are capable of seeing 300fps and hardcore decent gamers/ace pilots would get close to this.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see

Not an argument I wish to get in but put a game at 40fps, same game at 60 fps, same game at 90 fps, I would feel confident of picking out which was which.
Click to expand...

My uncle who's been in the RAF for the last 20 years is a fighter pilot.
I can recall a conversation we had a few months ago about using the simulator and comparing that to pc flight sims, which lead us onto fighter jet sims.
Apparently the flight simulator system renders at 300fps fps to allow for pilot input. Not sure if it's the same thing really tbh, but thought i'd add it anyway.
 
uksoldierboy said:
My uncle who's been in the RAF for the last 20 years is a fighter pilot.
I can recall a conversation we had a few months ago about using the simulator and comparing that to pc flight sims, which lead us onto fighter jet sims.
Apparently the flight simulator system renders at 300fps fps to allow for pilot input. Not sure if it's the same thing really tbh, but thought i'd add it anyway.
Click to expand...

Very relevant.
 
I'm still waiting for a response for the video i posted :D
Linus can clearly see the difference along with many others that game @120hz regularly. He also done an earlier video asking the same question but with somebody who's never played on a 120hz screen before (they couldn't tell the difference)
 
Apologies for the thread hijack - but along the lines of OP similar post, if i bought a GTX 690 (dual GPU) today how future proof am i with it?
Im mainly a racing gamer (dirt, f1, nfs) and sports (nfl, fifa etc ) gamer with a dell ultrasharp u3011. Looking to play these games on this monitor (for now, 60vs 120 issues aside) at max resolution - 2560 x 1600.
edit: forgot to mention that looking at the possibility of going to 3 monitor setup in future.
 
Last edited:
Abz Hussain said:
Apologies for the thread hijack - but along the lines of OP similar post, if i bought a GTX 690 (dual GPU) today how future proof am i with it?
Im mainly a racing gamer (dirt, f1, nfs) and sports (nfl, fifa etc ) gamer with a dell ultrasharp u3011. Looking to play these games on this monitor (for now, 60vs 120 issues aside) at max resolution - 2560 x 1600.
edit: forgot to mention that looking at the possibility of going to 3 monitor setup in future.
Click to expand...

You will be good for quite a while with a 690 however if you wish to switch to 3 2560*1600, you WILL be VRAM limited and would need to look at higher VRAM cards or turn down settings to get it under the 2GB available (it will probably need to be turned down with 3 monitors to get acceptable frame rates anyway).
 
gregster said:
You will be good for quite a while with a 690 however if you wish to switch to 3 2560*1600, you WILL be VRAM limited and would need to look at higher VRAM cards or turn down settings to get it under the 2GB available (it will probably need to be turned down with 3 monitors to get acceptable frame rates anyway).
Click to expand...

Hi Gregster, thanks for you reply..
if possible, could you guesstimate how long 'a while' would be?
Any yes i do appreciate that if i got to three monitors then i would have to drop my resolution, for 3 monitors i would want minimum 1080 but prefer 1200.
 
Abz Hussain said:
Hi Gregster, thanks for you reply..
if possible, could you guesstimate how long 'a while' would be?
Any yes i do appreciate that if i got to three monitors then i would have to drop my resolution, for 3 monitors i would want minimum 1080 but prefer 1200.
Click to expand...

Hi Abz,

I run 3 monitors (5760*1080) on 2 GTX 680's and it works a treat. As far as guesstimate goes......Pass sorry. 2014 is the next gen console release dates being rumoured and depending on how they are ported over would be my thoughts for an upgrade.

New game engines though will require more grunt, so depends on those really.
 
gregster said:
Hi Abz,

I run 3 monitors (5760*1080) on 2 GTX 680's and it works a treat. As far as guesstimate goes......Pass sorry. 2014 is the next gen console release dates being rumoured and depending on how they are ported over would be my thoughts for an upgrade.

New game engines though will require more grunt, so depends on those really.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate, appreciate you input. im thinking of one now, and then one later on when/if more is required.
just out of curiosity - what monitors are you using, they 60 or 120 lol?
 
MOOGLEYS said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the easiest way and the first thing I noticed when I went 120Hz.

To say you can't see a difference cannot be correct because of this. Grab a window and shake it about on a 120Hz monitor then do the same on a 60Hz....

The other thing is the feel, the whole interaction is smoother.

Why on earth do some top level gamers still use CRT monitors? Because of the refresh rate and more. It doesn't surprise me that ALXAndy hasn't replied but he's derailed a thread for no reason and isn't even correct.

Poor form imo..
 
play something like tribes ascend for a week at 120fps (on a 120hz monitor obviously), and suddenly you'll notice 60 doesn't feel "optimal" anymore. it's still very playable, but particularly fast games like tribes ascend feel very very different at 60. as in, lose-some-accuracy "different".
 
ACEOWNER said:
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.
Click to expand...

300fps you say, even if you have 120hz monitor you not going to see the other 180 frames, so you better just using vsync and get 120fps
 
spain said:
You are joking? Someone who heard it from thier teacher. Better off sticking to user experience because it's a very good counter.
Click to expand...

If I was joking, I would have put one of these ":D" there. I wasn't, so I didn't.

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
Click to expand...

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
 
Last edited:
spain said:
Ok, fair enough. I just read your post and the link you provided and came to the conclusion that you where just on a wind up and taking the ****.
Click to expand...

Having read up on this over the last couple of days (I need to get out more), it is very interesting. It was always a myth that the human eyes could only see at 30fps and later changed to 60 fps.

The test with the pilots confirms that the human eyes have the ability to see at 220fps and higher. Eyes don't actually see in fps but it is all to do with the speed of the Myelinated nerves. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.
 
gregster said:
Having read up on this over the last couple of days (I need to get out more), it is very interesting. It was always a myth that the human eyes could only see at 30fps and later changed to 60 fps.

The test with the pilots confirms that the human eyes have the ability to see at 220fps and higher. Eyes don't actually see in fps but it is all to do with the speed of the Myelinated nerves. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.
Click to expand...

As I stated this has been discussed to death for many years, but like a typical troll ALXAndy just demanded that everyone else present him with research.
 
Last edited:
You are all wrong and right in some ways.

Seeing the difference in FPS has nothign to do with the FPS.

Its the games you play.

Some games u wont notice anything above 30 FPS it depends how well the game is coded.

BF3 and such is so easy to tell the difference as the FPS changes so fast its not solid all the time and thats where you really notice it.

Some games you wont notice it at all its all about the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom