• 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.

AMD vs. NVIDIA - Are they even playing the same game?

Final8y

Final8y

Final8y

Soldato
Joined
7 May 2006
Posts
12,183
Location
London, Ealing
In the GPU world there are many flavors, despite the perception that you either get AMD or NVIDIA. There is Matrox, WildCat/3D Labs, S3, VIA and a few more. But in the end what you hear the most about are NVIDIA and AMD. These two companies are compared back and forth in a game of favorites that would make a selfish 4 year old proud. Still, can you really compare them in equal terms?
Click to expand...

readmore
 
I stopped reading at:

The magic number you are looking for is between 28 and 32 frames per second. This is the number of frames per second that will “fool” the human eye into thinking you are seeing full, fluid motion.
Click to expand...
 
28-30fps is fine for non interactive, motion blurred frames - but completely inadequate for an ideal experience in an interactive, non motion blurred environment - especially on a high resolution widescreen display... indiscriminate motion blurr in interactive environments tends to have undesirable side effects.
 
I've never understood the bickering between ATi and nVidia users, I've personally owned many of both over the years and have rarely seen much difference..

There are screenshots in certain reviews where the AA or ANSF looks better on one than the other, but when you're playing a game I rarely notice the difference as I'm immersed.

Only thing that sways it slightly for me ATi Tray Tools, I love that program - which I had one similar for my nVidia card.
 
gurusan said:
30fps is unplayable for many people, including me.
Click to expand...

unplayable... If you can't play a game at 30FPS, you are either very poor at playing games or have something physically wrong with you. How the hell do you think 360/PS3 owners cope? Hope to god that was sarcasm :o
 
I always laugh at the arguments over framerate :p

It really depends on the game lol. 30fps in some things like tv, films, rts games, games with built in motion blur (ie Crysis) is fine. 30fps in fast moving shooters is awful for the most part!

It varies person to person though :)
 
Around 40-50 is a decent amount for me, I don't notice much difference over that, anything around 30 is just annoying on the eyes.
 
thing is on paper 30fps is enough for a fluid motion, now fluid motion on a pc is a fickle thing, rendering speed vs fps can cause some serious problems. human interaction to a game is so intense/fast paced it throws the this out the wondow, why they still insist its enough is beyond me.
proberbly doesnt come across right but i get what i mean lol!
 
Well its correct on the face of it - but - when you have framerates that low in an interactive scene the illusion is ruined by the noticeable latency (atleast 30ms often closer to 40-50ms) between your interactions and the effect it has on what your seeing - which results in reducing the fluid look and feel... to compensate you need to increase the framerate - typically by double that tho it depends on the person.
 
I find 30 fps fine, as long as its consistent. Variable framerate causes me problems.

I also found I was able to tolerate low (sub 20) framerates in Crysis much more than many other FPSs because of the motion blur.
 
well apart from the .
The magic number you are looking for is between 28 and 32 frames per second. This is the number of frames per second that will “fool” the human eye into thinking you are seeing full, fluid motion.
Click to expand...
issue, that article was quite a good read. not going into to much depth but just enough to give people an idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom