• 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?

Rroff said:
I stopped reading at:
Click to expand...

Hey, I was more than happy with the 25 fps (or so) average that I got when I played GL Quake on my Nvidia TNT & overclocked celeron 300A! The amount of times I ran the timedemo to get this tweaked up was .. (well, far too many if the truth be told!). I even played all the way through Crysis on my X1900XT and later benched it at less than 30! :) Not fluid, but playable ...

Have we all got spoilt :D
 
It's funny but many people will swear that 30fps is acceptable. Personally I can notice the flickering at a cinema and find it distracting for the first few minutes of the film, before I get used to it. If I can notice it on a pre-recorded medium then obviously it's going to be more apparent in a game with a variable framerate. Personally I don't like it when Team Fortress 2 drops below 60fps and can notice it, though it does vary depending on the game.
 
Gah, theres no one answer and it gets increasingly frustrating seeing people claim there is only one answer.

Different games, different fps, as said Crysis feels infintately smoother at 30fps, than CS:S does, most RTS's you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 20 and 30, let alone 30 and 60 or more. Theres variation in different peoples eyes, you get used to the screen you are using also, someone who only uses a crt at 30hz(obviously with bleeding eyes :p ) will be far more comftable with that screen than someone who uses a 150hz CRT. Likewise give the guy with a crap screen the 150hz monitor, have him use it for a few days then go back to the crap screen and he'll want to kill himself.

Thats why finding a new screen is so difficult based on how other people like it, get used to it, what screen they came from and how long they've had the new screen.

The framerate required is generally in the difference, I think almost anyone can feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps, in the right game and its largely down to how far you move and how much the image needs to change in that time. Motion blur can hide it, in a disgustingly and not surprisingly blur inducing way.
 
TAC4U said:
It's funny but many people will swear that 30fps is acceptable. Personally I can notice the flickering at a cinema and find it distracting for the first few minutes of the film, before I get used to it. If I can notice it on a pre-recorded medium then obviously it's going to be more apparent in a game with a variable framerate. Personally I don't like it when Team Fortress 2 drops below 60fps and can notice it, though it does vary depending on the game.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You'd actually be fine with 30fps for dull moments in shooters, it's when the action starts that you need 60fps (or more). In video you need higher bitrates to maintain the image quality in these scenes, with games you need quicker frame rendering. I've never seen 120fps video or gamed on a 120hz screen so I'll leave that alone for now. ;)
 
elpedro said:
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
Click to expand...

There is nothing physically wrong with me and I'm pretty good at most games apart from racing ones...

And how 360/PS3 owners cope with their crap framerates is beyond me.

I don't see how it's so hard to believe, I know I'm not alone. When people claim they MUST have 250-300 FPS because they are "pro" is when I laugh though.
 
gurusan said:
There is nothing physically wrong with me and I'm pretty good at most games apart from racing ones...

And how 360/PS3 owners cope with their crap framerates is beyond me.

I don't see how it's so hard to believe, I know I'm not alone.
Click to expand...

maybe not, but then there are also hundreds of millions of people who can and do it just fine, arent there?
 
A few people here have said RTS is fine on/around 30FPS.

But I once played the CNC3 demo, which was locked on 30FPS. That was a horrible experience. Felt very sluggish/jerky.
 
Haha, that article is just one long dig at AMD and one long promotion of Nvidia.

All he talks about is how Nvidia does everything so right like how their core is generic and better, how they do TWIBTBP program with developers and how they have GPU physics...

Yet none of that actually matters, all that matter is that ATI produce fast cards for decent prices, all that happens when TWIMTBP gets involved is that the game becomes Nvidia bias, Batman AA was a perfect example of this.

It's developers job to build games, not the GPU manufactueres, the middle ground is DirectX, as long as everyone sticks to that then there's no problem, other than developer incompetence.
 
elpedro said:
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
Click to expand...

360/PS3 have much lower standards that's how they cope, a friend gave me his Xbox360 when he upgraded to an elite and he let me borrow a few games, the worst of which was Stuntman 2, seriously this has to be running at about 10fps in places, control a fast moving car through tight gaps with only 10 frames of reference per second is just incredibly hard.

30fps is playable in the sense that you have basic control over your character and you can generally make it from point A to B, but the experience will often be unpleasant because the gameplay simply isn't smooth enough and dips in 30fps often result in stutter which when badly timed can result in death.

To me 60FPS is an acceptable minimum for relaxed play, to get a constant smooth 60FPS minimum you need about 80-90FPS average, especially if you're running vsync! Competative play is another story, almost all competative gamers will agree that something like 30fps will hinder their ability to play well, a lot are still on CRTs to get refresh rates 100hz+

You can cope with 30fps for relaxed play, but you can also cope on just £50 a week to live off and just eating bread and water, who wants to just cope when we could have something much better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom