how do you define 'exceptable' performance in games

smithy1983

smithy1983

smithy1983

Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
508
there is something that realy does confuse me sometimes on this and on another forums is when people say stuff like 'fear works great with a p4 2.5 512 blah blah blah'

so what do you consider to be exceptable game performance? in frames per second wise iwith you current set ups? and what level of gfx detail do you use?
 
smithy1983 said:
there is something that realy does confuse me sometimes on this and on another forums is when people say stuff like 'fear works great with a p4 2.5 512 blah blah blah'

so what do you consider to be exceptable game performance? in frames per second wise iwith you current set ups? and what level of gfx detail do you use?
Click to expand...

It really depends on the game, but to me anything around 50-60fps is acceptable for a FPS. Though 75fps+ is prefered. For RTS, I find that 20-30fps is acceptable and for RPGs anywhere around 30fps.

I would sacrifice the main graphics quality in the game settings to use AA and AF (a 6800nu is a pretty low performance graphics card. I'm saving up for r600/g80 and a conroe computer ;))
 
1280x1024 @ 50 - 60fps (I run with vsync on with a tft so anything over 60fps is pointless).

I must be able to have at least 2xAA and 4xAF with high quality textures.



Hold up am I a gfx snob? :(
 
I would say ~30 average the minimum, 50-60 preferable, if its over 60 I generally try and put up the graphics options to make it look better.
 
Noxis said:
1280x1024 @ 50 - 60fps (I run with vsync on with a tft so anything over 60fps is pointless).

I must be able to have at least 2xAA and 4xAF with high quality textures.

Hold up am I a gfx snob? :(
Click to expand...

Nah, if i had an XTX, for example, i would be playing at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xHQAF for most of the time. If games couldn't handle that resolution, I would just bump it down to something like 1400x1050, or 1280x960. IMO AF and AA are better than having maxed out ingame graphics settings.
 
Like others have said, depends on the genre

Racing games and FPS should be a constant 60fps+

The one game i still cant play to a satisfactory level of performance on my current rig is the flight sim LOMAC.

even with a 3ghz CPU,2Gb ram, and X850XTPe it still drops to 10-20fps sometimes, and completely ruins the illusion of flying. and this spec is more than DOUBLE the recommended one on the box... :D

Should be round about 2010 that it will be playable at a constant 60fps on a PC...assuming it runs under Vista.. ;)
 
Depends on the game.

If it's a multiplayer FPS, then 75fps is around the minimum I would accept, but preferably higher.

For singleplayer FPS, I find 50fps to be OK although obviously far from ideal. Generally speaking I will tweak my settings to try and get the minimum framerate around this level, which will usually mean about 80fps just running about.

For most other games around 45fps is OK, although strategy/RPG games and stuff like that are OK with lower.
 
I play with the following rig:

A64 3500+ Newcastle (not overclocked)
Asus A8V
2GB Crucial Ballistix
Leadtek 6800GT (again not overclocked)
X-Mystique soundcard
Dell 2405 monitor

The Fell's default res is 1920x1200 and I try to run everything at that res with Vsync on at 60fps.

I only really play first person shooters. Halflife or any Source based game runs at a pretty constant 30fps only drops badly if there is a lot of action going on, even with HDR I get 25-30fps. I find that perfectly playable. Farcry with all the gubbins enabled (64bit stuff) is about the same.

COD2 with DX9 enabled is better than HL2, runs at about 40-50 and thats nice and smooth - in DX7 mode it runs at a constant 60 with no drops :)

running at such a high res I don't really need much AA, I try and have as much AF as possible.

I've not tried FEAR or Q4 but Doom 3 ran without any trouble.

Panzer
 
The fps is more than just a visual thing for me, I can 'Feel' a difference in fps even if the game is running a decent framerate. By that I mean that I can feel the difference between 60FPS and 120FPS. It's to do with how responsive the game feels.

Overall for me it depends on the game, racing and first person shooters I like >60 fps. For RPG, RTS and most other anything above 30 fps is fine for me.

I prefer all the eye candy on in my games though so If I have a favourite game that I can't play in full detail at 1280x1024 at a decent FPS I'll upgrade my card.
 
Last edited:
Well i get 30fps with everything on max with cod 2 and thats ridiculous especially in smoke. IW better get there act together and release this patch.

Anyone know why recommended specs on pcs always need to be higher?

I got counter strike source, and i got X800XT, 3.2Ghz P4, 1Gb 4400 ram and that was still under highest game settings.
 
80-125fps for multiplayer fps (ideally 100fps constant)
60-100fps for single player games

res goes down and eye candy goes off if it cant reach that.

snobbery? no... a high constant fps is needed for smooth gameplay and a responsive mouse.
the snobs play at massive res's with loads of eye candy AA e.t.c and 30-50fps, to anyone that does that.. i hope they enjoy their deaths :D
 
Cooper said:
The one game i still cant play to a satisfactory level of performance on my current rig is the flight sim LOMAC.
Click to expand...

I can play LOMAC at full settings with just one caveat! The only thing I have turned off is the cockpit rear view mirrors. Try it, turn them off and then go flying. You'll be surprised at how many resources they eat up, especially for something that's hardly ever used.
 
I'm used to having a low/mid range system so anything around 20-40fps is good for me, though it does get a bit frustrating when I lower the details right down from 1280x1024 medium/high and gain about 3fps :(

I'd class 40-60fps as perfectly smooth though.
 
stokefan said:
what's the maximum refresh rate the human eye can see?

What ever that is in fps, mine is that, on anything over 800x600.
Click to expand...

Very good articles on the subject here: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html (be sure to read the follow-up article linked at the bottom too).

The bottomline is, nobody really knows what the limit is. But it's certainly well in excess of 200fps for some people. Part of there reason I want a large high end CRT is because they offer more than the 160hz my current monitor does.
 
Fx-Overlord said:
It really depends on the game, but to me anything around 50-60fps is acceptable for a FPS. Though 75fps+ is prefered. For RTS, I find that 20-30fps is acceptable and for RPGs anywhere around 30fps.

I would sacrifice the main graphics quality in the game settings to use AA and AF (a 6800nu is a pretty low performance graphics card. I'm saving up for r600/g80 and a conroe computer ;))
Click to expand...
Same tbh. around 75 the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom