tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post8399770122382104630..comments2023-07-28T03:12:10.304-07:00Comments on PC Gaming Tips: I Can See CXLVI Frames Per Second!heycarnuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02046373294198981949noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post-58089470186921444012011-11-16T06:26:39.758-08:002011-11-16T06:26:39.758-08:00Just found this blog ^Like xD
For myself, a game ...Just found this blog ^Like xD<br /><br />For myself, a game should have at least 60 FPS.<br />Im pretty sure could tell the difference between 50 and 100 FPS. But anything above 100 FPS is total BS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post-20501528692832056342010-04-30T22:32:16.741-07:002010-04-30T22:32:16.741-07:00@Anonymous April 30, 2010 8:57 PM :
From my resear...@Anonymous April 30, 2010 8:57 PM :<br />From my research, for the kind of display technology and interaction of PC games, while 30 consistent frames per second is quite playable, there can be no doubt higher rates result in higher target acquisition success. As far as the rate limitations (refresh rate) of the display device limiting things, that is only partly true. While having a rate of scene change higher than the refresh rate of the display can lead to tearing, it also results in possibly higher average positional 'correctness' of objects displayed.<br />The useful 'maximum' frame rate will depend on the scene characteristics, the interaction characteristics of the game, the person involved, etc. Regardless, the rate at which humans can actually tell a difference in frame rates (vs aliasing/artifacts/etc) is much less than the outlandish numbers often claimed, which itself is much higher than what can actually be effectively used to improve target acquisition (reaction time, neural processes, etc. must be taken into account.)heycarnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02046373294198981949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post-86963443059645043982010-04-30T20:57:41.067-07:002010-04-30T20:57:41.067-07:00I've heard over 30 and you cant tell the diffe...I've heard over 30 and you cant tell the difference, but I seriously think that is too low. I think TV is 30 or something. Could be where that number came from. 300 is ridiculous. The Hz on your monitor is what? 60? 85 on a good one? It can't produce anything higher, so it is wasted anyhow, am I wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post-82865413288044141232010-04-30T00:25:05.318-07:002010-04-30T00:25:05.318-07:00LOL - did you ever see the test where some enginee...LOL - did you ever see the test where some engineers invited over several bigwig audiophiles (I think some were magazine writers) to listen to some high-end cables. Turned out the engineers were switching ins wire COAT HANGERS part of the time. None of the 'Golden Ears' could tell.<br />P.T. Barnum had it right - there's one born every minute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8168690886702336363.post-30684899199062518522010-04-29T08:41:03.117-07:002010-04-29T08:41:03.117-07:00if its over 80 fps im good :)if its over 80 fps im good :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com