Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: sizzle22 on May 25, 2010, 10:56:35 PM
-
Hello, have a question regarding frame rates and the 9800gtx+. Why do they (frame rates) stay at a solid 60 with everything turned up, and then a solid 60 with everything turned down? I'm not complaining about 60fps with all the eye candy on, I'm more or less curious why they do not go higher when its turned down. And if i recall there was an option in video settings to have unlimited rates or lock them at 60 or some other number. not sure if this has something to do with it but as of now that option is no longer there. One last question is 60 a normal rate for this card on AH2 with everything turned up? System is E8500 duo core, EP45UD3P mobo, 4gig of 1066 ram, 9800gtx+ vid card and 550 watt power sup.
-
Technically, no matter how good the video card, you're still limited by the refresh rate of your monitor (which in your case is 60hz... or 60fps).
While it IS possible to turn off v-sync to show a higher number, it is generally not a good idea as your video card will now be putting out a 'faster signal' than your monitor can handle, and this can lead to visual artifacts, tearing, and resource issues... and cause no benefits whatsoever (besides bragging rights as to how fast your video card can really go).
It is good to do from time to time for testing purposes, just to make sure everything is on the up and up.
You can disable v-sync from the video options on the first AH login screen (before you login), provided that v-sync is set to 'application controlled' or 'automatic' in your video card settings.
-
If you were flying on a CRT that could do 85 MHZ you could see 85 fps.
While its nice to know how much overhead you have. As long as you have a solid 60 with everything turned on, be happy.
-
I am happy with it, just curious. and i think my question was answered.... so that being said thank you guys for your input. :salute
-
Keep in mind that the human eye can only see at about 32FPS (though it's sometimes possible to detect skipped frames and missing textures up into the 40s), so upping your FPS isn't really necessary past that point.
-
Keep in mind that the human eye can only see at about 32FPS (though it's sometimes possible to detect skipped frames and missing textures up into the 40s), so upping your FPS isn't really necessary past that point.
Yeah, don't listen to this. It's just wrong.
-
1. Right click on monitor
2. Select Properties
3. Settings tab
4. Select Advanced
5. Select Monitor
6. Select refresh rate
7. tick box "hide modes monitor cannot display"
I get 75 frame on dell monitor (4 year old)
Why would they make displays with refresh rates above 32 frames if it cannot be notice?
-
Thank you zack ill give that a try.
-
Thank you zack ill give that a try.
If you increase your refresh rate on an LCD, you're most likely going to experience degraded image quality and premature death of the monitor.
If you use CRT you should increase the refresh rate to whatever your monitor is rated for, CRT's flicker and strain on the eyes. I get an instant headache looking at a 60hz CRT. LCD screens do not flicker, there is absolutely no need to increase the refresh rate in them.
FYI movie theaters image updates 25fps. Does it seem jerky to you?
-
so monitors with frame rates over 30 are not needed then?
This is not a troll, I have heard this before in regards to the human eye's ability to see a certain frame rate.
So there must be a reason for 75 frame monitors? :old:
-
No of course more frames are better. It doesnt matter what the eye/brain combination can see because when it comes to motion you most certainly CAN see the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames.
-
The question is are you going to notice the difference between 60 fps, and 75? And is it worth pushing your monitor beyond 60 fps to get it?
-
so monitors with frame rates over 30 are not needed then?
This is not a troll, I have heard this before in regards to the human eye's ability to see a certain frame rate.
So there must be a reason for 75 frame monitors? :old:
Because 24 FPS was the what most people found to be acceptable in the early development of the motion picture industry, this myth continues to be propagated.
Motion pictures get away with low FPS because of a relatively low shutter speed, which produces motion blurring. (Ever freeze frame an action shot on your VCR or DVD? The moving areas of the screen are always distorted.)
The brain of the average human can tell the difference up to about a hundred FPS (edit - when viewing a series of computer generated screens where there is no motion blurring), with some people supposedly able to detect up to 200.
Most LCD monitors refresh the screen at 60 hz, no matter how high you set the input frequency.
<S>
-
Yeah, don't listen to this. It's just wrong.
:lol Great counter-argument. Enlighten me, then.
The brain of the average human can tell the difference up to about a hundred FPS (edit - when viewing a series of computer generated screens where there is no motion blurring), with some people supposedly able to detect up to 200.
I must be very below-average, as I can only spot the difference below about 35 FPS unless there are graphical errors such as skipped frames, missing textures on a drawn frame, ect.
-
The technology used in CRT's cause them to need a higher refresh rate not to strain eyes. CRT's essentially draw lines on the tube in a rapid motion. The line is drawn in such a rapid series of 'refreshes' that the brain creates an illusion of a persistent image. The image however is far from persistent in real life as the screen is 'turned off' momentarily after the refresh sweep has passed the spot and the effect is seen as 'flickering' of the image and most people get a lot of eye strain from 60hz or below refreshes on CRT's.
LCD's on the other hand do not go to 'off' state between screen refreshes and therefore the image appears totally stable. However not going to 'off' state leads to problems with moving picture as pixels struggle to change state fast enough for a moving image. The difference in tech does, however, negate the need for fast refreshes on LCD's up to an extent unless shutter glasses and 3D images are used which effectively bring back the old flickering problem.
-
If you increase your refresh rate on an LCD, you're most likely going to experience degraded image quality and premature death of the monitor.
If you use CRT you should increase the refresh rate to whatever your monitor is rated for, CRT's flicker and strain on the eyes. I get an instant headache looking at a 60hz CRT. LCD screens do not flicker, there is absolutely no need to increase the refresh rate in them.
FYI movie theaters image updates 25fps. Does it seem jerky to you?
25fps seem very jerky in any game though.... so i dont see how this has any relation. but your information is appreciated. thank you
-
Thank you to everyone who replied. :salute. all of your input has been good and appreciated. I am happy at 60fps and its very smooth compaired to my old computer set up. i guess this was more of a question of why the cut off at 60. and that was answered. :)
-
You're welcome, sizzle.
I'll just add this... assuming that your brain can't tell the difference between 60fps (60hz) and 120fps (120hz), then what would be the point of using 120hz when the vast majority of movies and shows are filmed at 24fps?
This is why... 60 is not evenly divisible by 24. To convert it over, it has to draw one frame three times, and then the next twice.. then the next three times, and then the next twice.
120, however, IS divisible by 24 so in the conversion it draws five frames... then five frames.. then five frames.. then five frames.. which results in a much 'smoother' picture supposedly.
You'll find most 3D tv's are going to be 240hz... that's 120hz per eye (alternating every frame for the 3d effect).
I have a 47" 60hz 1080p bigscreen LCD in my living room. My uncle paid 2.5X the price for a 46" 120hz 1080p LCD for his living room. Personally, I think mine has a better picture, but my first experience watching his was 3:10 to Zuma on BR and the screen transition was noticeably smoother... almost to the point I couldn't quite get used to it, but no so much that I felt my TV was inferior.
So what it comes down to is how 'fast' your vision is, and personal judgment (and price, of course).