the flicker of a screen is actually dependent to how sensitive your eyes are... Some people don't notice it on mine at 65 hz and like me I notice it but avoid using it for extended periods of time.... Either way it's still practical to push out as much fps as you possibly can so in heavy action u don't drop down to unwanted fps
Tombo, I agree with you - I've actually read posts, on this forum, where the poster said "all of the games I want to play like MOHAA and Max Payne run great, but I'm not getting benchmark scores as high as some people - HELP!"
That kind of thinking is ridiculous. I think that people would be very surprised to see how well games run on lower-spec systems. Of course, I don't play FPSs (hate them), so I don't have direct experience with some of the games, but Warcraft III runs phenomenally well at 1600x1200 on my laptop, which is practically ancient at this point!
Of course, I also still play older DOS games... the gameplay is more important to me than shiny graphics or framerate numbers. It seems like gamers get their new systems and spend a couple of weeks installing and running benchmarks on them. I got my system and fired up some games - still haven't bothered to run a single benchmark. Judge your gaming performance by how your system actually performs in-game!
YEah I guess that was my point. I came to the forums as a desktop builder, looking for info on lappys.
After reading them I found that I may not be able to run games without a 1.7 with a Radeon 9600 pro, which I found strange since I have a TI4200/64 on the Desktop and it runs all games great! I also found a whole host of heat issues as well as the service issues. Everybody was so concerned with 3D mark scores. So I downloaded the program and ran it on my desktop, I think my score was around 400 or so...BUT I RUN ALL THE GAMES GREAT! So I trashed the program and decided I will be should be able to run games on a 1.4 with the 64 MB card and if I can't I will return the refurb and try the Toshiba S119 next.
After recieveing the lappy I loaded what over the past few years has been MY benchmark program Microsoft's Flight Simulator. The 2004 ran fine. Then I loaded Max Payne II and it as well ran well No freeze, and especially no overheating. I decided to post becasues I know there are many out there who like myself would love to have a lappy to play games ( I must note here that I do not play a lot of games all the time, but I have always felt a 'puter that can play the latest games will be able to do anything pretty well).
Anyway I wanted to give the guy with little money and a "could care less attitude about having the best benchmark on the block" some hope and realization he could get in the game for half of what many have spent and be satisfied and relativly problem free. Another thing I noticed is that many of the issues were posted by those who's spec machines were listed as maxed out 8600 1.7 UXGA 9600 lappys. I did noot see many issues with the plain jane WXGA 1.4's with the 64mb V card. I in fact saw no issues with the WXGA screens, That's why i looked for that one. I have been using a 19 inch CRT at 1178 for years, Im sure the native WXGA resolution will be fine.
The V card makers have many right where they want them in my opinion. Using "synthetic" becnch marks rather then real world use.
In any case I do hope the "newbie" has a better flavor for what is important really and what is not.
Or thought how long you intend to keep the laptop. If you have a 1 year replacement cycle (as I do) on laptops, you may be able to deal with today's technology because you will buy tomorrow's technology when you get there. If you have a 3 year replacement cycle, then that upgrade will extend the useful life of the laptop playing games. Yes today you GFFX can do 35 FPS on games in native resolution but in a year it will only do 35 FPS in 640x480 and then worse quality graphics than the game advertised.
3d mark scores mean nothing. synthetic benchmarks mean nothing.
you should not base your purchases off of synthetic benchmarks.
only real-time performance matters.
we all know that all graphics card manufactuers optimized their drivers for synthetic benchmarks, yes there was a controversy over this like half a year ago.
over 40 FPS is a must. if you are running at 40 fps then i guarentee that it is not going to lock at 40 fps and it will dip below 30 in some situations.
and avg fps around 60 is not enough. the MINIMUM fPS has to be around 60 or you will die. a DIP to 40 is tolerable a DIP to 20 i will definetly result in death.
less than 60 fps in any online multiplayer game will put you at a disadvantage.
and can i really tell the difference, yes. yes i can.
and BTW since you guys are all proclaimed graphics gurus. tell me where i can get a 9600 tubro to replace my 4200go in my 8600.
i used to have a 8100 with a m9000 so i know the graphics card can be upgraded.
Wine snobs, shoe snobs, car snobs, brand name Nazis. First time I ever seen any FPS snobs. I guess it makes a big difference when you live to control miniature men and life or death falls with the stroke of a key.
Well if a KIA gets one to the same destination then all the BMW buys is bragging rights for the money..That IS the point..Why buy a BMW if you don't have to. IF one can save a few dollars with a 64MB card and get good enough gaming results..Why spend $200..I suppose the same reason some Need BMWs.... For others to gloat at!
That was the point originally. It will be soon enough when the Radeon 9600 is a KIA anyway!
all that matters is that any fps multiplayer game out there, if you're only getting about 40 fps on it, then you're at a huge disadvantage. Not one that can't be overcome, but it won't be easy. It'd be like learning to snowboard on ice... It'll be difficult but not something that can't be overcome. Once you get the hang of it you'll be good, but as long as you're riding on that ice, you'll never be able to do what the pros are able to do... (analogies rule :) ) also yeah yeah it's just a game, but also when I play ANY game, i wanna win. regardless. So if getting a lil more fps outta my machine will help prevent it from dropping down choppy levels, so be it and Ill do that...
Can someone explain to me why you say you need 40+fps for Multiplayer games. It is my understanding that ~30 is needed for fluid motion this is the reason films are recorded at 25.5 in progressive scan and 30 in ntsc. I know someone mentioned refresh rate but that has to do with how fast the monitor rewrites the screen not FPS that your eyes see. Are you saying you get better motion video then fluid motion at 60+ or something. It would also make me wonder why there are games that are caping you. ie Starwars Galaxies caps at 30 and other have mentioned a few that are caped at 60.
ok... the reason u need more, the action in a video game is actually happening faster then a typical movie... There's also more going on. Also, most of the time if you're only getting about 30fps in game, when u get to lots of action, you will drop down conciderably, when this happens things become choppy and unless u get lucky, someone will probably kill you. Now FPS higher then what your monitor can show is somewhat silly (except q3 cause that's an exception). I turn on vsync, fps get capped at 60, never drops lower or goes higher... No problem. Try for example to play ut2003 with skilled people on your laptop which probably won't get more then 40 fps and that's with no action... See how well you do. Then, play those same people on a good desktop that keeps at least a steady 60fps at all time (maybe even higher) and see how well you do. I garuntee you will do better with the better fps. better fps means u see more, ur game will never slow to undesirable rates, which all and all leads to people enjoying there time while playing that game...
Actually i do totally agree with all your points. and i do understand that when you get allot of action your FPS drop allot. My point is basically agreeing with that but taking it a step further and saying ok i have this extra headroom i won't drop below 30fps which gives fluid video, once i have achieved that why should i worry about getting 100 fps. Basically i am just saying if i got a rig that can performe at 30-60fps all the time.. then high end FPS doesn't matter.
P.S. Guys i am being devils advocate here.. I am a gamer just got a new 8600 with m/10 pro turbo..
Movies run at 24 fps and they look perfectly smooth so surely 24 fps is enough for moving imagery to be perceived by the eye, right?
Ever had someone shine a bright light into your eyes? When they take the light away, you can still see an afterimage of that light for a bit. As the light surrounding you deepens the more the afterimage makes an impression on your retina. The same effect happens in the Cinema so that you perceive an afterimage of the previous frame, which to your mind is blended in with the next frame.
On the big screen, the image is projected in its entirety, one complete frame at a time, which in turn gives us an afterimage effect.
Films also have motion blur, so that much like the Visual Cortex, motion blur can help maintain the illusion of smooth moving imagery.
Like the TV, your Computer Monitor (if it's a Cathode Ray Tube) refreshes by drawing the screen line by line horizontally, but unlike the TV, a Monitor and Video Card doesn't add extra frames. If your screen draws at 30 fps, you will GET 30 fps. Since these are 30 perfectly rendered frames i.e. no motion blur, your eyes are not fooled in the slightest. Now we have already covered why we need motion blur; to maintain the illusion of smooth moving imagery. So why don't we add motion blur then? If we were to add motion blur in some fashion here, the imagery would be counter productive to say the least, especially in games such as Quake III Arena or Unreal Tournament 2003, not to mention the simple logistics of creating motion blur for an object that doesn't travel a predetermined path.
Picture it; Your playing your favourite First Person Shooter game and about to go for that head shot. Your running at 30 fps and the game has added motion blur, or if you like, a trail of images that blend from one to the next. With the imagery moving so fast and the motion blur added, there's no way to determine what the exact position of the head were aiming at is actually in. To the eye, it would look to be in more than one place at one point in time. Now try and shoot the correct one.
Conversely, same game, same frame rate, no motion blur. This time, we have a very strange effect, with our enemy appearing to 'warp' or 'flicker' directly from one position to the next. Just because they look to be in that position doesn't mean they actually are however, they could be somewhere in between those two points. Again, go ahead and make your shot.
actually it has nothing to do with having more action or whatever you said.
TV's and projectors and movies at the cinema use something called motion blurring: ie. your brain keeps a little bit of the last thing you saw in your head.
Ever see the demonstrations with the red circle and black dot? Stare at the red circle for 30 seconds, then look at the black dot..you'll see some sort of circle around it due to motion blurring...it's in that article that guy posted.
However, computer screens and LCD's do NOT do this, therefore, 30fps will seem choppy compared to 100fps.
AS WELL, V-Sync does not mean your FPS does NOT go below 60FPS, in fact, it will drop if your current FPS level drops as well, in increments of something like a half (next available drop would be to 30FPS, and you would notice it, due to the refresh rates of your monitor, the next available sync would be 30Hz)
You may just be lucky that you have a great video card or just don't notice it.
And trust me, when i used to play CAL-m in counterstrike, i noticed the difference between 60fps and 100..everythinig was smoother..
Maybe Im just lucky, but FS 2004 locked 30 FPS Seems perfectly ok to me. No chop smooth and natural, just like the real thing. Slows to 25 are barely , noticable.
That brilliant article mentioned anything after 72 FPS will not be noticable on a computer screen. After that it's just numbers.
I think most everyday players not consummed with ' synthetic benchmark numbers' and bleeding edge technology will agree. The real world gaming experience is fine at a min of 30 FPS at worse. I think if a guy is upset because his 3D Mark scores are low as compared to his buddy. HIS mind will percieve chop at 30 FPS because he is conditioned by the hobby and his peers to believe he needs 100 FPS or his lappy is inferior.
I don't even know (or care) with MAx Payne II how many FPS Im getting. I see no point in running 3D mark. It's real world results that matter. I just go by the experience. Either it's fun or frustrating. So far I am having fun with all the games I tried. And I know, I lived for years running FS 2004 at well below the max on many early machines.
8699 1.4
512 mb ram 2700
Nvidia 5200 go 64mb
40 G 5400 rpm
DVD/CDRW
WXGA (Samsung)
Win XP Home
1 year warranty
$1268. refurb
OK, synthetic benchmarks aren't what they used to be, but they still are important to consider when looking at any system, period. 30 FPS is playable, but 60 and up is just fluid, with v-sync off and FPS of around 60-100, games just have a certain look of fluidity you can't beat.
EngineNoO9
68 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 11:00
spiked_martini
948 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 16:00
Tombo, I agree with you - I've actually read posts, on this forum, where the poster said "all of the games I want to play like MOHAA and Max Payne run great, but I'm not getting benchmark scores as high as some people - HELP!"
That kind of thinking is ridiculous. I think that people would be very surprised to see how well games run on lower-spec systems. Of course, I don't play FPSs (hate them), so I don't have direct experience with some of the games, but Warcraft III runs phenomenally well at 1600x1200 on my laptop, which is practically ancient at this point!
Of course, I also still play older DOS games... the gameplay is more important to me than shiny graphics or framerate numbers. It seems like gamers get their new systems and spend a couple of weeks installing and running benchmarks on them. I got my system and fired up some games - still haven't bothered to run a single benchmark. Judge your gaming performance by how your system actually performs in-game!
Tombo777
1 Rookie
•
64 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 19:00
After reading them I found that I may not be able to run games without a 1.7 with a Radeon 9600 pro, which I found strange since I have a TI4200/64 on the Desktop and it runs all games great! I also found a whole host of heat issues as well as the service issues. Everybody was so concerned with 3D mark scores. So I downloaded the program and ran it on my desktop, I think my score was around 400 or so...BUT I RUN ALL THE GAMES GREAT! So I trashed the program and decided I will be should be able to run games on a 1.4 with the 64 MB card and if I can't I will return the refurb and try the Toshiba S119 next.
After recieveing the lappy I loaded what over the past few years has been MY benchmark program Microsoft's Flight Simulator. The 2004 ran fine. Then I loaded Max Payne II and it as well ran well No freeze, and especially no overheating. I decided to post becasues I know there are many out there who like myself would love to have a lappy to play games ( I must note here that I do not play a lot of games all the time, but I have always felt a 'puter that can play the latest games will be able to do anything pretty well).
Anyway I wanted to give the guy with little money and a "could care less attitude about having the best benchmark on the block" some hope and realization he could get in the game for half of what many have spent and be satisfied and relativly problem free. Another thing I noticed is that many of the issues were posted by those who's spec machines were listed as maxed out 8600 1.7 UXGA 9600 lappys. I did noot see many issues with the plain jane WXGA 1.4's with the 64mb V card. I in fact saw no issues with the WXGA screens, That's why i looked for that one. I have been using a 19 inch CRT at 1178 for years, Im sure the native WXGA resolution will be fine.
The V card makers have many right where they want them in my opinion. Using "synthetic" becnch marks rather then real world use.
In any case I do hope the "newbie" has a better flavor for what is important really and what is not.
rp3w600m
102 Posts
0
January 26th, 2004 19:00
Or thought how long you intend to keep the laptop. If you have a 1 year replacement cycle (as I do) on laptops, you may be able to deal with today's technology because you will buy tomorrow's technology when you get there. If you have a 3 year replacement cycle, then that upgrade will extend the useful life of the laptop playing games. Yes today you GFFX can do 35 FPS on games in native resolution but in a year it will only do 35 FPS in 640x480 and then worse quality graphics than the game advertised.
PYROTAK
99 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 13:00
3d mark scores mean nothing. synthetic benchmarks mean nothing.
you should not base your purchases off of synthetic benchmarks.
only real-time performance matters.
we all know that all graphics card manufactuers optimized their drivers for synthetic benchmarks, yes there was a controversy over this like half a year ago.
over 40 FPS is a must. if you are running at 40 fps then i guarentee that it is not going to lock at 40 fps and it will dip below 30 in some situations.
and avg fps around 60 is not enough. the MINIMUM fPS has to be around 60 or you will die. a DIP to 40 is tolerable a DIP to 20 i will definetly result in death.
less than 60 fps in any online multiplayer game will put you at a disadvantage.
and can i really tell the difference, yes. yes i can.
and BTW since you guys are all proclaimed graphics gurus. tell me where i can get a 9600 tubro to replace my 4200go in my 8600.
i used to have a 8100 with a m9000 so i know the graphics card can be upgraded.
Message Edited by PYROTAK on 01-27-2004 10:54 AM
Ajax77
1 Message
0
January 27th, 2004 15:00
Wine snobs, shoe snobs, car snobs, brand name Nazis. First time I ever seen any FPS snobs. I guess it makes a big difference when you live to control miniature men and life or death falls with the stroke of a key.
PYROTAK
99 Posts
0
January 27th, 2004 16:00
thats like saying hey you don't need a BMW you can just drive a KIA.
Tombo777
1 Rookie
•
64 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 09:00
That was the point originally. It will be soon enough when the Radeon 9600 is a KIA anyway!
EngineNoO9
68 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 11:00
cking32
155 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 11:00
EngineNoO9
68 Posts
0
January 28th, 2004 21:00
cking32
155 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 12:00
Actually i do totally agree with all your points. and i do understand that when you get allot of action your FPS drop allot. My point is basically agreeing with that but taking it a step further and saying ok i have this extra headroom i won't drop below 30fps which gives fluid video, once i have achieved that why should i worry about getting 100 fps. Basically i am just saying if i got a rig that can performe at 30-60fps all the time.. then high end FPS doesn't matter.
P.S. Guys i am being devils advocate here.. I am a gamer just got a new 8600 with m/10 pro turbo..
rp_guy
41 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 16:00
actually it has nothing to do with having more action or whatever you said.
TV's and projectors and movies at the cinema use something called motion blurring: ie. your brain keeps a little bit of the last thing you saw in your head.
Ever see the demonstrations with the red circle and black dot? Stare at the red circle for 30 seconds, then look at the black dot..you'll see some sort of circle around it due to motion blurring...it's in that article that guy posted.
However, computer screens and LCD's do NOT do this, therefore, 30fps will seem choppy compared to 100fps.
AS WELL, V-Sync does not mean your FPS does NOT go below 60FPS, in fact, it will drop if your current FPS level drops as well, in increments of something like a half (next available drop would be to 30FPS, and you would notice it, due to the refresh rates of your monitor, the next available sync would be 30Hz)
You may just be lucky that you have a great video card or just don't notice it.
And trust me, when i used to play CAL-m in counterstrike, i noticed the difference between 60fps and 100..everythinig was smoother..
Tombo777
1 Rookie
•
64 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 17:00
That brilliant article mentioned anything after 72 FPS will not be noticable on a computer screen. After that it's just numbers.
I think most everyday players not consummed with ' synthetic benchmark numbers' and bleeding edge technology will agree. The real world gaming experience is fine at a min of 30 FPS at worse. I think if a guy is upset because his 3D Mark scores are low as compared to his buddy. HIS mind will percieve chop at 30 FPS because he is conditioned by the hobby and his peers to believe he needs 100 FPS or his lappy is inferior.
I don't even know (or care) with MAx Payne II how many FPS Im getting. I see no point in running 3D mark. It's real world results that matter. I just go by the experience. Either it's fun or frustrating. So far I am having fun with all the games I tried. And I know, I lived for years running FS 2004 at well below the max on many early machines.
8699 1.4
512 mb ram 2700
Nvidia 5200 go 64mb
40 G 5400 rpm
DVD/CDRW
WXGA (Samsung)
Win XP Home
1 year warranty
$1268. refurb
Message Edited by Tombo777 on 01-30-2004 03:34 AM
Nerdtalker
276 Posts
0
January 29th, 2004 21:00