Question about Frames Per Second in Video Cards and Video Games 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

LaughingCheese

Behold the Power of CHEESE!!!

50 XP

16th June 2004

0 Uploads

1,100 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

I assume the frames per second in this benchmark is the same or has something to do with the frames per second measurement of games?

Charts, benchmarks Gaming Graphics Cards Charts Q3/2009 (Mainstream Quality), F.E.A.R. 2

I.e., 60 fps as the desired rate for smooth gameplay?

If that's so, then for gaming, you just need a video card that displays between 100 or 200 fps, and forget all the other confusing specs and jargon (unless you're concerned with output like HDMI).

Please forgive my ignorance if this is basic knowledge, I only realized its significance tonight.:p




Cheese!

Son. I am dissapoint.

50 XP

8th August 2007

0 Uploads

3,495 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Yes, that's what frames per second is. Consoles run their games at a constant 60 fps. I would say anything over 60 is good for a game, although for ones like the Call of Duty series I prefer 100+ (I have mine capped at 125, this is only for jumping because you can jump farther with 125 than with a lower amount).

You also have to take into account the processor it's on. My 8800 GT + Dual Core 2.71Ghz AMD Athlon 5200 gets a good 100-180 on CoD4 maxed out at 1280x720. At 1920x1080 I get about 80 FPS constant. For other games like FarCry 2 I get 30 fps maxed.

It's not really just the video card itself, although that does help.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

I.e., 60 fps as the desired rate for smooth gameplay?

If that's so, then for gaming, you just need a video card that displays between 100 or 200 fps, and forget all the other confusing specs and jargon (unless you're concerned with output like HDMI).

Anything over about 50fps is completely indistinguishable to me. Though average fps doesn't tell the full story. Video cards like the 9800GX2 are much worse cards than say the 4870 or GTX260, even though it gives a higher average fps, since because of stuttering, minimum fps is a lot lower, so your actual experience is much worse.

Also, it is much more preferable, if games allow it, to enable Vsync or even better, Triple Buffering. They basically increase overall video quality, by making sure that every single refresh gives at most one frame, so that you don't get frames that are only half-rendered (chopping frames, noticeable especially when moving fast or suddenly, especially at the bottom half of the screen).




Mastershroom VIP Member

Frag Out!

153,685 XP

18th November 2004

0 Uploads

14,196 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

As cheeseman points out, there is far more to a good framerate than just your graphics card. You can have triple GTX 285's in Tri-SLI, but on a single core Celeron, your framerates will be total shit.

Generally, a good combination of CPU and graphics are the most important aspects of getting a good solid framerate, with other minor things like amount of RAM, and the amount of CPU cache. And of course, operating system maintenance. Regular defrags may not give you an instant 20 frames per second, but every little thing helps.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#5 9 years ago

^Agreed.

Also, configs can help a lot too, along with console commands. Example: I tried playing CoD2 about 2 weeks ago with 12X AA, but when it started up it was only at 40Fps, so I tried typing in com_hunkmegs 512, and my framerate shot up to 190 fps.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



-=SnipeR=-

Mmmm beer

50 XP

5th June 2004

0 Uploads

676 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago

Im getting only about 30ish FPS in ArmA 2 with the settings on high but shadows on medium is that normal for these specs? Mobo-Gigabyte Ep31 Ds3l Cpu-Intel core 2 due e6700 running @3.00Ghz Memory-3.00GB PNY ddr2 6400+5300 Gpu-8800GTX 768mb




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago

Depending on your resolution, pretty much. ARMA II is pretty demanding on computers. Not so much so as Crysis, but it's still a killer on older hardware.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

To be honest I'd say that FPS is less important today than in times of quake 3 arena for instance :P

60+FPS will give you hardly any difference. It comes down to sheer luck more than reactions then. Admittedly it depends on the monitor a lot. When it comes to a static image, I can easily tell the difference on a crt between one that refreshes 60 times per second and one that does it seventy times per second.

Admittedly I think the ideal framerate in quake was 45 or so. Was just the right smoothness and gave you the longest jumps as well. Since it calculated the jump distance on your end.




Von II

aka noobst3R

50 XP

16th June 2008

0 Uploads

4,339 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

Oh really? I never heard of a connection between fps and jump distance.. (I believe you though :D)




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#10 9 years ago

It's true; games like CoD determine how far you can jump based on your fps.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



  • 1
  • 2