Choose quality, or performance..?

[ikari120378]

How far would u set your favorite games video setting, I mean do u choose eyecandies over performance, balanced, or u'd rather play them in plain look as long as they show no laggings at all...?
I'm curious, since I think many other like myself, don't have powerful enough system to play without any complains of how their games look and perform, since many have a system or a vga card that even in lower power than mine, but I've never heard any complains at all. It's like people are satisfied enough...? Or they actually don't get the same problem...?
I myself, would go as low as 15fps in NFSU 2 to catch the good look, though sometimes I just can't quit whining about it , gives me a second consideration for lall latest games.
C'mon, share it all. Show me that I'm not alone with this matter!

My system is: P4 2.24GHz, R9700pro, 512 pc3200@266MHz, 2x40GB 7200rpm maxtor, 300W TTGI. It explains itself how the problem occurs, right?

[Dark Nova]

i play with the plain look, because i dont have your problem

[Hi Ho]

I crank up the eye candy as mush as possible. I haven't had any problems yet running games on maximum settings. Even F.E.A.R. runs fine on my system with the settings maxxed out. As long as the frame rate is above 30 FPS I'm fine. Heck, a movie is only 24 FPS.

[ikari120378]

Well, so far we have a non-troubled comments... That's why I always think I'm alone out there. Am I the only one having such whining about this...

[Marke522]

I think you might want to get a more powerful PSU. You'd be supprised how much that can effect your system. Take a look at an Enermax or a Thermaltake, maybe 420 watts? Your video card should be fine, just make sure you have the latest drivers. If you're having trouble with Catalyst you can always try http://www.omegadrivers.net/ Having the latest driver is crucial to the performance of a game.

I run my games with everything on while I'm doing a campaing or a story mode, but if I'm on the internet shooting someone else with BF 1942 then I might turn it down a bit, depending on the speed of the server. I might also turn off all the other programs that I have running while the game is on. I usually have 6 programs running at minimum. I turn off Zone Alarm at times while gaming since I still have a hardware firewall with the router. That way I can still leave on some max settings.

[Jaggannath]

And his RAM

Ikari, I use a 64 bit MX440 videocard, and although it's not the greatest out there (duh) it does the job for me on games such as NFSU etc. I go for performance over eye-candy, so long as the eye-candy doesn't detract from the performance it can stay

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho I crank up the eye candy as mush as possible. I haven't had any problems yet running games on maximum settings. Even F.E.A.R. runs fine on my system with the settings maxxed out. As long as the frame rate is above 30 FPS I'm fine. Heck, a movie is only 24 FPS.

Movies in theaters are only 24 - but you know why you don't see the jumpyness of the low fps - it is darkness of the room.
I can tell a difference in the smoothness of a game when it goes below 45 - some may say the eye can't detect however many fps but I would rather have something above what I think I can see then something which is jumpy. Plus - heck as long I dont put on SLI AA 8/16 I can crank up my AA and AF so that I have the clearest picture and a high fps rate.

[nocturnx]

If I had to choose I would try to balance it so that I had a steady framerate with no slow-down. When I had my old card I would set everything to normal and keep upping the graphics until I am getting down to 35fps. Or up the textures, lower the AA a little, and turn off the bloom if need be.

[Snod Blatter]

Performance settings until I'm comfortably over 65FPS (if it'll happen at all).

A habit from always having a slower machine... and playing console games also helps, as they rarely looks spectacular (so I'm used to it).

[Hi Ho]

I think you might want to get a more powerful PSU. You'd be supprised how much that can effect your system. Take a look at an Enermax or a Thermaltake, maybe 420 watts?

That will not have any effect on the performance in games. IF the PSU was of poor quality and he was having errors and lockups then I would suspect the PSU.

[MakeYourslf2012]

For single-player RTS games like AoEIII, i like to keep the Shadows, Textures, AA ect as high as possible.

but for online BF2 games, i set everything at Medium, although it can go higher with out lagging. i like to have a cushion on online games to be positive there is no lag. In BF2 - lag is what gets a player "killed".

[Marke522]

That will not have any effect on the performance in games. IF the PSU was of poor quality and he was having errors and lockups then I would suspect the PSU.

Eh, my fault. I remember needing a new psu with my MX 440, but that's because I had it overclocked. After I got the new psu it was great. Not as good as the FX, but I did gain quite a few points on my 3D Mark score. Forgot about that until you said something.



What program do you guys like to use to count frames?

[Hi Ho]

What program do you guys like to use to count frames?

If the game has a frame counter, and I know how to enable it, I will use it. If I can't figure it out I don't bother. I know a lot of people use FRAPS.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by ryan124712 Movies in theaters are only 24 - but you know why you don't see the jumpyness of the low fps - it is darkness of the room.

Not really. You wouldn't notice it in the daylight either. It has to do with the way the images are displayed. Each frame kind of "blends" into each other. If you were to look at one frame on the film it would be a bit blurry, however when ran together it is sharpened out. Now take a PC monitor, each frame is it's own distinct frame. Look at one frame on the monitor input, it is sharp and distinct. This means you'll notice the frame changing a lot more (because the change is distinct) than you would with frames that "blend" together.

Anyway back to the subject; I usually crank settings up as far as they go and still maintain performance. I tend to aim for above 30 fps.

[Jaggannath]

I don't ever know what fps I get, it's like benchmarking my rig... if it works and does it without problem, why worry

[rspassey]

I but lowering the fps also leads to jummpyness and no matter how good the frames are rendered they are don't flow together smoothly.

[Hi Ho]

You get "jumpyness" at very low FPS below 30. That is when it starts running like a slide show.

[rspassey]

I notice jumpyness below 50~ the clearer the image the more noticible the difference in frames is going to be.

[Hi Ho]

What do you mean by "the clearer the image"?

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by ryan124712 I notice jumpyness below 50~ the clearer the image the more noticible the difference in frames is going to be.

Right, my point with the movie film. Those frames aren't that clear, so you don't notice the low frame rate. Also it has something to do with how the brain interprets the images.

[ikari120378]

Wow, Jaggannath confidently said that he'll go with performance, with only a GeF 4MX 440... Interesting... I once used a GeF 4MX 420. Playing NFSU 2 is just fine (not that fast even with low settings, but decent), but when I upgraded to R9700pro, there are lots of hidden quality settings revealed automatically, like crowds, rain splatter, enhanced contrast, motion blur, etc. Those hidden settings are the ones that getting my system to its limit, again.

Anyway, in plain settings, at full performance (lowest quality), cards with hardware support for DX9 definitely producing graphics (for newer games with DX9 coding, like NFSU 2) a lot better than cards with H/W DX8, like GeF 4MX series. The car's paint shine, glass tinting, are all far better, even with the lowest settings. If u guys remember 3DMark 2003, one of DX9's power is in producing water effects. Hmm, maybe guys who are using DX8 cards and happy with it should try looking at what DX9 cards do, even with plain look, minimum settings. You'll be amazed... (for a while, at least, 'coz after that you'll just get curious about cranking up more eyecandies...).

Some people here also concerning about frame rates. I've ever seen in TV (Discovery channel or something, I forget) about video/imaging technology, there is a video camera system that captures image at 600,000 fps. Yes, six hundred thousand fps. It's developed mainly for military. It was showing a blowing hand-grenade, shown in each frame. The grenade was like a baloon before it completely blown to pieces. Something that could not be seen in conventional video system which is at 30fps max. If only a game could be like that Maybe it would take a thousand 7800GTX to get as smooth...?

[Hi Ho]

There is no practical reason that anyone would need 600,000 FPS in a game. Those slow motion cameras need that high speed so they can catch every detail of things that you can't see with the naked eye. It doesn't necessarily make it any smoother.

Games are rendered in real time. Games can make their own slow motion and they can do it without 600,000 FPS.

[Jaggannath]

Originally Posted by ikari120378 Wow, Jaggannath confidently said that he'll go with performance, with only a GeF 4MX 440... Interesting... I once used a GeF 4MX 420. Playing NFSU 2 is just fine (not that fast even with low settings, but decent), but when I upgraded to R9700pro, there are lots of hidden quality settings revealed automatically, like crowds, rain splatter, enhanced contrast, motion blur, etc. Those hidden settings are the ones that getting my system to its limit, again. Anyway, in plain settings, at full performance (lowest quality), cards with hardware support for DX9 definitely producing graphics (for newer games with DX9 coding, like NFSU 2) a lot better than cards with H/W DX8, like GeF 4MX series. The car's paint shine, glass tinting, are all far better, even with the lowest settings. If u guys remember 3DMark 2003, one of DX9's power is in producing water effects. Hmm, maybe guys who are using DX8 cards and happy with it should try looking at what DX9 cards do, even with plain look, minimum settings. You'll be amazed... (for a while, at least, 'coz after that you'll just get curious about cranking up more eyecandies...). Some people here also concerning about frame rates. I've ever seen in TV (Discovery channel or something, I forget) about video/imaging technology, there is a video camera system that captures image at 600,000 fps. Yes, six hundred thousand fps. It's developed mainly for military. It was showing a blowing hand-grenade, shown in each frame. The grenade was like a baloon before it completely blown to pieces. Something that could not be seen in conventional video system which is at 30fps max. If only a game could be like that Maybe it would take a thousand 7800GTX to get as smooth...?

I have 6800 Go in my laptop, so I know what the DX9 can do... doesn't make much difference to me, gameplay is more important than looks

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho There is no practical reason that anyone would need 600,000 FPS in a game. Those slow motion cameras need that high speed so they can catch every detail of things that you can't see with the naked eye. It doesn't necessarily make it any smoother. Games are rendered in real time. Games can make their own slow motion and they can do it without 600,000 FPS.

of course - but in the 100 fps ranger there is nothing wrong with that - you will get the clearest picture we can visually see - and keep in mind fps counting is an average - if the average is 100 fps then at some point it could drop to 50 and rise to 150 - when it is at 50 you will notice the differnce than when it is at 100.

[kirab]

It would be nice if the new games let you set your video options according to minimum FPS. For example you set the game to run like this: "Do not let the FPS go below x", and your system will automatically adjust resolution, detail, AA etc. However, a stress test would probably have to be run after you change these settings.

[tomster2300]

I start with everything maxed out in my games. If they run well then I leave it - if they don't then I start lowering what I feel is the least important graphical options - the ones which have less of a visual impact.

[David M]

I do the same thing....start at all the highest settings then reduce if necessary.

[DragonNOA1]

Once I got my 6800GT in the first few months it was released, I have been playing every game at 16x12 with max AF and usually 0AA. I love how good it all looks. I still remember my TNT days, lol. Go for the gold, go quality!

[regans cortina]

Il run games on the most maxxed out settings as i can get away with. Surely its gotta be performance though. I mean , if the games stutters and freezes , then surely eye candy has to be sacrificed.

[ikari120378]

I can see why most people don't feel troubled with their gaming... Either they got a lot of "firepower", or they just feel enough about it
Well, feeling enough is just good for everybody who doesn't have the power rig. The same with me, In some games I'd like to go with performance, especially with FPS games, like SWAT4 or else. But I just can't resist myself setting the quality in med-high for games like NFSU 2, coz i've see enough plain looks in my older games. A beautiful view is the gameplay itself...