|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 282
|
Frames per second
On average, what's your fps in game?
Mines is 30-60 fps with tnt32 pro. It's pretty decent. How about you guys? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member (9 bit)
|
Well,it depends on wat game and graphics was set.
I got an average frame rate of 45-30 fps in Splinter Cell..... Kinda Dizzyyy~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
snowboarder
|
i dont know, but its pretty fast, i think its about 80+ in UT2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
If the sys wont do 100 in game, I don't play it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 772
|
100 is more than what is needed though. I mean, at the resolutions I play at, my monitor doesnt even refresh 100 times persecond, and I don't like screen tearing so...
Yu must not play the latest games. If you do, you have the toppest of the top of the line PC, or you don't play with full details, cause a constant 100 fps is asking too much these days, with the latest games. Now if you are not getting 100 fps in say, oh CounterStrike, then I would suggest updating your PC. But anyway. One example of my fps. I play at 1280x1024x32 in UT2003 at the highest possible detail settings with an average of 5 bots. v-sync enabled. SInce v-sync isenabled I can't go over 90 fps, but i don't get that nasty screen tearing either so I don't mind. In an intense firefight the fps can go down to 35-40. Of course this depends on the map and how many bots or plyaers are in the map. I hope to get a new machine in a few months, with the latest card and processor. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Orinda, California
Posts: 1,863
|
on average i'd say 90 fps (everything turned on). since i've been playing my Super mario 64 rom i'll have to say 60 fps (software limitation!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
snowboarder
|
well, in that passmark performance test i get about 880 fps average at default run, some being about 690, some being 1200
Last edited by Spyda; 05-20-2003 at 09:27 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Orinda, California
Posts: 1,863
|
in Passmark, 950 fps and also about 1200 fps. games, 90 fps
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
snowboarder
|
aaaghh, i took frame limiter off in vice city, it was going so fast, it was horrible
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Orinda, California
Posts: 1,863
|
now you see how it would be if you played an old (and i mean OLD) game that didn't have a frame limiter... crazy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
snowboarder
|
playing GT2 on ePSXe with max fps is mental, 250+ fps and the demio seems like a TVR
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Red Sox Nation
|
I *always* v-synch my games, so it's 70FPS at 1280x1024, or 60FPS at 1600x1200. Everything is always on and/or the highest it will go, and I usually use 2x-4x AA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Computing Professor
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,718
|
I keep v- sync on so no game is going over 85 FPS.
My 17" monitor is at optimum at 1024x768, I use 4x AA for everything just now with AF set at 2x ( I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't just return AF to "Application Preference" ) |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
At 1024 I doubt you can tell the diff, unless your dot pitch is rather large, say like .28 or so. Then you may see it but it will still be pretty hard to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Computing Professor
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,718
|
Before I acquired the XP refresh rate problem I would have agreed with you.
But over the last few months I've become acutely aware of changes in refresh rate and, to my surprise, changes is FPS. I think I was basically annoyed into paying attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Member (10 bit)
|
at 1024x768 I can definetly tell from 60 fps and 85 fps (my monitors max)
btw, I turn AF all the way to 16x and I see NO performence hit. shouldn't I?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
Maybe not with a 9500, and maybe not with that specific game. Thought yours was a 9700 in disguise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
snowboarder
|
i know what AA does, but never saw a difference with AF, whats it supposed to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Computing Professor
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,718
|
I'm taking this from pg.30 of the June 2003 MaximiumPC:
For textures that need aniso filtering-such as those that stretch deep into a scene-the feature makes everything look significantly sharper. However, the majority of textures just don't need aniso, so enabling it (or setting the slider to far to the right) is a waste of memory bandwith. Performance mode forces bilinear filtering on the textures, instead of using the superior Quality trilinear filtering method. We recommend clicking Application Preference, so that your game applies anisotropic filtering only to the textures that need it. Excuse me while I go turn this off in ATI's Control Panel. There probably will be some games that need it, and now I know why those huge scenes are used when showing it off, but I don't need it just yet. I'll rethink this if I end up buying Halo. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 282
|
If I were to upgrade to a ti4200 128 mb ddr, would my fps in Counter-Strike be over 100?
How bout a ati 9700 pro? Would it be about 200? Not sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Member (10 bit)
|
nope, the half-life engine is limited to 100 fps
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|