Monitor / Video Card

[Guest]

The way I understand it, the refresh rate of your monitor (80 Hz or whatever) is the number of times an actual picture is sent to your screen per second. So if your monitor is set to 80 Hz, it is literally updated 80 times per second. Now, lets say you have a great rig and can get 120 frames per second out of your video card in your game of choice. Isn't the extra 40 frames per second wasted because your monitor is only able to show 80 images per second? Wouldn't it be best to try to match up you're frames per second with your monitors refresh rate?

Thanks,
Mosh

 

[Arrow]

Please see my other reply to you.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[JoeHead]

Yes it is a waste and you can't really see the diff above a certain point (I forget what the eyes refresh at, 60 to 70 somewhere Ibelieve). But teh verticle sync keeps it synced. Why do ya want to run at 120 anyhow. Go for more detail, resolution, colors . . . LIVE A LITLE.

BTW read the answers to your posts!

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>

 

[phsstpok]

The problem is that most framerate numbers you see are only averages. If the game averages 80 frames per second there might be times that the rate goes up to 200 and other times it drops to 20 (as an example). A momementary drop to 20 frames per second would be noticeble.

The theory is that if average framerates are higher then the minimum framerates will be higher, as well, thus avoiding the above problem.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 03/26/01 08:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

phsstpok makes a very good point and observation. If you watch 3dMark2000 or 2001 the FPS it is going all over the place. Which is behaving much like a real game would. In fact the game may never even run at the indicated average FPS anytime during the game. So you can use 3dMark2000 or 3dMark2001 to determine what frame rate that is jerky or not smooth for you. Everyone is unique so the frame rate for you that is smooth maybe different for someone else. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at average frame rate but more so to the low frame rate of a card during benchmarking . Especially if the low frame rate duration is long enough to be noticeable. Another thought is that when the frame rate is varying between 30 and 85 FPS most people I believe won't be able to tell you the actual frame rate on the screen. In other words who would be able to look at a animation and tell you it is running at 45FPS or 75FPS or 60FPS?? If someone could do that, wouldn't it be pretty irritating with the constant change in frame rate that is going on in a typical game? More likely when the frame rate goes below someone's threshold, then he/she says, "ITS JERKY!!".

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/26/01 08:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[phsstpok]

Noko, your favorite game <b>Serious Sam</b> has an interesting stat, minimum sustained framerate. This seems to be a good indicator of the worst case graphic scenario. Of course, it only applies to the <b>Serious Sam game</b>, itself.

(Noko, I know you already know about this. This is for the other readers).

There is a nice Serious Sam demo/test which can also be used for benchmarking. <A HREF="http://www.avault.com" target="_new">http://www.avault.com</A> is one place to get it.

1. Pressing '~' to activates the console.
2. /dem_bProfile=1 starts the benchmark routine.
3. Run any demo and return to the console to see the results.
4. Quality video settings probably should be used for benchmarking purpose.

Also, included with the Serious Sam Demo/Test is something called "Technology Test". This is a cool demonstration of 3D functions like reflections, texturing, bump mapping, fog, particles, translucency and transparency, etc.

There is a disclaimer that the demo is only a test not a demo game yet you seem to be able to play some standalone combat and some on-line, as well. (I haven't tried the latter).

From what I have seen this is a cool game. The best way I can desribe it is it's like the FPS Genre original, Doom II, only with state of the art 3D graphics. The Serious Sam arenas are huge. (Keep in mind, I just looked at the demo and only for about 20 minutes).

I'm definitely going to pick up a copy.

 

[noko]

I love the game and I think the game engine is awesome. Reminds me of the old arcade games with extraordinary amount of action happening on the screen except in Serious Sam it is 3d vice 2d. Arcade style 3d!!! Shear action, fast reflexes and nimble knuckles needed.

 

[phsstpok]

Pick up a copy of Doom 3D for Windows. Horribly crude by today's standards but I think you will see why Serious Sam reminds me of that game. Doom was the first and last time I fully enjoyed a shooter game. Don't get me wrong I like Half-Life, System Shock 2, Soldier-of-Fortune and all but I just couldn't stop playing Doom. Every other game I enjoy for a while then stop playing. Maybe I start again maybe I don't.

I particularly have not liked online shooters, yet. Just too tough for a newbie. I hope Serious Sam is different in that area. Anyway, at $15 I can't resist any game with great 3D graphics.