Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R600c/g benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:

    Film only (barely) works at 24fps because each frame from a camera is taken over a finite range of time and is intrinsically motion-blurred. Game frames are perfectly sharp and need a much higher frame-rate to look smooth.

    Hell, certain film passages when viewed on a big screen (like at the cinema) aren't smooth at all. Depends on the material.

    @Droidhacker: I'd be very surprised if you actually watched an FPS game running at 24 frames/sec on a large-ish monitor and couldn't tell that it looked bad. It's really not a philosophical point for videophiles to mull over, it's just how it is.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Wingfeather View Post
      Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:
      Hell, certain film passages when viewed on a big screen (like at the cinema) aren't smooth at all. Depends on the material.
      Specially panoramic views of cities, mountains... you can clearly see the image jumping!!

      Watching a 60 fps Highdef film is a pleasure. They told us over years that 24 fps was enough, it was fud!!

      Professional cameras @ 60-120 fps are becoming common in the cinema industry now.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Wingfeather View Post
        Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:
        [...]
        You forgot the resolution: 640x480 is clearly enough because of films too
        ## VGA ##
        AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
        Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

        Comment


        • #44
          Who wants to make a tournament?
          Teams are 1920x1200 120fps 5ms ping vs 640x480 30 fps 150ms ping XD
          ## VGA ##
          AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
          Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by yotambien View Post
            By the way, and since we're in a q3 mood, this paper shows what every respectable player knows despite the subversive information spread by the anti-pro police : D


            Back in the late 90's when I was barely getting 100ms ping in Counterstrike, this helped my gameplay considerably. I'm West Australian so I was playing on local servers. Though the guys in the eastern states with their cable internet connections and 20ms ping times were more challenging than the best players on modems with 200ms ping times. This was a problem for me because it felt like ping time was more important than strategy. So my strategy was to play after 12 midnight to get better ping times. Even as low as 50ms on 56k modem. Considering also that my PC was gutless, it allowed me to get higher scores in games back in the original CS days.

            droidhacker: The problem with quake was that the pro players always left the average players in the dust. Having a good fps with low ping equated to me flying all over the map with easy wins. Even though I was an average player, it made me seem like a good player simply because I knew how to optimize the game in my advantage. Though turn the tables around... See what I mean. The hardware was as important as the person playing.

            Comment


            • #46
              Tip: University guys probably will have latency of one or two milliseconds for servers that are relatively close so playing against those might be very fun if you rely on latency-battle.

              Comment

              Working...
              X