When SLI rules the earth in two years time...

Well old counterstrike did behave like this, but that was more the code that behaved wierd. Anything less then 99-101 fps in old counterstrike = choppy, could be 85 fps and it played choppy as a mf and you would have aiming trubbles.

 

Same thing holds true in CS:S. It's not as bad but it's still there.

 

Actually, it has.

What you meant to say was there was no scientific study that says the human eye is limited seeing anything over 60FPS.

I'm sorry, i forgot the link to the proof of my statement, but the study was showing a subject a set of images at a certain picture a second, say 500... and the subject had to describe that image, needless to say it was noticed and described, which proves the human eye can differentiate and decode images at higher frames.

You'll have to google it yourself but it's definately been done.

 

That pretty much sums it up.



However turning off v-sync does mean the gpu outputs more fps which improves responsiveness aswell as the fact that v-sync introduces aditional lag, so for fps v-sync should be off.

I am also getting tired of the same people claiming the 'human eye is limited to 30/60 fps, or whatever, it's definately not limited to such a small number and there's no conclusive evidence to show what the number is.. before any one asks for proof (which the same people seem to do every time :3eyes try using the search button as it's been provided countless times...

 

Well, I still think that it is limited to the counterstrike engine, and I'm quite dead sure you do not actually see 100 fps, more around 65-67 depending on your eyes and for how long you been exposed. There is a reason to why so many things operate abit above 60 hertz, since it is the human treshold, above it our brain will no longer register it. For example fluorescent lighting is nowadays 99.99% a bit above 60 hertz so that sensitive people whos brains would still detect the flickering wouldn't get headaches and other sideeffects.

Now what you say in CS is true, I did quit the game for good myself at 1.4 era ( like 8-9 years ago ) when I realized it was all about having 99-101 fps, your aiming was significantly worsen as soon as you dipped below 90ish fps, and that has nothing to do with your eyes magically seeing more then 60 fps in CS, it is the game that behaves in an odd way.

Now why the game / code behaves like this I can only speculate in

 

Not sure what you saying here, but yes there has been so many studies on the matter of subnimal messages.

And it has also been proved that people do not tend to see the images clipped in at a higher frame then the rest of the phootage, but some of them get an emotional reaction, linked to what their eyes couldn't see but their brain registered.

Fact remains, the average person will not 'see' anything above ~65-67 fps/hertz in a live stream of phootage, aka video wich gaming essentially is.

Now as I said in another post, in ****erstrike this phenomena is diffrent, you will pick up on a fps drip from 101 to 94 instantly, that game behaves in a wierd and odd way. But I'm sure you and others will all agree that noone of us would pick up on a change from 101 herts to say 94 hertz, yet we do when it comes to CS. Tells me it is about something else, that has to do with the game and the engine used for the 3d enviroment.

 

What the human eye can "detect" depends on so many different variables. Every time I see a discussion about what the person can and can't see, I just shake my head. Why can't people understand that not everyone is the same? For some, 30fps is the best it gets, for others 30fps is worse than gouging their eyes out. Let's agree to disagree and move on because this age old debate is getting annoying.

 

sorry, I just got to say, whats the point? I cant tell the difference between 60 and 120... 1000? thats a bit OVERKILL!

 

lol if 60FPS was that bad i would imagine that nobody would be here using there current LCD, HDTV talking about all this. There was a slight difference when i had my BenQ FP767 running at 60Hz and 75Hz but believe me, the difference was meaningless and even negligible.. if your are so into the 1-5% difference between a 60 and 120Hz, then get a life!

We got much more things to worry about in our purchases: what about memory timings? CPU speed? CPU multicores? Dual GPUs? SSDs being faster than SATA2 HDDs?
All these are far more important than a 60Hz or 120Hz screen... and frankly i would skip OLEDs and wait for HOLOGRAMs

 

The lengths that some folk will go in defending their own ignorance is entertaining. A little snippet on frame rates:

The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second. With a high quality non-interlaced display (like plasma or a large LCD FPD) and a nice video card capable of HDTV resolution, you can today see well above 120 FPS with a matching refresh rate. With some refresh rates as high as 400Hz on some non-interlaced displays, that display is capable of 400 FPS alone. Without the refresh rate in the way, and the right hardware capable of such fast rendering (frame buffer), it is possible to display as cameras are possible of recording 44,000 Frames Per Second. Imagine just for a moment if your display device were to be strictly governed by the input it was receiving. This is the case with computer video cards and displays in a way with adjustable resolutions, color depth, and refresh rates.

Google is your friend, please use it.

 

Please don't turn this into yet another "Refresh rate vs FPS" thread... :bang:
Anyone who has been a member of G3D for some time knows that this subject has been beaten to death.

I'm inclined to agree (yet again) with Psytek and BlackZero.





Anyway back OT - I agree with others: I don't see SLI becoming the norm in the near future.

Regarding refresh rate - my monitor will do 120Hz yet I'm quite happy to run it at 85Hz.
I have had it as high as 100Hz but I never noticed the difference (apart from barely noticeable reduced flickering).
Higher refresh rate also updates the position of the mouse on the screen faster than lower refresh rate.

Regarding V sync - I always run with it turned off.
Although in saying that I have a CRT monitor so having it turned on would be pointless for me anyway as my FPS rarely gets over 80FPS anyway....so screen tearing isn't an issue for me.

 

I actually love what I'm reading in regards to these OLED's.
As it's been said, it seems the production costs for these is smaller than LCD's or Plasma, yet it has a tremendous improvement in regards to color, response time, viewing angles, etc. Basically CRT's +(plus) specs with LCD's +(plus) ergonomy.

I just HATE my crappy samsung LCD where the same color at the top is darker than the same color at the bottom (go in photoshop and draw a straight line from top to bottom), black is not black, stuck pixels (don't have any, but I do have some yellow pixels stacked in my left corner) and 2° motion up or down with your head changes the colors.

 

Yep - I just love my CRT...even if it does weigh in at 35kg hehehe

 

Yeap, I wouldn't mind shelling out $2k for a good OLED display. I really do hope they get here on schedule.

Hopefully N. Korea won't shell Samsungs plant. I checked & it's a good ways away from the border. Dunno if they're going to make the 40" there or not, but it's where they're making the screens for mobile devices.

 

Thankyou, and ditto.

In my home, I have a top of the line crt, a plasma, and a couple lcd displays. I just hate my lcd displays. Go ahead, ask me what they look like. Allright, they look like bright white illuminated viewing boards, which have been used in the medical field to hang xrays from. The difference now is that colored xrays are in their place. With an lcd, you are always looking at a stained glass window, where the panes are swapped out at a pace slower than my liking.

Check out the resolution on the new Casio OLED camera phone:

According to OLED-Info the 3.1″ AMOLED on the Casio Exilim W63CA is manufactured by Samsung. The 3.1″ AMOLED sports a pixel format of 800 x 480 (landscape mode) and is probably one of the highest resolution mobile phone displays out there. Apple’s iPhone has a 3.5″ TFT LCD with a pixel format of just 480 x 320. That is a BIG difference.

I hope nobody will take offense if I resurect this thread in one year, as a time stamp on progress, as well as the two year mark.

 

I won't be surprised... lool

 

well the official medical journal, clearly states that humans can percieve 60fps at 75-80mhz.
take it however you want, you can find all kinds of sites that say otherwise, but a quick look at any medical students books says what it says...at least as of several years ago. i say its smooth enough to enjoy the dam* thing.

there apparantly is scientific study and proof enough if its printed in medical books. i wouldnt rely too hard on the internet, if you search enough you'll find so many contradictions on this very subject is just stupid, pick one and go back to gaming like you always have.

 

I was just playing FEAR 1 and I opted to switch Vysnc ON half way through. And believe me I can surely tell the difference from 60fps - 200fps. Its 100% faster.

 

Not at all, if you haven't read Anandtech's preview of DX11 it's a boon for your sli prediction. Though I still don't see Sli dominating in 2 years time.

 

Originally Posted by Risco

....but funny, nevertheless....