20 seconds broke on Super PI

20 seconds broke on Super PI, now thats a hell of a landmark :D

http://www.akiba-pc.com/spi1m_19sec_...team_japan.gif

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...217#post856217

:slobber:

Can't wait until Intel releases Pentium M's desktop brothers; with performance like this they'll reconquer the enthusiast market fast.

damn thats nice!!!! congrats! :toast:

this was done by newbeatle right?

wa kaka

that is a revelotion!!!

it's under 200'c?

i wonder if that would be good in 3d at all

Wow, amazing time! I think it would do quite well in gaming. Go short pipes! :toast:

AMD fan boy here, intel has really done themselves harm, if only they released dual core dothan's now instead of the joke that is smithfield, dothan is awesome,

*eagerly waits for yonah*

yes and rock on effiecient short pipes, none of this long crap, its not the size that counts :D

Quote:

---

Go short pipes!

---

??? I thought intel had the longer fatter pipes and AMD had the shorter thinner pipes........

awesome :slobber:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nubius

??? I thought intel had the longer fatter pipes and AMD had the shorter thinner pipes........

---

yes intel has long pipes but with the pentium m they go the short pipe way!

:clap: Nice!!!!!! :banana: Congratulations with the nice work - keep up the good work

Quote:

---

yes intel has long pipes but with the pentium m they go the short pipe way!

---

Ahh I see thanks for the insight......so basically they learned a thing or two from AMD? I kid I kid don't get up in arms about it :P

It's too bad SuperPI is a broken benchmark and that Pentium4's would beat the PM with ease if it truly tested the FPU. I'd like to find things that the PM is good at, other than SuperPI. It seems like a one-trick pony to me, though gaming becnhmarks are pretty impressive.

Still pretty interesting though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nubius

Ahh I see thanks for the insight......so basically they learned a thing or two from AMD? I kid I kid don't get up in arms about it :P

---

Not really. This PM architecture was based in the Pentium 3. Then the pipes just got longer from there............................................. .................to 31 pipes on the prescott.

As far as pipeline width and length is concerned, there really is no superiority.

Shorter, thinner pipelines are more adequate for latency intensive tasks(which is why the Athlon typically benchmarks better in games), while longer, wider pipelines are better for data hauling tasks, such as rendering and encoding.

Outside of benchmarks, though, longer and wider pipelines are a lot more practical, because real world usage will never need to be as latency intensive as the processor is capable of... unless of course we find a way to percieve motion at framerates excess of 60FPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nubius

Ahh I see thanks for the insight......so basically they learned a thing or two from AMD? I kid I kid don't get up in arms about it :P

---

lol, no, the dothan pentium m is based on the banias pentium m wich was an improved pentium 3 tualatin.

netburst wasnt really a mistake... intel just seems to have hit the limit of the architecture now and it seems they arent able to keep netburst scaling higher and keeping the power consumption low at the same time, so they go a step backwards to the p6 architecture (pentium 3) ,turn a tad to the right and make two steps forward wich gets them further to where they want to go than netburst would have gotten them :D

i think the problem with netburst was that they had to lengthen the pipeline to reach higher clocks, but the longer your pipeline gets the more complicated it gets to keep the pipeline full, plus higher clocks are hard to reach without losing too much energy to leakage...

i think its basically a result of todays manufacturing processes, you cant reach the speeds with current processes that a netburst processor would need to perform fast enough to be able to compete, without reaching insane leakege levels...

since the manufacturing process is limiting them to a certain speed they are now trying to get as much performence as possible at lower clockspeeds wich means a shorter pipe

if the current processes wouldnt have such a high leakage with the netburst architecture, wich intel didnt expect, then prescott would run a lot cooler and clock a lot higher, at least 30% for each i think.


back on topic though, amazing results, and while the pentium m seems to be weak in some tasks, its easy to see that it has a hole lot of potential wich is why intel chose it as the base for their new architecture after netburst :)

Quote:

---

I'd like to find things that the PM is good at, other than SuperPI

---

Some tests compared to P4 and AMD K8:http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...70ct479&page=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Outside of benchmarks, though, longer and wider pipelines are a lot more practical, because real world usage will never need to be as latency intensive as the processor is capable of... unless of course we find a way to percieve motion at framerates excess of 60FPS.

---

for starters human eyes can detect about 72fps

secondly there is such a thing as having too long a pipeline, the prescott is rediculous

i dont even know why i still look at these threads....... they just make my wallet hurt. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $a1Ty

for starters human eyes can detect about 72fps

secondly there is such a thing as having too long a pipeline, the prescott is rediculous

---

Um, no...

A human's visual perception can be tricked into percieving motion at as little as 24FPS, which is why video is set at a comfortable 29.7FPS.

If you were able to visualize 72 frames per second, the concept of motion blur would not exist to you.


As far as the Prescott's pipeline length being rediulous, what's rediculous is the fact that you don't realize that the pipeline was also widened. They could've easily just lengthened the pipeline so that the frequency would scale higher.

Despite that, as I said previously, the only benefit of a shorter pipeline is apparent in latency intensive tasks, which are non-existent outside of benchmarks.

awesome :toast:

4ghz possible?

I doubt it, considering the stock clock is 1.8Ghz.

Besides, what's another 400Mhz? Practically nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Um, no...

A human's visual perception can be tricked into percieving motion at as little as 24FPS, which is why video is set at a comfortable 29.7FPS.

If you were able to visualize 72 frames per second, the concept of motion blur would not exist to you.


As far as the Prescott's pipeline length being rediulous, what's rediculous is the fact that you don't realize that the pipeline was also widened. They could've easily just lengthened the pipeline so that the frequency would scale higher.

Despite that, as I said previously, the only benefit of a shorter pipeline is apparent in latency intensive tasks, which are non-existent outside of benchmarks.

---

hmmm then why do cpus with a shorter pipeline tend to perform better in games and other apps? i thougt its because games love low latencies.

Super! Fantastic perfomance!

hey white, welcome to XtremeSystems :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Besides, what's another 400Mhz? Practically nothing.

---

:stick:

wow, this is really good. Thats insane. I cant wait to see a 4ghz dothan. That would be insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

hmmm then why do cpus with a shorter pipeline tend to perform better in games and other apps? i thougt its because games love low latencies.

---

As far as games are concerned, there is absolutely no percievable difference between any processor during actual gameplay.

The only difference becomes apparent when you run a benchmark... and even then, so what?

If X processor is doing 90 FPS and Y processor is doing 110 FPS, who cares?

Human perception drops off around 30 FPS, so those additional frames are being rendered uselessly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

As far as games are concerned, there is absolutely no percievable difference between any processor during actual gameplay.

The only difference becomes apparent when you run a benchmark... and even then, so what?

If X processor is doing 90 FPS and Y processor is doing 110 FPS, who cares?

Human perception drops off around 30 FPS, so those additional frames are being rendered uselessly.

---

This is false false false. Where the hell do you people hear this BS?
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

Read it. Think about it. Know it. Love it.

Also, that 110 FPS is better than 90 precisely because that means that Y Processor has a lot longer lifetime than X Processor ;)

Longer lifetime?

The GPU determines graphical performance, not the processor. The processor is only responsible for code execution. This is why bottlenecks occur if one component does not perform as adequate as another.

Don't hold contention if you can't back it up.

Quote:

---

Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder. 1/100th of a second? Very difficult.

---

I've seen this example used dozens of times. We're not talking about one distinct image, but rather 30 or distinct images over the course of a second.

If one were to play a gif animation that ran at 60 frames per second, you would not see a continuous image, but rather concise portions of it.

Quote:

---

Think of your 100Hz TV sets. They are called flickerfree, because at flicker rates of 100 times per second you stop to notice the blackness of the TV screen, though the TV screen isn't shining all the time, but pulsating 100 times per second. Brightness eats darkness.

---

Obviously they have no idea how analog signals are transmitted to televisions. Analog signals are produced in wavelengths, so the term "pulsating" is entirely incorrect.

The only benefit of these "flicker free" TVs are that cameras are able to record them perfectly, allowing them for use in movies.

They go on to try to explain motion blur. Motion blur is a humanistic trait that can be replicated by recording moving objects at low frame rates. The reason film still uses 29.7FPS by default is because it's easy to edit, fully compatbile with all mediums, and adequate for visual perception. It's not a technological inadequacy by any means.

The human inadequacy, however, is present in day to day life. If motion blur was not a tangible concept, we would see moving objects in complete clarity.

We don't, however, because the light percieved by our eyes is transmitting at rates far beyond our visual capability.


To conclude, this website is the most pathetic display of writing I've ever seen.

Where is the biological explanation behind visual perception?
Where is the medical or technical citation?

All they have to go by are unfounded theories and illogical examples, and they present the aforementioned with poor grammar, structure, and even go as far as to invent words while they're at it.

teqguy your contradicitng yourself. first you say PROCESSOR X & Y, then when someone say's processor Y would be the better choice because it has a longer lifespan in terms of keeping up with competition you say it has nothing to do with Processors ....

And if your not able to notice anything above 30FPS then why do people get headackes when looking at images of something when run at 40Hz refresh rate? or 50? and Why do most people want 75 or 85HZ refresh rate on their monitor? Because it supply's a clearer, stiller image. I admit, at 40Hz, your eyes won't see a "real difference". But your brain will sure as hell notice it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

As far as games are concerned, there is absolutely no percievable difference between any processor during actual gameplay.

The only difference becomes apparent when you run a benchmark... and even then, so what?

If X processor is doing 90 FPS and Y processor is doing 110 FPS, who cares?

Human perception drops off around 30 FPS, so those additional frames are being rendered uselessly.

---

lol, what games are you playing? :stick:
and there IS a difference between cpus, the a64 for example is pumping huge fps in games but can also drop down to pretty low fps, while cpus with ht or dual cores can keep the fps more stable and low fps drops are more unusual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robberbaron

Also, that 110 FPS is better than 90 precisely because that means that Y Processor has a lot longer lifetime than X Processor ;)

---

exactly...

very nice site btw! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Longer lifetime?

The GPU determines graphical performance, not the processor.

---

wow... i thougt you knew more about hardware... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Obviously they have no idea how analog signals are transmitted to televisions. Analog signals are produced in wavelengths, so the term "pulsating" is entirely incorrect.

---

uhm, but you are sure you know what your talking about?
do you know how a tv works? how do the frames get displayed? please explain this to me, how does a tv create a frame from the pixel informations it receives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

The only benefit of these "flicker free" TVs are that cameras are able to record them perfectly, allowing them for use in movies.

---

what do you mean? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

They go on to try to explain motion blur. Motion blur is a humanistic trait that can be replicated by recording moving objects at low frame rates. The reason film still uses 29.7FPS by default is because it's easy to edit, fully compatbile with all mediums, and adequate for visual perception. It's not a technological inadequacy by any means.

---

thats not true, some movies come at 30fps, some at 24... and compability isnt an issue at all when having different fps in movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

The human inadequacy, however, is present in day to day life. If motion blur was not a tangible concept, we would see moving objects in complete clarity.

We don't, however, because the light percieved by our eyes is transmitting at rates far beyond our visual capability.

---

please explain what you mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Where is the biological explanation behind visual perception?
Where is the medical or technical citation?

---

did you read the site at all? :stick:

and razor, it depends on the monitor... if the pixel cells glow long enough then you wont notice a low refresh rate.... instead we get ghosting like on old tft displays, where the original pixel still glows while the next pixel where the object has moved already in the next frame is glowing as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entity_Razer

teqguy your contradicitng yourself. first you say PROCESSOR X & Y, then when someone say's processor Y would be the better choice because it has a longer lifespan in terms of keeping up with competition you say it has nothing to do with Processors ....

---

The processor can contribute to a negligible increase in frame rate, simply because frame rate is measured by the processor, not the GPU.

So, if a certain amount of information is being processed, it doesn't matter if it's actually rendered or not in terms of measuring frame rate.

Quote:

---

And if your not able to notice anything above 30FPS then why do people get headackes when looking at images of something when run at 40Hz refresh rate? or 50? and Why do most people want 75 or 85HZ refresh rate on their monitor? Because it supply's a clearer, stiller image. I admit, at 40Hz, your eyes won't see a "real difference". But your brain will sure as hell notice it.

---

Refresh rate has absolutely nothing to do with frame rate. They are two different entities that don't correlate at all until you turn on V-sync.

Hertz is a unit of frequency of electrical vibrations that is equal to one cycle per second. And, just as demonstrated by audio frequencies, humans have a fault tolerance for visual frequencies as well.

The reason that 60Hz is not comfortable for most people is because visual perception is only able to pick up about 29 of those 60 refreshes, with some of them being consecutive and some of them being scattered throughout those 60 cycles.

The result is an inconsistent source of light that our eyes have a hard time focusing on. To compensate for this, our eyes try to refocus constantly... the only problem is they can't keep up with the refreshes.

Now, why is it that TVs, which also operate at 60Hz, are comfortable to look at for long periods of time?

This is because the amount of complete frames being displayed per second only amount to 30.

Our eyes are able to retain focus on the image without having to constantly refocus.

Quote:

---

uhm, but you are sure you know what your talking about?
do you know how a tv works? how do the frames get displayed? please explain this to me, how does a tv create a frame from the pixel informations it receives.

---

All current display technologies use some form of electroluminescence, and thus they all have a wavelength.

A wavelength is analog, not digital. If it were digital, the term "pulsating" would be relevant, because you would be "pulsing" 1's and 0's back and forth.

In the case of optical connections, no wavelength is equal to 0, while any wavelength is equal to 1.

Quote:

---

thats not true, some movies come at 30fps, some at 24... and compability isnt an issue at all when having different fps in movies

---

All DVDs are encoded at 29.7 FPS.

And yes, compatability is an issue when you're editing and combining film from multiple sources. If you don't have a consistent frame rate, the end result will be inconsistent video and/or audio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

The processor can contribute to a negligible increase in frame rate, simply because frame rate is measured by the processor, not the GPU.

So, if a certain amount of information is being processed, it doesn't matter if it's actually rendered or not in terms of measuring frame rate.

---

this sounds as if a faster cou will produce a higher fps but the actual frames per second a system produces stays the same, wich is absolutely not true.
a slow cpu with a high end card can be significatnyl slower than a high end cpu with a slower videocard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

The reason that 60Hz is not comfortable for most people is because visual perception is only able to pick up about 29 of those 60 refreshes, with some of them being consecutive and some of them being scattered throughout those 60 cycles.

---

this doesnt make sence, you are thinking of the eye working at one certain frequency, wich is completely wrong, each cell works at a different frequency, again, did you read the link he posted at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

The result is an inconsistent source of light that our eyes have a hard time focusing on. To compensate for this, our eyes try to refocus constantly... the only problem is they can't keep up with the refreshes.

---

thats exactly what the site you made fun of said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Now, why is it that TVs, which also operate at 60Hz, are comfortable to look at for long periods of time?
This is because the amount of complete frames being displayed per second only amount to 30.

---

please explain what a complete fram is and what an incomplete frame is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Our eyes are able to retain focus on the image without having to constantly refocus.

---

refocus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

All current display technologies use some form of electroluminescence, and thus they all have a wavelength.

A wavelength is analog, not digital. If it were digital, the term "pulsating" would be relevant, because you would be "pulsing" 1's and 0's back and forth.

In the case of optical connections, no wavelength is equal to 0, while any wavelength is equal to 1.

---

thats not what i asked and how do the wavelengths you are talking about have to do with how many frames per second we can see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

All DVDs are encoded at 29.7 FPS.

And yes, compatability is an issue when you're editing and combining film from multiple sources. If you don't have a consistent frame rate, the end result will be inconsistent video and/or audio.

---

no, you can double frames or tripple them and add mixed and merged frames in between, there are many tools for that and its not that hard at all, its not like proeffional video editors werent able to cut a movie from 60 to 30fps or vice versa.

30fps is a trade off between the number of frames wich everybody tries to keep down so you dont nerd to much space/tape and the number of frames we need so the movie doesnt give us a headache and looks bad.

this doesnt mean 30fps is all you need and anything above 30fps wont make a difference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

this sounds as if a faster cou will produce a higher fps but the actual frames per second a system produces stays the same, wich is absolutely not true.
a slow cpu with a high end card can be significatnyl slower than a high end cpu with a slower videocard.

---

Uh, the GPU does not have an instruction that says "Okay, I'm done, give me more data".

The frame rate is measured by the application and is based on the assumption that when a frame is processed it has been rendered, which is not a true indication of the amount of frames rendered per second.

A faster processor can contribute to a higher frame rate, but the majority of the work is placed on the GPU.

Quote:

---

this doesnt make sence, you are thinking of the eye working at one certain frequency, wich is completely wrong, each cell works at a different frequency, again, did you read the link he posted at all?

---

Biologically speaking, the human body has no frequency.

Visually, though, human perception CAN and DOES pick up on those cycles, which is why the presence of a flicker exists at 60Hz.

Quote:

---

please explain what a complete fram is and what an incomplete frame is.

---

Interlaced vs Progressive

Quote:

---

refocus?

---

Main Entry: re·fo·cus
Pronunciation: (")rE-'fO-k&s
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 : to focus again
2 : to change the emphasis or direction of <had refocused his life>
intransitive senses
1 : to focus something again
2 : to change emphasis or direction

Quote:

---

thats not what i asked and how do the wavelengths you are talking about have to do with how many frames per second we can see?

---

Your question was entirely unrelated to what I said before, so I continued to explain why their usage of the word "pulsating" was incorrect.

Quote:

---

no, you can double frames or tripple them and add mixed and merged frames in between, there are many tools for that and its not that hard at all, its not like proeffional video editors werent able to cut a movie from 60 to 30fps or vice versa.

---

The cameras operate at 29.7FPS, which is why they're able to pick up the flicker from screens that operate at 60Hz or below.

If you were to reduce or increase the frame rate of a video, you're essentially slowing it down or speeding it up.

Quote:

---

30fps is a trade off between the number of frames wich everybody tries to keep down so you dont nerd to much space/tape and the number of frames we need so the movie doesnt give us a headache and looks bad.

this doesnt mean 30fps is all you need and anything above 30fps wont make a difference...

---

In terms of visual perception, a consistent 30 frames per second is and has been adequate for quite some time.

If film makers thought a higher frame rate was neccessary, don't you think they would've done something about it by now?

what cooling was that on? phase change?

Wow, that's a beautiful score for a Pentium-M cpu :slobber:

Another 400 mhz wouldn't be a real challenge :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashish_mohanty

what cooling was that on? phase change?

---

I believe it was LN2.

PAL is 25 frames per sec, so not all dvds are 30fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Uh, the GPU does not have an instruction that says "Okay, I'm done, give me more data".

The frame rate is measured by the application and is based on the assumption that when a frame is processed it has been rendered, which is not a true indication of the amount of frames rendered per second.

A faster processor can contribute to a higher frame rate, but the majority of the work is placed on the GPU.

---

this sounds again like a higher fps with cpu a is actually not faster than a lower fps with cpu b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Biologically speaking, the human body has no frequency.

Visually, though, human perception CAN and DOES pick up on those cycles, which is why the presence of a flicker exists at 60Hz.

---

it does, and it has many frequencies, they arent 100% steady but they do exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Interlaced vs Progressive

---

please explain them, and dont just name them, thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Main Entry: re·fo·cus
Pronunciation: (")rE-'fO-k&s
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 : to focus again
2 : to change the emphasis or direction of <had refocused his life>
intransitive senses
1 : to focus something again
2 : to change emphasis or direction

---

thank you very much, but again, please explain what you mean and not what the words you used mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Your question was entirely unrelated to what I said before, so I continued to explain why their usage of the word "pulsating" was incorrect.

---

please explain it in more detail, i dont get the slightest idea of your point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

If you were to reduce or increase the frame rate of a video, you're essentially slowing it down or speeding it up.

---

nope, if you double the frames and double the fps you get the same motion speed.

and my cam records at around 14fps yet i can encode it so it shows 24 or 30fps and it runs the same speed but flickers less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

In terms of visual perception, a consistent 30 frames per second is and has been adequate for quite some time.

If film makers thought a higher frame rate was neccessary, don't you think they would've done something about it by now?

---

they did and its called hdtv ;)
hdtv supports 25/50 full fps 50 half fps 24 30 and 60 full fps or 60 half fps, so we are hopefully going to see higher fps in movies sooner or later.
now if 24 or 30fps is all we need then why does the latest standard, hdtv support up to 60fps?

go and record a movie at 24fps turning around the camera in a 90 or 180° horizontally angle in a fast movement and you either end up with blurred frames or bad flickering.
oh and 30fps isnt the standard, most movies are still produced in 24fps, not 30fps, and while todays cameras record frames digitally there is still a problem of storage cost wich is a reason why movies arent recorded at a higher fps, YET :D

Originally Posted by saaya
this sounds as if a faster cou will produce a higher fps but the actual frames per second a system produces stays the same, wich is absolutely not true.
a slow cpu with a high end card can be significatnyl slower than a high end cpu with a slower videocard.

Wrong. Tests have shown that a PIII 500 running a 9700 pro could out perform a 2Ghz cpu running a less powerful video card.

intel come back :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muk

Originally Posted by saaya
this sounds as if a faster cou will produce a higher fps but the actual frames per second a system produces stays the same, wich is absolutely not true.
a slow cpu with a high end card can be significatnyl slower than a high end cpu with a slower videocard.

Wrong. Tests have shown that a PIII 500 running a 9700 pro could out perform a 2Ghz cpu running a less powerful video card.

---

IIRC that was in 3DMark03, not a really accurate real-world test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

they did and its called hdtv ;)
hdtv supports 25/50 full fps 50 half fps 24 30 and 60 full fps or 60 half fps, so we are hopefully going to see higher fps in movies sooner or later.
now if 24 or 30fps is all we need then why does the latest standard, hdtv support up to 60fps?

---

First of all... the only modes that support 60Hz(again refresh rate and FPS are NOT correlated whatsoever) are 1280x720i and 1920x1080i.

TRUE HD resolution is 1920x1080p, which is limited to 30Hz.

The reason 60Hz is used is because it's interlace format, which means a complete frame has a frequency of 30Hz.

And for the record, HDDVD is going straight to 1920x1080p.

dude why do you think they use interlaced on tv's, its 30fps but interlaced so it is effectively 60fps, duh, also movies and tv have motion blur which hasnt been programed into games yet for obvious reasons, hence to have smooth motion mostly in first person shooters, you need over 60fps

dude learn the facts and shutup before you do yourself more damage :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact:

edit: here is a good article for you to learn ;)

however, at over 60 fps, the human eye cant tell the difference :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $a1Ty

dude why do you think they use interlaced on tv's, its 30fps but interlaced so it is effectively 60fps, duh, also movies and tv have motion blur which hasnt been programed into games yet for obvious reasons, hence to have smooth motion mostly in first person shooters, you need over 60fps

dude learn the facts and shutup before you do yourself more damage

edit: here is a good article for you to learn ;)

---

First of all, learn how to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner. Until then, the only person that needs to shut up, as you so immaturely put it, is you.


It's obvious that you don't understand what interlacing is.

Here is a clear explanation, complete with pictures:
http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm

The refresh rate on an NTSC TV is 60Hz... and because of interlacing, 60Hz translates into 30 complete frames per 60 cycles.

So, 30 frames per second is not the equivalent to 60Hz, but rather vice versa.


Now, on to your point about games.

My original point, as far as this is concerned, is that a processor that contributes to 5-10 more FPS in a game is an absolutely negligible difference, considering the GPU does the majority of the work.

What you did not understand is that when I was originally referring to human perception of motion, I was stating that there is not a single person alive that would be able to distinguish between 90 FPS and 110 FPS, because humans have an inherent inadequacy when it comes to visualization at those rates.

I am not saying that throwing more FPS at anything is neccessarily a bad thing, but when you're comparing processors based on their ability to push additional frames and labeling the one that does it better a "gaming processor", it's purely ludicrous... based on the fact that human perception isn't even capable of making a discernable distinguishment.

i'm not arguing with you about 90fps to 110fps, i'm talking about 30fps and 60fps+ here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muk

Originally Posted by saaya
this sounds as if a faster cou will produce a higher fps but the actual frames per second a system produces stays the same, wich is absolutely not true.
a slow cpu with a high end card can be significatnyl slower than a high end cpu with a slower videocard.

Wrong. Tests have shown that a PIII 500 running a 9700 pro could out perform a 2Ghz cpu running a less powerful video card.

---

link me please :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

First of all... the only modes that support 60Hz(again refresh rate and FPS are NOT correlated whatsoever) are 1280x720i and 1920x1080i.

TRUE HD resolution is 1920x1080p, which is limited to 30Hz.

The reason 60Hz is used is because it's interlace format, which means a complete frame has a frequency of 30Hz.

And for the record, HDDVD is going straight to 1920x1080p.

---

movies arent recorded in hz but in fps, so i dont get what you mean...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

What you did not understand is that when I was originally referring to human perception of motion, I was stating that there is not a single person alive that would be able to distinguish between 90 FPS and 110 FPS, because humans have an inherent inadequacy when it comes to visualization at those rates.

I am not saying that throwing more FPS at anything is neccessarily a bad thing, but when you're comparing processors based on their ability to push additional frames and labeling the one that does it better a "gaming processor", it's purely ludicrous... based on the fact that human perception isn't even capable of making a discernable distinguishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teqguy

Human perception drops off around 30 FPS, so those additional frames are being rendered uselessly.

---

now what? first you said we cant see a difference above 30fps, now you say its around 90fps? and you still ahvent replied to what i said about 30fps beeing enough, go and take a movie and move the camera in a 90 or 180° angle horizontally in a fast movement and then show me how 30fps is enough to produce a steady and clear movie without blurred frames or stuttering or flickering.

30fps is enough for the typical szenes used in movies, wich are often in 3rd person view from a certain distance and in slow and floating movements, or even without any movements at all, in those cases 30fps might be enough, in games where we are moving constantly and making fast movements and turns its far from enough. and i bet that professional gamers DO notice a differenc between 90 and 110fps in games if you let them play at 90 and 110fps for a few minutes :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by $a1Ty

dude why do you think they use interlaced on tv's, its 30fps but interlaced so it is effectively 60fps, duh, also movies and tv have motion blur which hasnt been programed into games yet for obvious reasons, hence to have smooth motion mostly in first person shooters, you need over 60fps

dude learn the facts and shutup before you do yourself more damage :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact: :fact:

edit: here is a good article for you to learn ;)

---

This is why Mr.Teqguy has been banned from many forums, Guru3D being his last I believe. He gets himself entangled in his many posts, and he just doesnt know where hes going. Ive seen this many times. Hes a very stubburn man, that never ever wants to be proven wrong(which he has) and yet he just keeps on going.

Teqguy please dont start that Intel Fan boy :banana::banana::banana::banana: here.
Oh hold on you already have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

movies arent recorded in hz but in fps, so i dont get what you mean...

---

I wasn't talking about video, but rather high definition displays.

Quote:

---

now what? first you said we cant see a difference above 30fps, now you say its around 90fps?

---

I never said 90FPS in relation to that, but rather that it's far too high for human perception to differentiate between that and anything higher.

Quote:

---

go and take a movie and move the camera in a 90 or 180° angle horizontally in a fast movement and then show me how 30fps is enough to produce a steady and clear movie without blurred frames or stuttering or flickering.

---

Have you ever seen a movie that had a shot that could be improved by rotating the camera that quickly?

From a technical standpoint, you're right, but in all practicality, cameras aren't designed to be spun like tops.

Quote:

---

in games where we are moving constantly and making fast movements and turns its far from enough.

---

Describe a constant motion that lasts a second and can not be generated in 30 frames or less and I'll admit you're right.

Quote:

---

and i bet that professional gamers DO notice a differenc between 90 and 110fps in games if you let them play at 90 and 110fps for a few minutes :)

---

Test it for yourself.