ATI Radeon HD 4000 Series discussion

[AliG]

imo, what I think the performance should be is enough that you can play at your max resolution with some detail. Honestly my 6600gt can play quite a few fairly new games on my 24" widescreen, even the 8800gts g92 generally is enough to give you at least 30 fps for my needs. Honestly, 300 fps looks and feels no different than 61 (as the eye can't detect the difference above 60 anyways), so what matters most to me is minimum framerate (which has shown to be a problem for 3870x2 and even occasionally the 9800gx2). If either the 4870 or 9900gtx (not gtx 280) can do that for me, then I have no need for anything better

[003]

Nvidia did a smart thing by swallowing Ageia to get their hands on the Physx and make it available only to Nvidia users.

Yep, I saw what they were going to do when they bought Ageia so I quickly snagged a used PhysX card on e-bay for cheap.

Honestly, 300 fps looks and feels no different than 61 (as the eye can't detect the difference above 60 anyways)

Wrong.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

[Xello]

Wrong.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Good article, pretty accurate. It goes into motion blur which is very important An example i like to use is that if you played a game at avg 500fps for a few days, then suddenly played it at 250fps, you would very much notice the difference. Obviously this has to be taken in context, we don't play modern games at that high an avg fps so it's arguably not important, but the point is there is a difference and the whole "anything above 60fps / 100fps cannot be perceived" is wrong.

[003]

Good article, pretty accurate. It goes into motion blur which is very important An example i like to use is that if you played a game at avg 500fps for a few days, then suddenly played it at 250fps, you would very much notice the difference. Obviously this has to be taken in context, we don't play modern games at that high an avg fps so it's arguably not important, but the point is there is a difference and the whole "anything above 60fps / 100fps cannot be perceived" is wrong.

It also must be taken into consideration that only the very best CRT monitor (impossible to find these days) will only be able to display ~240 FPS, limited by the refresh rate. Although technically a higher FPS than the refresh rate can be shown, there will be very noticeable tearing.

[Xello]

It also must be taken into consideration that only the very best CRT monitor (impossible to find these days) will only be able to display ~240 FPS, limited by the refresh rate. Although technically a higher FPS than the refresh rate can be shown, there will be very noticeable tearing.

Totally. It's all theoretical atm...

[Luka_Aveiro]

Honestly, 300 fps looks and feels no different than 61 (as the eye can't detect the difference above 60 anyways)

That is not true

If you're in a dark room and have 200fps (199 black 1 blank) passing on the wall, you will notice the blank one

Although in games, more than 60fps is indeed a waste.