Hmmmmm... no to the first statement, I defer to Helmor's rebuttal above. However, I do not entirely agree with you on your second rhetorical question. Anytime the source FPS is not in sync with the display frame rate, artifacts will occur and the game will look worse than if you matched the FPS with the refresh rate of the monitor.
You said... this:
This is, ironically, not quite incorrect. Measuring 180 FPS means that your monitor will only display 1/3 of those frames at a refresh rate of 60 Hz... on average.Don't forget to buy a superfast monitor that can display all those fps, you also need superfast eyes. No game exist today that need a very fast CPU what I know of.
However, does this not beg the question ... why, then, do people drive and want the highest FPS performance they can get within their budget?
The answer is to ensure that no matter what game you want to play, during what ever portion of the game you are playing that the FPS remains above the minimum threshold. What that minimum threshold is defined by many people differently, my definition is 60 FPS ... simply because I can run V-sync, and the game would by 100% smooth, no tearing, no jittering 100% of the time.
Your statement and my pointing out that your weirdness of that statement really has nothing to do with what specific CPU or what specific GPU ... technically, start with getting the fastest GPU you can get, followed by the fastest CPU with the money left over -- however, looking at what you put together as a gaming system it is pretty weak ... but it is indeed well balanced, the CPU is just about enough for that GPU.
Jack






Reply With Quote
Bookmarks