Originally Posted by teqguy
![Send a message via AIM to [XC] moddolicous](images/misc/im_aim.gif)
wow, this is really good. Thats insane. I cant wait to see a 4ghz dothan. That would be insane.
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
AMD Opteron 165
DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR
2x1024mb G.Skill "HZ"
MSI 7900GTX
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=88027
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by teqguy; 05-15-2005 at 10:07 PM.
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.
lol, what games are you playing?
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.
exactly...Also, that 110 FPS is better than 90 precisely because that means that Y Processor has a lot longer lifetime than X Processor
very nice site btw!
wow... i thougt you knew more about hardware... :P
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.
what do you mean?
thats not true, some movies come at 30fps, some at 24... and compability isnt an issue at all when having different fps in movies.
please explain what you mean
did you read the site at all?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
All current display technologies use some form of electroluminescence, and thus they all have a wavelength.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.
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.
All DVDs are encoded at 29.7 FPS.thats not true, some movies come at 30fps, some at 24... and compability isnt an issue at all when having different fps in movies
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.
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.
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?
thats exactly what the site you made fun of said.
please explain what a complete fram is and what an incomplete frame is.
refocus?
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?
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...
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.
Biologically speaking, the human body has no frequency.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?
Visually, though, human perception CAN and DOES pick up on those cycles, which is why the presence of a flicker exists at 60Hz.
Interlaced vs Progressiveplease explain what a complete fram is and what an incomplete frame is.
Main Entry: re·fo·cusrefocus?
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
Your question was entirely unrelated to what I said before, so I continued to explain why their usage of the word "pulsating" was incorrect.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?
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.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.
If you were to reduce or increase the frame rate of a video, you're essentially slowing it down or speeding it up.
In terms of visual perception, a consistent 30 frames per second is and has been adequate for quite some time.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...
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
Another 400 mhz wouldn't be a real challenge
I believe it was LN2.
PAL is 25 frames per sec, so not all dvds are 30fps.
this sounds again like a higher fps with cpu a is actually not faster than a lower fps with cpu b.
it does, and it has many frequencies, they arent 100% steady but they do exist.
please explain them, and dont just name them, thank you
thank you very much, but again, please explain what you mean and not what the words you used mean.
please explain it in more detail, i dont get the slightest idea of your point...
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.
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
Last edited by saaya; 05-16-2005 at 11:31 AM.
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
IIRC that was in 3DMark03, not a really accurate real-world test.
7700k @ 5.0GHz
ASUS Z170-Deluxe
2x8GB Avexir Raiden DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35
Gigabyte Aorus 1080 Ti @ 2076/1500(6000)
512GB Samsung PM961 + 840 Pro 256GB + some TBs
Corsair AX1200i
X-Star DP2710LED @ 110Hz + 40" Samsung TV
CPU and GPU under water: 9x120 rad + 3x120 + 3x120
...and an HTC Vive!
First of all... the only modes that support 60Hz(again refresh rate and FPS are NOT correlated whatsoever) are 1280x720i and 1920x1080i.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?
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
edit: here is a good article for you to learn
however, at over 60 fps, the human eye cant tell the difference
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.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
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
link me please
movies arent recorded in hz but in fps, so i dont get what you mean...
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
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
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 boyhere.
Oh hold on you already have
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks