1001 réponses à ce sujet

[azrael_1289]

That's plain wrong.

 

 

Games don't render anything and GPUs don't render in Hertz intervals, they render when it's finished being processed as fast as physically possible. It's the the monitor that periodically refreshes its display (as it has to, unless you'd only see a black monitor), in intervals measured with Hertz.

 

 

And as I've said, the difference is significant. Double the frame refreshrate means you see double the frames. So if you have a GPU that can render a game at 120 fps, with a 60Hz monitor you only see half of those.

 

 

 

You can compare it with animated comics. Draw a motion comic in crude successive pictures and you see motion. Draw the same visual with more standalone pictures and speed up the animation and you have a smoother visual because the differences between each single frame is less.

 

 

A 120Hz monitor won't make a picture more pretty, but it will improve the visual quality of motion significantly.

When I said games, I meant hardware rendering the games. My bad. And what do you think hertz is? It just means per second. You say GPU renders games at certain frames per second and then say it's not Hertz; they are two ways of saying the same thing.
And no, it doesn't make a significant discernible difference between 60 and 120. Why do you think developers would rather use GPU power to increase resolution from 720p to 1080p or use it for any other effect than increase FPS from 30 to 60? I have a 120Hz monitor and I don't notice any difference with my earlier monitor; let alone a significant one.

And lastly double the framerate doesn't mean you "see" double the frames per second. It just means double the screens are rendered. Human eye can't process anywhere near 120 frames in a second. Almost all movies in theaters use 24 FPS(Hobbit used 48 fps with disastrous results).

[azrael_1289]

 

 

Oh look, another one of those.

 

 

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

 

 

As to your remaining points. GPUs render images. They don't render it in intervals, they just render. The result is a particular number of frames per second. It has nothing to do with the functionality/method of a GPU.

 

As for you having a 120Hz monitor and not noticing any difference with an earlier one (I am of course assuming it was a 60Hz monitor and not another 120Hz), there is three conditions upon which I can agree with your stated experience:

 

-You don't play any games with large focus on motion (ie: shooters) or haven't played any of those with the earlier monitor to have a basis for comparision.

-You don't have the necessary hardware power to produce more than 60 frames per second that the higher refreshrate monitor can actually display to create the more fluid motion visuals.

-You have severe damage to your ocular system (eyes, nerves, or visual cortex) that leaves you unable to notice the difference.

 

Under any other given situation, I will call BS on your claim, which is only emphasized by your contradiction of spouting that "human eye can't process anywhere near xxx frames per second" nonsense, yet seemingly having purchased a 120Hz monitor when according to your own conviction, it makes no sense to own one as it's no different to a standard 60Hz monitor.

I do play shooters. Titanfall is my favourite game this year so far. I also played a lot of twitch shooters where smoother displays offer advantage. I have sufficiently powerful hardware(GTX 670) and my eyes are perfectly fine, thank you very much. And the reason I got a 120 Hz monitor is for NVidia's 3D vision. 
I still maintain there is no significant difference when I am playing my old games. And even with my card, most games these days with different effects enabled and at 1080p doesn't go near 120fps making it all a moot point. 

[azrael_1289]

Well, then I am staying true to my word and call BS. No one can tell me there is no difference between 60Hz and 120Hz monitor visuals.

 

Scientific reality, scores of professional gamers and my own (admittedly short) experience contradict your statement.

You do that. Perception is unique to individuals. I am not the only one who has a similar experience. 

[azrael_1289]

Fair enough if we can agree to disagree.

 

 

I am still downright amazed though how someone can not see the difference, especially if you play shooters where such stuff is a clear advantage (for no small reason as I had noted).

I can feel the difference in smoothness(with higher FPS I mean, not refresh rate) when playing shooters if that makes any sense, but if I'm just seeing it, there really isn't any difference for me.

[Lolomlas]

I have this PC:

 

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
CPU: Intel Core i5-3350p @ 3.10 GHz 3.30 GHz

RAM: 6GB

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650

 

I will get 4 or 8 GB more RAM 'till October, but I wonder if this is enough for DA:I on high graphics? I have my doubts about the GPU.

[DisturbedJim83]

I have this PC:

 

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
CPU: Intel Core i5-3350p @ 3.10 GHz 3.30 GHz

RAM: 6GB

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650

 

I will get 4 or 8 GB more RAM 'till October, but I wonder if this is enough for DA:I on high graphics? I have my doubts about the GPU.

GPU should be good enough for medium I'd guess maybe high about the RAM is it DDR2 or DDR3? and whats the speed 1600Mhz,1866Mhz etc ? that can have a difference in framerates 

[The Spirit of Dance]

Anyone think I should transition to PC gaming with this rig for DA:I or should I just stick with consoles?

 

GPU:                          GeForce GT 720M

CPU:                          Intel® Core™ i7-3634QM CPU @ 2.20GHz

Memory:                     6.00 GB RAM (5.88 GB usable)

operating system:      Windows 8, 64-bit, x-64 based processor

[Fredvdp]

Anyone think I should transition to PC gaming with this rig for DA:I or should I just stick with consoles?

 

GPU:                          GeForce GT 720M

CPU:                          Intel® Core™ i7-3634QM CPU @ 2.20GHz

Memory:                     6.00 GB RAM (5.88 GB usable)

operating system:      Windows 8, 64-bit, x-64 based processor

That PC seems insufficient for Frostbite 3 games, especially with that entry-level mobile GPU.

I'm very much biased towards PC, so I would suggest transitioning to PC gaming with a different rig. If for some reason that's not an option, I think current-gen consoles like PS4 might offer a sufficiently enjoyable experience.

[Wulfram]

I think you'd be better off with a console than a laptop.

[DisturbedJim83]

Anyone think I should transition to PC gaming with this rig for DA:I or should I just stick with consoles?

 

GPU:                          GeForce GT 720M

CPU:                          Intel® Core™ i7-3634QM CPU @ 2.20GHz

Memory:                     6.00 GB RAM (5.88 GB usable)

operating system:      Windows 8, 64-bit, x-64 based processor

 

 

That PC seems insufficient for Frostbite 3 games, especially with that entry-level mobile GPU.

I'm very much biased towards PC, so I would suggest transitioning to PC gaming with a different rig. If for some reason that's not an option, I think current-gen consoles like PS4 might offer a sufficiently enjoyable experience.

Pretty much what Fred said the laptop your using just wont cut it, my general advice is don't bother gaming with a laptop unless its an actual "gaming" laptop and even then for what they cost you can build a much more powerful desktop if building a computer is not a option then stick with consoles although personally I consider both the XB1 and PS4 to be a waste of money given how low end they are.

[Milan92]

Oh, so we're showing off huh?

 

- CPU: Intel Core i7-2600 3.40 GHz

 

- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 Superclocked

 

- 8 GB RAM

 

- Windows 7 64 Bit

 

Come at me bro.

[The Spirit of Dance]

Alright, thank you for your input everyone. Guess it's back to playstation for me.

[DisturbedJim83]

Oh, so we're are showing off huh?

 

- CPU: Intel Core i7-2600 3.40 GHz

 

- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 Superclocked

 

- 8 GB RAM

 

- Windows 7 64 Bit

 

Come at me bro.

Intel Core i5 4670K@4.4Ghz

Asus Maximus VI Formula

16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro 2400Mhz

EVGA Supernova G2 1300W PSU

Powercolor PCS+OC R9 290 and Asus Direct CU II R9 290 in Crossfire-X

Corsair H105 with 4 Corsair SP120 PWM Quiet Editions in push pull.

NZXT Switch 810 Matt Black SE with 3 included 140mm NZXT Fans 

Phanteks PH-F140HPx2 front mounted

BitFenix Black/Red/Black cable extensions for ATX24/8/4 pin,PCI-E 8pin x2 and 6 pin x2 

 

I accept your surrender lol 

[thecookiesuspectsnothing]

Should be fine *insert mandatory laptops aren't suited for gaming comment here*

Yes, a computer is better, especially in terms of value for money with performance and cooling, but my laptop does have extra cooling built in as I had it built. I don't have the room for a PC at the moment, nor the money to invest in one. In future I will, but for now I will stick with my portable version. I also don't have a ps4 and prefer gaming on my laptop, so fingers crossed.

[Ava Grey]

Intel Core i5 4670K@4.4Ghz

Asus Maximus VI Formula

16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro 2400Mhz

EVGA Supernova G2 1300W PSU

Powercolor PCS+OC R9 290 and Asus Direct CU II R9 290 in Crossfire-X

Corsair H105 with 4 Corsair SP120 PWM Quiet Editions in push pull.

NZXT Switch 810 Matt Black SE with 3 included 140mm NZXT Fans 

Phanteks PH-F140HPx2 front mounted

BitFenix Black/Red/Black cable extensions for ATX24/8/4 pin,PCI-E 8pin x2 and 6 pin x2 

 

I accept your surrender lol 

Looking at your PSU makes me wonder whether mine needs an upgrade. I've already been eyeballing a GPU upgrade, so i'm thinking possibly. Current specs are;

 

Fractal Design Define R4 Low Noise Case

Corsair 800W PSU

Intel Core i7 4770K Haswell Processor Overclocked to up to 4.5GHz
Corsair Hydro Series H100i Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
Gigabyte Z87-D3HP Motherboard
16GB Corsair/Crucial PC3-12800 1600MHz
Chillblast NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Graphics Card
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
 

[DisturbedJim83]

Looking at your PSU makes me wonder whether mine needs an upgrade. I've already been eyeballing a GPU upgrade, so i'm thinking possibly. Current specs are;

 

Fractal Design Define R4 Low Noise Case

Corsair 800W PSU

Intel Core i7 4770K Haswell Processor Overclocked to up to 4.5GHz
Corsair Hydro Series H100i Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
Gigabyte Z87-D3HP Motherboard
16GB Corsair/Crucial PC3-12800 1600MHz
Chillblast NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Graphics Card
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
 

Depends on if you planning on running 2 Graphics Cards in either SLI(Nvidia) or Crossfire(AMD) if yes then I suggest something like the Corsair RM1000 until recently I did run the same build with just the Powercolor R9 290 on a Corsair GS800 PSU so if your only going to be using a single GPU then your 800W should be fine even for a 780Ti 

[Ava Grey]

Nope, no PSU upgrade required. The wattage is easily enough to run an SLI setup (well, not necessarily two of the powerhungriest GPUs like the AMD R9s, but a second GTX 770 would fit just fine and have room to spare).

 

Fantastic, always like to keep money in my pocket when I can. Thanks.

 

 

Depends on if you planning on running 2 Graphics Cards in either SLI(Nvidia) or Crossfire(AMD) if yes then I suggest something like the Corsair RM1000 until recently I did run the same build with just the Powercolor R9 290 on a Corsair GS800 PSU so if your only going to be using a single GPU then your 800W should be fine even for a 780Ti 

The 780Ti is what i've been looking at, so this all sounds pretty good to me. Thanks to you as well.

[Fishy]

I wonder what the dev consider ''requirement'' ..  Do a FPS dev think the same way has a RPG dev with what they consider should be acceptable for their game ? Or a solo vs multiplayer game ? Playing with fewer frames per second in a ''slow'' roleplaying game versus a twitch FPS environment ..hmm.. hmmm.

 

Playing at 30 fps in inquisition would feel more acceptable than playing at 30 FPS in Battlefield 4. So what are going to be the recommanded spec for inquisition. Hmmm..

 

What was the recommanded spec for Dragon age 2 ? Released 3 years and 4 month ago.

 

A Quad core 2.4 GHZ. But guess what ? Back in 2011 I played DA2 on the ''best'' setting with a 8800 GT( They recommanded the GTS) and a X2 4600.( a 2005 released cpu. Although it was extremely expensive at the time lol. Like 1000 munchies)

 

So they were definitly talking about 60 FPS. Because DA2  was not running at 60 frame per second on my old pc. More like 40. Which was more than enough for me . (without any AA and with the high texture pack)

 

So if they follow the same trend.. The requirement for Inquisition most likely to be an I7 CPU(quad core) and the 500 series (released in december 2010) and probably around 8 gig of ram ( The norm right now) ..

 

Which mean you can probably play the game with a slower CPU, but lesser FPS ( like an AMD quad core)...

 

RPG tend to be heavy more heavy on the CPU.

 

 

But than i could be totally wrong. Because they don't use the same engine, It also depend of what their consider acceptable and how optimzied their game will be.

 

 

My guess is .. If you have q quad core cpu with more than 2.8 GHZ and a 570 + video card ( or the 480 gtx).. You should be more than fine. Unless you can't play any game with less than 60 fps.

[DisturbedJim83]

Nope, no PSU upgrade required. The wattage is easily enough to run an SLI setup (well, not necessarily two of the powerhungriest GPUs like the AMD R9s, but a second GTX 770 would fit just fine and have room to spare).

 

 

@DisturbedJim83

 

Two different brand GPUs? Where's your integrity as system builder to use two different GPUs in a Crossfire setup? That's ... that's like putting a BMW powerplant into a Mercedes car. You don't do that! It's ... it's gross and a taboo! It's like hardware incest!

its down to a case of space lol the Powercolor card has a 2.5 slot 3 fan cooler on it ( which is why it never goes above 70C and averages 62C) while i could have got another powercolor card in the second slot it would only leave a space of about 4mm between the back of the second card and the fans of the first which worries me a little so I got the Asus purely because it has a 2 slot cooler and the clock speeds are not too far off of my Powercolor card so the Asus Card is in the x16 slot and the Powercolor in the x8 slot later on when i can afford a good water cooling loop i may get another Powercolor card and watercool them both along with the Asus R9 290 for TRIPLE CROSSFIRE AWESOMESAUCE lol 

[Ryzaki]

Like I said...I'm playing at 900p so I'm hoping I can skirt by on medium/high even on my 570 battlefield apparently can be played on high comfortably ~30fps (Though I wouldn't do that on battlefield. Shooting games should be 60fps) that much for an rpg should be fine though.

 

Though I'm wondering how much of a jump a 770 would be...I can see I can get one for around 400 bucks and I can scrape that together by October but if it's not gonna be a significant boost...hm...maybe the 780 would be a better investment...I see somewhere I can get it for 520...