It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionWanted: Peoples opinion on "fps vs resolution"(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 20, 2016
Neither FPS gains or resolution gains are worth it.
Posted February 20, 2016
All I got from this post was "Look at my e-peen.... err Titan X"

In any case, get a G-Sync 1440p/144hz / 4k/60hz (soon higher refresh models coming I guess) display and go to town

I run a G-Sync Acer 1440p@144hz on my 980Ti - can't max the thing, but should FPS drop below 60 the G-Sync sorts it out
Post edited February 20, 2016 by Bigs
Posted February 20, 2016
avatar
johnnygoging: All games should at least be halfway stable on day 1 to the point that bugs are a rarity and they should all run at 60 fps. They should all manage 60 fps. How good they look should be a matter of how good they look at 60 fps. When other industries get up to this kind of shit there's lawsuits and watergate scandals and money lost. Games? Business as usual.
Oh yeah, also developers should always have enough money to actually finish the games, they should get the taxpayers' money to achieve that! Games like Gothic or Stalker should have NEVER been released and their developers should be in jail! And there should be game development licenses and inspectors who can take them away if a game doesn't achieve 1000 FPS at 16000x9000 resolution and maximum detail on a Voodoo 2 six months prior to release!
Posted February 20, 2016
avatar
Bigs: All I got from this post was "Look at my e-peen.... err Titan X"

In any case, get a G-Sync 1440p/144hz / 4k/60hz (soon higher refresh models coming I guess) display and go to town

I run a G-Sync Acer 1440p@144hz on my 980Ti - can't max the thing, but should FPS drop below 60 the G-Sync sorts it out
Thanks for your input, although gpu's don't impress me, especially as I have had this card now for 12 months and it's old hat as far as I am concerned and ready for retirement on ebay when Pascal shows its head. I merely mentioned it to explain my framerates.
Post edited February 20, 2016 by TheHoff
Posted February 20, 2016
avatar
johnnygoging: All games should at least be halfway stable on day 1 to the point that bugs are a rarity and they should all run at 60 fps. They should all manage 60 fps. How good they look should be a matter of how good they look at 60 fps. When other industries get up to this kind of shit there's lawsuits and watergate scandals and money lost. Games? Business as usual.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Oh yeah, also developers should always have enough money to actually finish the games, they should get the taxpayers' money to achieve that! Games like Gothic or Stalker should have NEVER been released and their developers should be in jail! And there should be game development licenses and inspectors who can take them away if a game doesn't achieve 1000 FPS at 16000x9000 resolution and maximum detail on a Voodoo 2 six months prior to release!
Developers indeed should have enough money to actually finish the games. I agree.

They already do, in many cases, get taxpayers money though from qualifying for technology or arts program grants or tax relief in many countries.

The point about Gothic and Stalker seems a bit extreme.

Again this is actually not a bad idea given how bad things have been lately on the side of major publishers and bad indies.

As for the rest I'm going to assume you have a sticky 0 key and are really out of touch with the state of current GPU lineups.
Posted February 21, 2016
avatar
timppu: So don't come telling me you had harsh times in your youth, I had it worse. Much Worse! When I was a kid, we'd just stare at a blank computer screen (0 fps), and loved it!
Reminds me of being a kid and staring at while tiles, and after 15 seconds the tiles start blurring and some of the lines would warp and go away making interesting patterns. Same for carpet, where it would start weaving and waving and moving like grass in the wind, or a stormy ocean...

Course i also played for hours with UNO Cards making my own games up involving the Rescue Rangers... That and of course dominoes.

Ahhh youth... I miss being young and innocent.
avatar
johnnygoging: As for the rest I'm going to assume you have a sticky 0 key and are really out of touch with the state of current GPU lineups.
I'm using a 2008 or 2010 video card. So i have no idea of the current line-ups either. If a game won't run on it, i won't buy it then. I'm quite happy playing lower older technology based games, sprite preferably when possible (like SPAZ) and doesn't require DX12 or whatever newest gizmo they have.
Post edited February 21, 2016 by rtcvb32
Posted February 21, 2016
Depends on the monitor size.

Under 27 inches - higher refresh rate.
Over 27 inches - higher resolution --- UNLESS the text is easy to read at 1920x1080. Then I'd go with the higher refresh rate.
Posted February 21, 2016
I play on a 42" TV at 1080p and 60FPS, I'm not going to change this for quite a while. Whenever my GTX 970 can handle it and the game supports it, I use DSR at 2715x1527, really brings out textures and eliminates aliasings.

If there's something I miss on my TV it's G-Sync. I haven't tested it but I think it's something I would really, really enjoy.

As for the balance, that's hard to say, you will have to make that judgement yourself. With a Titan X you should really be able to handle DSR at 2k, 3k or 4k resolutions. Try that first.
Post edited February 21, 2016 by Nirth
Posted February 21, 2016
I'd say 720p@20fps is for me a reasonable minimum for enjoying 3D games.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWanted: Peoples opinion on "fps vs resolution"(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)