Performance questions

[Amd lover boy12]

I am building a system with a 7700x and a 7800xt dose anyone know what fps I would get on fortnite with performance mode enabled 

[Hinjima]

Just now, Amd lover boy12 said:

I am building a system with a 7700x and a 7800xt dose anyone know what fps I would get on fortnite with performance mode enabled 

What resolution?

This video is at 1080p performance mode with the 7800 XT. You can expect the same or slightly higher performance with the 7700x.

 

[Amd lover boy12]

1080

[Hinjima]

2 minutes ago, Amd lover boy12 said:

1080

See video above.  Average around 400fps with drops into the mid 200's from time to time.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

On 12/21/2023 at 1:32 AM, Amd lover boy12 said:

I am building a system with a 7700x and a 7800xt dose anyone know what fps I would get on fortnite with performance mode enabled 

It's largely irrelevant how many frames your system can push out as it's entirely dependent on your monitor/TV and whether is has a high refresh rate.

 

You will only ever reach that maximum number regardless of how powerful your system might be.

 

Example:

 

If you only have a 60hz screen you'll get no more than 60fps even if your computer is able to offer 200fps.

 

120hz?

 

120fps will be the maximum frame rate available.

 

So, what is the resolution and refresh rate of your screen?

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Morrie Sells Wigs said:

It's largely irrelevant how many frames your system can push out as it's entirely dependent on your monitor/TV and whether is has a high refresh rate.

 

You will only ever reach that maximum number regardless of how powerful your system might be.

 

Example:

 

If you only have a 60hz screen you'll get no more than 60fps even if your computer is able to offer 200fps.

 

120hz?

 

120fps will be the maximum frame rate available.

 

So, what is the resolution and refresh rate of your screen?

this is true, doesn't matter to people in general tho, more is surely always better ~

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, Morrie Sells Wigs said:

It's largely irrelevant how many frames your system can push out as it's entirely dependent on your monitor/TV and whether is has a high refresh rate.

 

You will only ever reach that maximum number regardless of how powerful your system might be.

 

Example:

 

If you only have a 60hz screen you'll get no more than 60fps even if your computer is able to offer 200fps.

 

120hz?

 

120fps will be the maximum frame rate available.

 

So, what is the resolution and refresh rate of your screen?

I wouldnt say that, there is still an improvement in input latency even if there is a floor to its improvements. You have the rule of cumulative marginal gains here. 
Going from a total system input latency average of 100ms to 70ms is still a whole 30ms difference that may matter in deciding 5% of their firefights in game.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

I wouldnt say that, there is still an improvement in input latency even if there is a floor to its improvements. You have the rule of cumulative marginal gains here. 
Going from a total system input latency average of 100ms to 70ms is still a whole 30ms difference that may matter in deciding 5% of their firefights in game.

yeah.... this is unproven however,  and of course it is, because it's physically impossible. 

 

 

people fall for the fact that the latency will indeed show as less in monitoring software,  but your display still can't display it faster, hence there's no change on the user side.

 

i am very much aware of how placebos work though, as long you believe in them they actually *do* work, but if you don't,  they don't (lol)

 

^ps: unlike the "lower latency than physically possible" theory,  this *is* a scientistically proven fact! 

 

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/7/15792188/placebo-effect-explained

[starsmine]

24 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah.... this is unproven however,  and of course it is, because it's physically impossible. 

 

 

people fall for the fact that the latency will indeed show as less in monitoring software,  but your display still can't display it faster, hence there's no change on the user side.

 

i am very much aware of how placebos work though, as long you believe in them they actually *do* work, but if you don't,  they don't (lol)

 

^ps: unlike the "lower latency than physically possible" theory,  this *is* a scientistically proven fact! 

 

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/7/15792188/placebo-effect-explained

what?
Lets take an extreme example, a twitch stream. You are getting a new frame every 1/30th of a second, true. But the frame is 30 seconds in the past. but hey, its still a solid unchanging 30fps. You cant in real time react with what is on screen. and get information back in real time you have to wait for the latency. 

A frame isn't drawn in 16ms, its drawn in 100ms. yes, you get a new one on screen every 16ms, but that new visual frame is what happened in the past, not what happened now. Because multiple frames are being worked on at the same time, its pipelined. 

This isn't placibo, its how far in the past is what you are seeing on average. For online games you have netcode to minimize this stuff, like Lerp. Minimize doesn't mean negate. 

Unproven/physically impossible my ass, No one is talking about the display being faster. Its about how recent the information is. thats why screen tears are a thing, the stuff on the top of the screen is in the past, the stuff on the bottom is more up to date IF it tears. No one is talking about physically impossible latencies here. its about how up to date that frame is you see on screen when it updates. Is it 100ms in the past or 70ms in the past?

This is why vsync increases latency, it holds the frame INTENTIONALLY longer before displaying it so there is no tear. You still get a new frame every 16ms but its just even further in the past. 

This isn't a placibo effect. Its not even tied to the human reaction time, well it is in a way, you can only react to what you see or hear in game, whoever gets that information first has the better chance of reacting first. 

Your proof being "an explanation on placebo effect" isn't proof. This isn't placebo. (also even if it was and its not, placebos still mean improvement, the issues with placebos, is if something is no better then a placebo, you shouldn't pay exorbitant amounts for it, not that the effect isn't good)

[Mark Kaine]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

what?
Lets take an extreme example, a twitch stream. You are getting a new frame every 1/30th of a second, true. But the frame is 30 seconds in the past. but hey, its still a solid unchanging 30fps. You cant in real time react with what is on screen. and get information back in real time you have to wait for the latency. 

A frame isn't drawn in 16ms, its drawn in 100ms. yes, you get a new one on screen every 16ms, but that new visual frame is what happened in the past, not what happened now. Because multiple frames are being worked on at the same time, its pipelined. 

This isn't placibo, its how far in the past is what you are seeing on average. For online games you have netcode to minimize this stuff, like Lerp. Minimize doesn't mean negate. 

Unproven/physically impossible my ass, No one is talking about the display being faster. Its about how recent the information is. thats why screen tears are a thing, the stuff on the top of the screen is in the past, the stuff on the bottom is more up to date IF it tears. No one is talking about physically impossible latencies here. its about how up to date that frame is you see on screen when it updates. Is it 100ms in the past or 70ms in the past?

This is why vsync increases latency, it holds the frame INTENTIONALLY longer before displaying it so there is no tear. You still get a new frame every 16ms but its just even further in the past. 

This isn't a placibo effect. Its not even tied to the human reaction time, well it is in a way, you can only react to what you see or hear in game, whoever gets that information first has the better chance of reacting first. 

Your proof being "an explanation on placebo effect" isn't proof. This isn't placebo. (also even if it was and its not, placebos still mean improvement, the issues with placebos, is if something is no better then a placebo, you shouldn't pay exorbitant amounts for it, not that the effect isn't good)

i said placebo is a proven fact. your wall of text isn't. 

 

 

faster rendering time is irrelevant when your display can't keep up, it doesn't magically improve "system latency". 

 

[starsmine]

18 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

i said placebo is a proven fact. your wall of text isn't. 

 

 

faster rendering time is irrelevant when your display can't keep up, it doesn't magically improve "system latency". 

 

So screen tearing is make belive?
Its not real?
it never happens?

The display keeping up with it, is only the last part of the chain of how far in the past you are with what is on screen.


All of what I said is proven


Hell lets take frame rate out of the math.

A 60hz display with 60ms of input latency (a tv without a game mode for example) vs a 60hz display of 5ms of input latency.
the 60ms input latency is 55ms further in the past then the 5ms input latency display. that person with the 5ms input latency 60 fps screen has a whole 55ms more time to react. 

That time is added on top of the render latency. 

Higher framerates (with the exception of FG) requires the lowering of render latency. 

Latency and time between new frames displayed are not the same thing. All time between frames does is give you a floor to the latency of what you see. (right before new display frame, its an ADDITIONAL 16ms further in the past) 

Now you make a PC run the software at a high enough frame rate that the total render latency goes down 55ms from what it was before and plug it into the slow 60hz screen. That slow 60hz display and fast 60hz display are pretty much equal in how far in the past they are

[Mark Kaine]

10 hours ago, starsmine said:

So screen tearing is make belive

oh goalpost moving... gotcha.

 

having more fps than what your screens refresh rate is has no benefits,  this can be measured with a lag tester, everything else is indeed make believe lol. (aka "placebo")

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

oh goalpost moving... gotcha.

 

having more fps than what your screens refresh rate is has no benefits,  this can be measured with a lag tester, everything else is indeed make believe lol. (aka "placebo")

that wasnt moving the goal post. Im saying the fact that screen tearing exists at all disproves your argument. (not that screen tearing is a good thing), its a consequence of the frame buffer being over written at the same time the display is reading from the frame buffer.

Yes it can be measured with a lag tester. and using one has always consistently shown a higher frame rate is less average latency. 

I wonder if you are confusing DLSS FG to go above your maximum refresh rate, DLSS FG is not the topic here, ignore anything to do with FG stays off. 
 

Gamers nexus made it slightly confusing here by moving the benches around but you can pair them up with each other. 

 

Notice the latency going from 53.8ms at 76fps to 27.4ms at 167fps (ignore frame gen here, its not the topic) (this is counting peripheral latency which is not part of the argument here, just noise to be aware of)

Lets do some math once more

A game takes 66ms to render a frame at 60fps. the display tasks 5ms to refresh, aka a render latency of 66ms. (a pc is working on more then one frame at a time)
what you see on screen happened 71ms ago
you go to 120fps, screen stays 60 hz
The game takes 33ms to render the frame at 120fps, one frame just never gets displayed because the display never refreshed, but the second frame shows up and is only 38ms in the past. also, aka a render latency of 33ms.

on a 60 fps screen the latency would go from 71ms to 38ms going from 60fps to 120fps. Yes you are right you are not seeing 120 frames per second, HALF the frames never even fully made it on the screen. You still only have 60 frames show up on your screen, per second, its just how far in the past those frames are. 

AKA doubling your frame rate here drops your latency 33ms in terms of how recent the information you have is. It gives you the human an additional 33ms to react to whatever is happening on screen. 

The whole question here isn't that the 60fps display renders all the frames, we know for an obvious fact it doesn't, its how far in the past that frame is. 

This isn't placebo. if you give anyone a 33ms head start, on average, they will be first in a reaction test, because they have a 33ms head start. 

Again, lerp is built into netcode to minimize this, but it does not negate this.

[Milesqqw2]

Guys, come on, stay on topic. This is not what the author asked for, they just want to know how the system should preform. On that note, you should be getting anywhere from 270-370fps. You probably won’t need to worry about the fps at 1080p. Just make sure to set a frame cap so you don’t get random drops in fps and you should be fine.

[Rocketdog2112]

15 hours ago, Milesqqw2 said:

Guys, come on, stay on topic.

Just like any other question asked on this Forum, it always turns into a d*** swinging contest.