Problems about FPS

[Jack Chan]

Being confused by a PC game called A.V.A., it claims to provide 200+ fps but if thats true, 200 frames provided in just a second?! That's not even realistic, i mean, 60 fps is already very smooth in a video. Does that 200+fps really means frame per second or other meanings? Thanks all.

[Godlygamer23]

The engine might be able to provide up to 200FPS(meaning it's able to generate that many frames if required), but understand that many games can run at high frame rates. As an example, some people can run games at 144FPS at 1080p, and if the game is easy enough to run, you can hit 300FPS. Is there any value to it? It depends on many factors, including of course, the actual refresh rate of your monitor. If your monitor refreshes at 60Hz, rendering anything above that is pointless, no matter what people want to claim. If your monitor runs at 144Hz, running a game at 144FPS will provide you with the ability to react sooner, and have a smoother gaming experience overall. 

[Oshino Shinobu]

200FPS is very realistic to achieve in a game. Most hardware will run CS:GO above those frame rates. 

However, having a monitor to display those frames is something different. If you have a 60Hz monitor (refreshes 60 times a second), then you're only going to see a maximum of 60FPS, no matter how many frames your GPU is drawing in the game. If you had a 120Hz monitor (120 refreshes a second) then you could see a maximum of 120FPS, but still not 200, as the monitor can not refresh that fast. 

[Dr_Pleeper]

4 minutes ago, Jack Chan said:

Being confused by a PC game called A.V.A., it claims to provide 200+ fps but if thats true, 200 frames provided in just a second?! That's not even realistic, i mean, 60 fps is already very smooth in a video. Does that 200+fps really means frame per second or other meanings? Thanks all.

It's impossible for the game to provide the fps, that's based on your computer's horsepower. Unless all of the rendering and calculations are offloaded to a server which you dont own, which I seriously doubt.

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pleeper said:

Unless all of the rendering and calculations are offloaded to a server which you dont own, which I seriously doubt.

You now just introduced another factor if that were the case.....the user's Internet connection.

[Dr_Pleeper]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

200FPS is very realistic to achieve in a game. Most hardware will run CS:GO above those frame rates. 

However, having a monitor to display those frames is something different. If you have a 60Hz monitor (refreshes 60 times a second), then you're only going to see 60FPS, no matter how many frames your GPU is drawing in the game. If you had a 120Hz monitor (120 refreshes a second) then you could see 120FPS, but still not 200, as the monitor can not refresh that fast. 

They have some Eizo monitors that go up to 240hz now. I think they're like $700 though.

[Dr_Pleeper]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

You now just introduced another factor if that were the case.....the user's Internet connection.

Very true. I think the average civilians internet speed is around 15mbps which is probably not enough to carry that much data that he would be offloading. Unless he was just connecting to the server and playing it from his account on there?

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pleeper said:

It's impossible for the game to provide the fps, that's based on your computer's horsepower. Unless all of the rendering and calculations are offloaded to a server which you dont own, which I seriously doubt.

It depends how its worded and intended. True, the game doesn't draw the frames itself, but it could be referring to the fact that it isn't limited to a certain frame rate like some games are. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Dr_Pleeper said:

They have some Eizo monitors that go up to 240hz now. I think they're like $700 though.

It's likely we'll see some crazy high refresh rate monitors once new GPUs come out with DP1.3 and up. We're going to hit a point where increasing the refresh rate isn't worth while anymore, though. We may hit that point at 240Hz TBH. 

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pleeper said:

Very true. I think the average civilians internet speed is around 15mbps which is probably not enough to carry that much data that he would be offloading. Unless he was just connecting to the server and playing it from his account on there?

How would you deliver the frames? Even with something like lossless compression, I think it would be a lot of data. 

[Dr_Pleeper]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

It depends how its worded and intended. True, the game doesn't draw the frames itself, but it could be referring to the fact that it isn't limited to a certain frame rate like some games are. 
 

 

It's likely we'll see some crazy high refresh rate monitors once new GPUs come out with DP1.3 and up. We're going to hit a point where increasing the refresh rate isn't worth while anymore, though. We may hit that point at 240Hz TBH. 

I've already seen some 480hz monitors. At the point of the refresh rate going faster than 300hz it is impossible for your eye to see. They tested some fighter pilots with really trained eyes and flashed an image on a screen for 1/300th of a second. At pretty much any point past 300 it was impossible for even fighter pilots to see. Just thought that this test was really interesting and wanted to share.

[Dr_Pleeper]

4 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

How would you deliver the frames? Even with something like lossless compression, I think it would be a lot of data. 

At the point of 60fps I think we're already talking A LOT of data. Unless he has a 1-10gbps ISP i think this would be generally impossible.

[Oshino Shinobu]

3 minutes ago, Dr_Pleeper said:

I've already seen some 480hz monitors. At the point of the refresh rate going faster than 300hz it is impossible for your eye to see. They tested some fighter pilots with really trained eyes and flashed an image on a screen for 1/300th of a second. At pretty much any point past 300 it was impossible for even fighter pilots to see. Just thought that this test was really interesting and wanted to share.

Flashing an image for a short period of time isn't the same as displaying more images in a second, though. While you may not be able to perceive a single frame, having frames displayed faster could still seem smoother, due to how our eyes don't see in frames, but as a constant stream of information, taken in segments. 

We'll have to wait and see (haha, so punny). I'd agree that 300FPS is probably too much to make any noticeable difference above something like 240Hz, but we won't really know until they become more widely available and tested.