Incorrect numbers given
by
Doug+Merritt
·
· Score: 3
Where did you get these numbers??? They're all wrong.
The human eye percieves smooth motion at about 20 frames per second.
No. It varies depending on contrast and ambient lighting, but 60 frames per second is often cited for purposes of generalization.
TV (in the US at least) is broadcast at 24 fps
No, U.S. TV is 30 full frames per second (interleaved from 60 half frames per second to reduce flicker). European TV is 25 frames per second, due to 50 half frames per second interleaved. (In both areas, there's a historical and RF noise connection to the 60/50 hertz power lines.)
movies are usually at 30 fps
That doesn't ring a bell; I think it's actually 24 frames per second double-shuttered to give an effective 48 fps. I may be misremembering the precise numbers there.
At low resolutions used for games (640x480, 800x600), many graphics cards can supply the monitor with a vertical refresh rate of 85 Hz, but at high resolutions, all but the most expensive cards (things like cards designed for CAD, such as the FireGL cards) drop off in maximum vertical refresh rate.
Yes and no; what you said is very misleading, since recent higher end cards from Matrox, and the Nvidia TNT2, retain high frame rates even at the highest of resolutions (approaching almost 2000x2000 these days). Now it's true these are "high end cards", but that's in a consumer sense of very roughly $200, they are *not* high end CAD market cards, which can cost thousands of dollars.
I found 1024x768 to be a much more desirable resolution for playing quake. So, what use is it if the Athlon can push out frames faster than your monitor can display them???
That's largely a matter of taste. It's true that not everyone has high quality monitors, but on the other hand, a fair number of people (including gamers) do in fact have high bandwidth monitors. Your taste (and monitor) isn't everyone's.
Granted, there are other areas where fast 3D performance is a big plus (rendering movies, etc.), but for games, 70fps is absolutely pointless
Now that goes way too far. Actually, a monitor refresh rate of a minimum of 70 hertz is highly recommended to avoid perceptual flicker under adverse lighting conditions -- this varies from person to person, but many of us see flicker, at least in peripheral vision, almost always with 60 hertz displays.
If you had said "85 fps monitor refresh rate is pointless", you'd be closer to the truth, although that too is debatable for more complex reasons that we're getting into here.
(I usually use 1600x1200 32 bit color 80 hertz for non-game (2d) purposes, and for games, usually have to drop it down, since I don't yet have a TNT2 nor voodoo3. The highest res of my voodoo2 is less than that of my 2d card.)
It is a well stated and known fact that 24 FPS and even 30 FPS give away errors in things that are filmed (ie spinning objects like wheels). To fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing real motion it needs not only 60 FPS but motion blur as well. The newest generation of game consoles can do this... Some people can easily tell the difference between 70 and 60 FPS. If you can't then count yourself as lucky because you will be satisfied with less.
Re:Who needs 70 frames per sec?
by
aressa
·
· Score: 3
I can see the debate now, it has been on/. many times:
24/30fps for Movie/TV takes into account a 24/30'th of a second of "motion", on games it is a crisp static image... the more frames you can show, the more it "blurs" like reality.
I think the most important aspect of this new chip is the continued pressure of competition on Intel. This should increase the motivation for the continuation of gains in performance and cost / performance ratio. In terms of what Joe Doakes average hobbiest gets for the money, I think the optimum design right now is a dual processor system using a not-quite bleeding edge CPU - say a PII 450 or therabouts. The cost of adding a second CPU to a system seems to be less than the cost of bumping up the clock another hundred or so MHZ. This does not account for improvements in internal efficiency, but you do get a lot more bang for the buck with 2 CPU's. The more people who have multiprocessor systems, wether SMP, clusters or even shared-memory systems the faster we will see the evolution of new software paradigms that will truly advance the state of the art. Z
Slashdot Mirror
The human eye percieves smooth motion at about 20 frames per second.
No. It varies depending on contrast and ambient lighting, but 60 frames per second is often cited for purposes of generalization.
TV (in the US at least) is broadcast at 24 fps
No, U.S. TV is 30 full frames per second (interleaved from 60 half frames per second to reduce flicker). European TV is 25 frames per second, due to 50 half frames per second interleaved. (In both areas, there's a historical and RF noise connection to the 60/50 hertz power lines.)
movies are usually at 30 fps
That doesn't ring a bell; I think it's actually 24 frames per second double-shuttered to give an effective 48 fps. I may be misremembering the precise numbers there.
At low resolutions used for games (640x480, 800x600), many graphics cards can supply the monitor with a vertical refresh rate of 85 Hz, but at high resolutions, all but the most expensive cards (things like cards designed for CAD, such as the FireGL cards) drop off in maximum vertical refresh rate.
Yes and no; what you said is very misleading, since recent higher end cards from Matrox, and the Nvidia TNT2, retain high frame rates even at the highest of resolutions (approaching almost 2000x2000 these days). Now it's true these are "high end cards", but that's in a consumer sense of very roughly $200, they are *not* high end CAD market cards, which can cost thousands of dollars.
I found 1024x768 to be a much more desirable resolution for playing quake. So, what use is it if the Athlon can push out frames faster than your monitor can display them???
That's largely a matter of taste. It's true that not everyone has high quality monitors, but on the other hand, a fair number of people (including gamers) do in fact have high bandwidth monitors. Your taste (and monitor) isn't everyone's.
Granted, there are other areas where fast 3D performance is a big plus (rendering movies, etc.), but for games, 70fps is absolutely pointless
Now that goes way too far. Actually, a monitor refresh rate of a minimum of 70 hertz is highly recommended to avoid perceptual flicker under adverse lighting conditions -- this varies from person to person, but many of us see flicker, at least in peripheral vision, almost always with 60 hertz displays.
If you had said "85 fps monitor refresh rate is pointless", you'd be closer to the truth, although that too is debatable for more complex reasons that we're getting into here.
(I usually use 1600x1200 32 bit color 80 hertz for non-game (2d) purposes, and for games, usually have to drop it down, since I don't yet have a TNT2 nor voodoo3. The highest res of my voodoo2 is less than that of my 2d card.)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
TV is 30 frames (60 fields per second).
F /...
Movies run at 24 FPS.
It is a well stated and known fact that 24 FPS and even 30 FPS give away errors in things that are filmed (ie spinning objects like wheels). To fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing real motion it needs not only 60 FPS but motion blur as well. The newest generation of game consoles can do this... Some people can easily tell the difference between 70 and 60 FPS. If you can't then count yourself as lucky because you will be satisfied with less.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
I can see the debate now, it has been on /. many times:
24/30fps for Movie/TV takes into account a 24/30'th of a second of "motion", on games it is a crisp static image... the more frames you can show, the more it "blurs" like reality.
It really does make a difference.
A
I think the most important aspect of this new chip is the continued pressure of competition on Intel.
This should increase the motivation for the continuation of gains in performance and cost / performance ratio. In terms of what Joe Doakes average hobbiest gets for the money, I think the optimum design right now is a dual processor system using a not-quite bleeding edge CPU - say a PII 450 or therabouts. The cost of adding a second CPU to a system seems to be less than the cost of bumping up the clock another hundred or so MHZ. This does not account for improvements in internal efficiency, but you do get a lot more bang for the buck with 2 CPU's. The more people who have multiprocessor systems, wether SMP, clusters or even shared-memory systems the faster we will see the evolution of new software paradigms that will truly advance the state of the art.
Z
enough is too much