MSI Afterburner!!!!
3 Attachment(s)
I will never buy a non MSI video card again.
In the benchmark run you could see that video jerking. Posting run 2 because 1 and 3 had 250 fps spikes making it look like a fox news graph. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1355885871 Without https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1355885871 With https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1355885871 |
You realize afterburner works with every card, right? I use it on my EVGA and have for a long time.
|
That... is.... Awesome!
Seriously, the number one thing that bothers me with games is when the video isn't smooth, I'm not talking dropping below 60 fps, but ^That kind of choppiness. |
Originally Posted by Nagase
(Post 960611)
You realize afterburner works with every card, right? I use it on my EVGA and have for a long time.
|
I'm not sure what version you were using, but I can do all kinds of things on my EVGA 460.
I'll see if it's any different on an ASUS 670 4gb soon. |
I guess I don't understand what the charts are attempting to convey. In both of them, FPS is highly variable and is almost always lower than the refresh rate.
|
That the change in vertical over horizontal is directly proportional to the displeasure of the gameplay.
|
Huh.
Wouldn't it be better to reduce the quality* settings in order to achieve a consistently high** framerate, rather then to optimize the settings for a universally low framerate? * = anti-aliasing, texture filtering, resolution, etc. ** = a framerate which is at least equal to the refresh rate. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 960632)
Huh.
Wouldn't it be better to reduce the quality* settings in order to achieve a consistently high** framerate, rather then to optimize the settings for a universally low framerate? * = anti-aliasing, texture filtering, resolution, etc. ** = a framerate which is at least equal to the refresh rate. |
It'd definitely be faster to have less load on the system, but there are some that can't bear to play games with less than maximum settings...
...says the person with a New 670 4gb on the way. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Nagase
(Post 960622)
I'm not sure what version you were using, but I can do all kinds of things on my EVGA 460.
I'll see if it's any different on an ASUS 670 4gb soon.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 960632)
Huh.
Wouldn't it be better to reduce the quality* settings in order to achieve a consistently high** framerate, rather then to optimize the settings for a universally low framerate? * = anti-aliasing, texture filtering, resolution, etc. ** = a framerate which is at least equal to the refresh rate. Ya if I was getting less then 45fps I would change settings but I'm running a bench tool that is trying to going for max stress and see how well the system runs. |
Originally Posted by Nagase
(Post 960635)
It'd definitely be faster to have less load on the system, but there are some that can't bear to play games with less than maximum settings...
...says the person with a New 670 4gb on the way. |
Originally Posted by Bryce
(Post 960647)
680 or bust!
|
Originally Posted by Bryce
(Post 960647)
680 or bust!
...for 2560x1600, at least. :party: |
Originally Posted by jeff_man
(Post 960649)
Duel 660ti and going the triple soon.
After that ordeal, I will always buy the best single GPU I can afford. |
Originally Posted by Bryce
(Post 960662)
Done multiple GPUs before. Will never go back. I can see doing triple as better than just 2, but you're still at the mercy of driver support.
After that ordeal, I will always buy the best single GPU I can afford. |
Originally Posted by jeff_man
(Post 960646)
Ya if I was getting less then 45fps I would change settings but I'm running a bench tool that is trying to going for max stress and see how well the system runs.
I'd have thought that the goal was to achieve a framerate which was no lower than the refresh rate (60 FPS), such that you get one complete frame for each "scan" of the display. This avoids both tearing and studdering. But what do I know? I've only been playing first-person shooters on the internet since 1996. |
I don't think he was trying to play, joe, he was trying to benchmark. Obviously 60fps is best, but he just wants to see what he can squeeze out of that card.
Jeff you should jump into one of the massive Planetside2 battles and see how it does. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 960704)
Huh.
I'd have thought that the goal was to achieve a framerate which was no lower than the refresh rate (60 FPS), such that you get one complete frame for each "scan" of the display. This avoids both tearing and studdering. But what do I know? I've only been playing first-person shooters on the internet since 1996. There is the 30 vs 60 fps debate that will go on for ever but I find that anything over 45 is smooth. Most newer (maybe last 5 years) game engines have adopted a top tear design where you don't get that middle screen tearing. It happens above the eye line in the top 10% of the screen so it's significantly less visible and even with v-sync on some still tear that top edge to keep from having frame drop do to v-sync. That's how rage runs 60fps on x360 with out dumbing down graphics as much. So new high graphic games you run max settings, get 45-60 fps and don't notice screen tearing like you us to. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands