MSI Afterburner!!!!
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,006
Total Cats: 103
MSI Afterburner!!!!
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.
Without
With
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.
Without
With
#4
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,006
Total Cats: 103
I have used it on a HIS card before and it didn't do any thing other then let me unlock voltage and adjust up to 10% over normal clocks. Auto OC it does on msi cards works well enough that i haven't had to do any manual tuning yet.
#8
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,590
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.
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.
#9
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.
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.
#11
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,006
Total Cats: 103
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.
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.
#17
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,022
Total Cats: 6,590
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.
#19
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,006
Total Cats: 103
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post