![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Highest FPS ever?
- Thread starter singe_101
- Start date
Uhhh, What game?
There are a lot of different factors that determine framerate. If the demands of the software are minimal then the framerate could be in the thousands.
You need to name some software as a reference point or the question becomes moot.
There are a lot of different factors that determine framerate. If the demands of the software are minimal then the framerate could be in the thousands.
You need to name some software as a reference point or the question becomes moot.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
so what card is faster than a gtx295? please dont say the 4870x2 because in more cases than not it loses to the gtx295.
Back in the day we had competitions in UT99 to get the highest fps, people were just hopping into the loading screen which was a black cube, and getting about 900fps, that was back in the day of course, now a days that could be like 5000fps.
Frame rate is a non-linear measurement of performance though, the higher the FPS the harder it is to gain the same percentage increase so all the power of modern cards might not afford the kind of frame rate increase you'd expect, especially considering so much of it is parallel processing, not helpful for 1 or 2 render threads.
Frame rate is a non-linear measurement of performance though, the higher the FPS the harder it is to gain the same percentage increase so all the power of modern cards might not afford the kind of frame rate increase you'd expect, especially considering so much of it is parallel processing, not helpful for 1 or 2 render threads.
I wrote a demo app for a 3d tetris program that used to do 600-1000 fps on my old system with a 7800 gtx
But it's really arbitrary and stupid to look at numbers that high...
I think glxgears on linux goes up around that high with modern cards... right?
But it's really arbitrary and stupid to look at numbers that high...
I think glxgears on linux goes up around that high with modern cards... right?
Starcrossed
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,160
Very abstract question. The processed framerate of a still image could get extremely high.
remember, GTX 295 is a GTX 260 SLI together.....
and no 4870X2 is not the fastest card either, since it just 4870 CF..
dont even think about making more than 2GPU solution will have any fps boost in modern game, in future game maybe, but modern game is just crap....
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well the gtx295 and 4870x2 are each still considered one card. yes two gpus each but still one card.
iMpathetic
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 68
I have a question -- wouldn't going over about 120fps be pointless because 120hz is the highest refresh rate monitors run at anyway?
I'm probably completely wrong.
I'm probably completely wrong.
illuminate
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,895
during actual gameplay, like, in the past 2-3 weeks, i've been getting ~300FPS on CS:S with everything on high @ 1680 x 1050. Not bad if you ask me
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
...?
Anything over the refresh rate is negligible, but everything under the refresh rate is very important for smooth gameplay.
But since reviews usually note the average only, it does not give a valid gameplay smoothness overview.
It's nice to have 300 FPS in counter-strike at 1920x1080 at 120Hz, but when there is a lot of action on the screen, and it dips to 50 FPS, most people will notice it.
At the same voltage it had on earth, It would spin a bit faster than it does on earth, since it is in a vacuum.
But since reviews usually note the average only, it does not give a valid gameplay smoothness overview.
It's nice to have 300 FPS in counter-strike at 1920x1080 at 120Hz, but when there is a lot of action on the screen, and it dips to 50 FPS, most people will notice it.
At the same voltage it had on earth, It would spin a bit faster than it does on earth, since it is in a vacuum.
I think some old CRTs could go above 120fps? I'm fairly sure mine could just at really low resolutions.
Anyway when we talk about FPS most of us are talking about average FPS, the problem with this is that averages contains spikes in frame rate, both positive and negative, to maintain a strict minimum of 60fps you probably want an average of approximately 100fps.
Other than that, pretty much it's just people waving their epeens at each other, which is fair enough
Good screens can manage 120Hz at more of a medium res. Some could do 160Hz or so, maybe more, though at low res. 160 was a fairly common upper limit, so it should be possible to get 160 displayed fps with the right tube. Sometimes screens start acting a little strange if you push the vsync really high though. Those refresh rates weren't really meant to be used except in displays intended for use with 3D glasses. 160Hz usually requires pretty low res- probably 800x600 or 1024x764. You can come pretty close to the max resolution available for any particular refresh rate just by dividing the monitor's max horizontal frequency by the desired refresh rate then subtracting 5-10 lines for the vertical blanking period.
Decent 21"+ screens are usually in the 110-130kHz range for max hsync, and the 24" Sony GDM-FW900 has a 121kHz limit. A lot of 19" screens with a max rates res of 1600x1200@75Hz have a max hsync of 97Hz.
97kHz:
About 800 lines at 120Hz, so 1024x768
About 600 lines at 160Hz, so 800x600
110kHz:
About 900 lines at 120Hz, so 1152x864
About 687 lines at 160Hz, so 800x600
121kHz:
About 1000 lines at 120Hz, so 1280x960. Using an FW900, 1600x1000 would probably work and 1440x900 should.
About 750 lines at 160Hz, so 800x600 or some custom mode.
130kHz:
About 1080 lines at 120Hz, so 1280x1024 or 1400x1050.
About 800 lines at 120Hz, so 1024x768
PornoSatan
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,493
What a stupid thread.