What's the upper FPS limit of data transfer?

NExUS1g

Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
554
I may ask the question wrong, but I had it posed to me that KHz refresh rates won't make a difference with OLED's (if they make it to market) because video cards (or perhaps through a cabling limitation) won't be able to send that many frames to the monitor.

So does anyone know the theoretical upper limit of data transfer from the video card to the monitor using today's HDMI options and video cards at a full HD resolution 1080p?

Again, I apologize if the question isn't technically sound.
 
It's not the cable that limits the frame rates. It's the software or hardware that does it.

VSYNC is going to be the major player in whether or not you can get over 60 FPS since a handful of games are actually forcing it on people without the option of turning it off.

Video card is going to have to go hand in hand with VSYNC as well. Without a good video card, you'll be unable to output over 60 FPS with the graphical settings are to high for the GPU to handle.

I know in Tribes: Ascend I get 60 FPS constant, but only see 60% GPU usage over both my GTX 460s in SLI. This is because I can't disable VSYNC.
 
With OLED's extremely low response times of 1 microsecond, even with Vsync on, it will allow for hundreds or even thousands of FPS.

Let me give a specific example.

-Let's say you have an OLED monitor thats 1920x1080 and has a 1200Hz refresh rate.
-You're playing Counter-strike: Source and your hardware allows you to get 1,500 FPS in this game with Vsync off.
-You have Vsync on.

Will you actually be able to show 1,200 FPS on your monitor through today's cards and HDMI cables or will the data transfer limit it lower? And how high can FPS go? There must be a theoretical upper limit.
 
I think the way it works is that the Monitor will always refresh at 1200Hz. Now, if you are only getting 60FPS(Hz) from your Video card, then the Monitor still refreshes the screen at 1200Hz but since it has not yet received an updated frame from the videocard it will revert the the last frame.

Same thing with Plasma's.

Besides, why would you want 1200FPS? There is absolutely no point, you are better off with better image quality at 60FPS than with shitty image quality at 1200FPS.
 
DP 1.2 supports 2160p at 60 Hz, so should provide enough bandwidth for 1080p at 240 Hz. Twice that if you drop to 16 bit color.
 
1200 FPS in near impossible to achieve like others have said while still having the picture quality you come to expect with today's games. the reason? in order for the PC as a whole to be able to output 1200 FPS both your GPU and CPU will need to perform all rendering related operations for each frame in .83 ms or less!! yea thats right less than 1 MS.

120 FPS is realistic and with certain games like fast twitch shooters good players can benifit from getting and seeing 120 vs 60, we don't need to wait for this to be a reality however because you can go buy a 120hz gaming LCD today and the video card/cpu horse power to make it happen as well in many/most games. after that though i would have to say its going to be diminishing returns big time on any gains you would get because at 120 fps its only taking the system 8.33 ms to render a frame, hardly a handicap :)
 
OLED's have much better image quality than current LED LCD TV's or Plasmas with a very low response time as well (1 microsecond).

Also, I do currently have a 120Hz monitor and high end computer.

But that all aside, I'll repeat that I'm talking about theoretical upper limits of data transfer, not what's feasible, cost-effective, image quality vs. high frame rates, etc.

1200 FPS in near impossible to achieve...

I get up to 1,500 FPS in CSS with vsync off. That's why I used it as an example. ;)
 
OLED's have much better image quality than current LED LCD TV's or Plasmas with a very low response time as well (1 microsecond).

Also, I do currently have a 120Hz monitor and high end computer.

But that all aside, I'll repeat that I'm talking about theoretical upper limits of data transfer, not what's feasible, cost-effective, image quality vs. high frame rates, etc.



I get up to 1,500 FPS in CSS with vsync off. That's why I used it as an example. ;)

yeah on a game that is 7 years old, i can get 3000+ fps in quake and probably around 2k fps in Q3, my point is hardware manufactures are not going to cater to the small percentage of people still playing old games.
 
yeah on a game that is 7 years old, i can get 3000+ fps in quake and probably around 2k fps in Q3, my point is hardware manufactures are not going to cater to the small percentage of people still playing old games.

Again, I wasn't talking about feasibility, I was talking about theory. :rolleyes: I got my answer so it doesn't matter either way...
 
OLED's have much better image quality than current LED LCD TV's or Plasmas with a very low response time as well (1 microsecond).

Also, I do currently have a 120Hz monitor and high end computer.

But that all aside, I'll repeat that I'm talking about theoretical upper limits of data transfer, not what's feasible, cost-effective, image quality vs. high frame rates, etc.



I get up to 1,500 FPS in CSS with vsync off. That's why I used it as an example. ;)

The image quality of the monitor has absolutely no factor when you are playing your CSS with all details on low, no Anti-Aliasing and No Aniso.

Try turning your setting up so it doesnt look like complete asshole and then try getting 1500FPS.

Again, 1200FPS doesn't make any sense when your image quality is shit.
 
The image quality of the monitor has absolutely no factor when you are playing your CSS with all details on low, no Anti-Aliasing and No Aniso.

Try turning your setting up so it doesnt look like complete asshole and then try getting 1500FPS.

Again, 1200FPS doesn't make any sense when your image quality is shit.

Max settings and max AA and 1,500 FPS...
 
I do remember a few years ago in Atlanta I saw an OLED screen at a SonyStyle store. The main reason I remember it was because of how vibrant and smooth it was, and because it cost around $3,000 USD. Besids that, it was also paper thin and had an incredible viewing angle. I seriously hope these become commercially viable.
 
Last edited:
yeah on a game that is 7 years old, i can get 3000+ fps in quake and probably around 2k fps in Q3, my point is hardware manufactures are not going to cater to the small percentage of people still playing old games.

How do you check FPS on yourself bro?

The image quality of the monitor has absolutely no factor when you are playing your CSS with all details on low, no Anti-Aliasing and No Aniso.

Try turning your setting up so it doesnt look like complete asshole and then try getting 1500FPS.

Again, 1200FPS doesn't make any sense when your image quality is shit.

Wow, all negative comments. You suck uhm...whats the word I'm looking for....oh yeah! asshole :p


This is the [H] forums last I checked so more FPS is what we all want silly. Not sure about you 2.
 
Bandwidth wise I don't think you'll find many DVI-dual link cables that can pass more than 10 Gbps, single link is spec'd at 3.96, dual link is supposedly only limited by the cable construction. I wouldn't count on budget cables giving you much overhead. According to what I'm reading right now, that means 1920x1200 @ 120 FPS is pretty close to the absolute maximum for consumer dvi cable bandwidth. This site lists 1080p/60 as 4.46 Gbps, and that's at 8 bits per pixel, at 10 or 12bpp you'll run out of bandwidth at 120 hz. http://www.hdhes.com/accessories/HDMI-truth.aspx?NoJS=1

The current displayport standard gives a maximum 17.28 gigabits, so even with the fastest displayport interface right now it looks like you'll run out of bandwidth before hitting 1080/240hz
 
Last edited:
Back
Top