1GB Gfx Card

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Daniel, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel, Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel

    Mark Remfrey Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050531_120646.html
    >
    > Had to happen sooner or later.
    >
    > The price of bragging rights.... (sigh)


    I had to laugh..... 230 Watts consumption at idle, and power consumption
    at full load was not disclosed :)

    Gonna have to get my own back-yard reactor in to play games!

    Regards,
    Mark Remfrey
     
    Mark Remfrey, Jun 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Mark Remfrey wrote:
    >
    > I had to laugh..... 230 Watts consumption at idle, and power consumption
    > at full load was not disclosed :)
    >

    Yeah, I know - makes you wonder exactly what motherboard and PSU they
    were actually using.

    There was even talk of having an SLI version (4 GPU core, 2GB). I wonder
    if that means an idle of 450+ Watts - nah, that's just too ridiculous.
    But, oh, the bragging rights for that kind of rig... :)
     
    Daniel, Jun 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Daniel

    Nova Guest

    Mark Remfrey wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050531_120646.html
    >>
    >> Had to happen sooner or later.
    >>
    >> The price of bragging rights.... (sigh)

    >
    >
    > I had to laugh..... 230 Watts consumption at idle, and power consumption
    > at full load was not disclosed :)
    >
    > Gonna have to get my own back-yard reactor in to play games!
    >
    > Regards,
    > Mark Remfrey


    Yeah that's just insane.. p4's can double in power useage from idle to
    full.. if that was the case with these... ai caramba...

    bring on the 1 kilowatt psu's...

    The heat from that much power too... that has to be a concern...
    anyway, miles out of my league, I always wait until things trickle down
    to the $200 mark or so.. gpu's are outdated faster the cpu's..
     
    Nova, Jun 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Hi there,

    Mark Remfrey wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050531_120646.html
    >>
    >> Had to happen sooner or later.
    >>
    >> The price of bragging rights.... (sigh)

    >
    >
    > I had to laugh..... 230 Watts consumption at idle, and power consumption
    > at full load was not disclosed :)
    >
    > Gonna have to get my own back-yard reactor in to play games!


    Hehe! Bet its a noisy fucker! I also bet that at useful screen
    resolutions top-end games will look no different, simply cos
    the top-end cards can run current games fast enough to look
    smooth (25-30fps+) already...

    Its just daft...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Nova wrote:
    > Mark Remfrey wrote:
    >
    > The heat from that much power too... that has to be a concern...
    > anyway, miles out of my league, I always wait until things trickle down
    > to the $200 mark or so.. gpu's are outdated faster the cpu's..
    >


    Agreed. Seems like just yesterday that the GeForce 6xxx cards were released.

    And this month, were expecting the release of the next GeForce 7xxx
    range (G70 GPU).
     
    Daniel, Jun 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Daniel

    Richard Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Hehe! Bet its a noisy fucker! I also bet that at useful screen
    > resolutions top-end games will look no different, simply cos
    > the top-end cards can run current games fast enough to look
    > smooth (25-30fps+) already...


    25 fps is _not_ enough.... if you are running at a 75Hz refresh, you need 75 FPS
    to look smooth, if its dropping any, its easily visable.

    Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.
     
    Richard, Jun 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Hi there,

    Richard wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> Hehe! Bet its a noisy fucker! I also bet that at useful screen
    >> resolutions top-end games will look no different, simply cos
    >> the top-end cards can run current games fast enough to look
    >> smooth (25-30fps+) already...

    >
    >
    > 25 fps is _not_ enough.... if you are running at a 75Hz refresh, you
    > need 75 FPS to look smooth, if its dropping any, its easily visable.


    If the 3D looks a bit twitchy or has the odd what looks like
    a tear across it, then its likely you don't have 'sync to
    vertical blank' turned on, in your card settings. Switching
    that on will appear to smooth the rendering...

    > Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.


    1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    passed you by...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.


    > 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    > react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    > game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    > then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    > shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    > passed you by...


    really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi interested.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Daniel

    Nova Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >>> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.

    >
    >
    >> 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    >> react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    >> game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    >> then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    >> shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    >> passed you by...

    >
    >
    > really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi
    > interested.


    Yeha me too, i remember reading about thsi type of thing somwhere, it
    was asking the question at what point can a human not tell the
    difference of the frames per second etc..

    obviously theres a difference between reaction time as the person above
    has talked about and what the eye can see..

    but anything too fast just becomes a blur anyway, i mean if you wave
    your hand in front of your eyes.. its a blue, how many fps is that? hehe
     
    Nova, Jun 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Daniel

    Nova Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >>> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.

    >
    >
    >> 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    >> react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    >> game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    >> then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    >> shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    >> passed you by...

    >
    >
    > really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi
    > interested.


    this might be intersting for you
    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
     
    Nova, Jun 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Hi there,

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >>> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.

    >
    >
    >> 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    >> react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    >> game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    >> then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    >> shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    >> passed you by...

    >
    > really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi
    > interested.


    Might be on the Land Transport website. I remember doing a test
    as a 6th former, to test reaction times as part of a driver
    education thing. No-one got under 0.25 (or 1 imperial quarter)
    of a second...

    A few sprinters hone their senses to react to the gun in around
    0.08-0.12 of a second, but they're freaks...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Hi there,

    Nova wrote:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    >>> react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    >>> game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    >>> then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    >>> shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    >>> passed you by...

    >>
    >> really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi
    >> interested.

    >
    >
    > this might be intersting for you
    > http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm


    Indeed. Still doesn't answer the question "is 25fps OK?"
    On my system Doom3 runs as low as 20fps at 1024x768 but
    faster of course if I turn antialias down or off, and a
    bit faster again if I turn 'sync to vblank' off. But it
    still looks 'fluid' to me at 20fps. My refresh is 85Hz
    at Doom3 res...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 2, 2005
    #13
  14. Daniel

    Richard Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > If the 3D looks a bit twitchy or has the odd what looks like
    > a tear across it, then its likely you don't have 'sync to
    > vertical blank' turned on, in your card settings. Switching
    > that on will appear to smooth the rendering...


    I know what vsync is, and that is definatly turned on.

    When your FPS doesnt match the monior refresh, some frames are shown twice, and
    some once, this is what makes it look really juddery

    >> Movies are 24 fps, and they sure as hell are not smooth.

    >
    >
    > 1/24th of a second is faster than your body can physically
    > react to something attacking you from the side in a video
    > game. By the time your brain registers the event on screen,
    > then triggers your hands to use the controls to spin and
    > shoot the beastie, 1/24th of a second has well and truly
    > passed you by...



    Yes, but at 24fps, you can see the steps between each frame a lot more then if
    you have the game running at the monitor refresh - there are tricks to add
    motion blur to simulate a longer shutter like movie cameras use, but they just
    make it look blury to me

    There is also the issue that if your frame isnt rendered in time to show, and
    the previous frame is shown twice, that its an additional 1/60th of a second.
    Add to that, that the frame wasnt started to be rendered for one frame prior and
    it quickly adds up.

    I find when the FPS drops, I have trouble having the crosshair hit where I want
    it to, and I end up shooting after it has gone past where I want it to go. I
    find my accuracy is higher when I up the refresh rate to 160Hz then over 60Hz.
     
    Richard, Jun 2, 2005
    #14
  15. Hi there,

    Richard wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> If the 3D looks a bit twitchy or has the odd what looks like
    >> a tear across it, then its likely you don't have 'sync to
    >> vertical blank' turned on, in your card settings. Switching
    >> that on will appear to smooth the rendering...

    >
    >
    > I know what vsync is, and that is definatly turned on.
    >
    > When your FPS doesnt match the monior refresh, some frames are shown
    > twice, and some once, this is what makes it look really juddery


    Posible I guess, but my refresh is 2 or 3 times my fps in Doom3. RTCW
    OTOH runs over 100fps at times without sync to vblank, but I turn that
    on for that game otherwise it looks like you describe a little...

    > I find when the FPS drops, I have trouble having the crosshair hit where
    > I want it to, and I end up shooting after it has gone past where I want
    > it to go. I find my accuracy is higher when I up the refresh rate to
    > 160Hz then over 60Hz.


    Can you limit the fps to a factor of your refresh, like a half?
    You might then get a smoother looking render, as the refresh and
    fps will be in (half) sync...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 2, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <429eb5ee$>,
    Chris Wilkinson <> wrote:

    >A few sprinters hone their senses to react to the gun in around
    >0.08-0.12 of a second, but they're freaks...


    I think the official rule in running events is that nobody could
    possibly react to the starting gun in less than 1/8 second. So anybody
    starting sooner than that after the gun is automatically disqualified.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <429eb7dd$>,
    Chris Wilkinson <> wrote:

    >Still doesn't answer the question "is 25fps OK?"
    >On my system Doom3 runs as low as 20fps at 1024x768 but
    >faster of course if I turn antialias down or off, and a
    >bit faster again if I turn 'sync to vblank' off. But it
    >still looks 'fluid' to me at 20fps. My refresh is 85Hz
    >at Doom3 res...


    There's also the issue of strobing--you remember the old
    wheels-running-backwards-on-the-stagecoach effect. You need higher frame
    rates to avoid that kind of artifact.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2005
    #17
  18. In article <d7j1co$hee$>,
    Daniel <> wrote:

    >There was even talk of having an SLI version (4 GPU core, 2GB). I wonder
    > if that means an idle of 450+ Watts - nah, that's just too ridiculous.


    That's getting perilously close to one horsepower (about 746W).
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2005
    #18
  19. Hi there,

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <429eb5ee$>,
    > Chris Wilkinson <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>A few sprinters hone their senses to react to the gun in around
    >>0.08-0.12 of a second, but they're freaks...

    >
    >
    > I think the official rule in running events is that nobody could
    > possibly react to the starting gun in less than 1/8 second. So anybody
    > starting sooner than that after the gun is automatically disqualified.


    The rule is 0.1 sec. This site is an interesting read, showing pluses
    and minuses to that rule.

    http://condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm

    If you take worst case scenarios for Doom3 (20fps), the delay in frame
    update adds only 0.05 sec to the delay forced by the reaction time of
    the player (say 0.2 sec), for a total of 0.25 sec reaction to a bad guy.
    The dude getting 80fps adds 0.0125 sec to his own reaction at worst, for
    a total of 0.2125 sec. In both cases its the reaction to the event, not
    the slowness of the frame update, that adds most to the players total
    reaction time...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jun 6, 2005
    #19
  20. Daniel

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:43:34 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > If you take worst case scenarios for Doom3 (20fps), the delay in frame
    > update adds only 0.05 sec to the delay forced by the reaction time of the
    > player (say 0.2 sec), for a total of 0.25 sec reaction to a bad guy. The
    > dude getting 80fps adds 0.0125 sec to his own reaction at worst, for a
    > total of 0.2125 sec. In both cases its the reaction to the event, not the
    > slowness of the frame update, that adds most to the players total reaction
    > time...


    I'm not a gamer, but wouldn't a faster frame rate provide the player with
    more info to base their subconscious aiming twitch on?

    ie if they see more frames during their 'reaction time' they can better
    extrapolate where their moving target will be?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Graham Russell

    Capacity of 1GB SanDisk Ultra vs 1GB Microdrive

    Graham Russell, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    787
  2. Isildur

    Which GFX card?

    Isildur, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    753
    Isildur
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    413
  4. Jedmeister

    Cheapest gfx card to run Halflife 2

    Jedmeister, May 3, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    450
    Daniel
    May 5, 2005
  5. Richard

    Another GFX card thread.

    Richard, Feb 2, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    807
    ~misfit~
    Feb 5, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page