1GB Gfx Card

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

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel, Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Daniel

    Mark Remfrey Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    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

    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 gpu's are outdated faster the cpu's..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. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    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
    #5
  6. really? is there an online reference to this sort of thing, semi interested.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Daniel

    Nova Guest

    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
    #7
  8. Daniel

    Nova Guest

    Nova, Jun 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Hi there,
    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
    #9
  10. Hi there,
    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
    #10
  11. Daniel

    Richard Guest

    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

    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
    #11
  12. Hi there,
    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...
    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
    #12
  13. 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
    #13
  14. 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
    #14
  15. That's getting perilously close to one horsepower (about 746W).
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Hi there,
    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
    #16
  17. Daniel

    AD. Guest

    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?
     
    AD., Jun 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Interesting read. To me it's just another example of the essential
    arbitrariness of many competitive events.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 7, 2005
    #18
  19. My guess is "probably not", though no doubt there has been some
    psychological research done somewhere to settle this.

    One thing I do know that affects your ability to sense motion is
    contrast. The higher the contrast, the quicker you can detect motion.
    This is why you're slower to react when the car in front of you stops on
    a rainy day, or even just a gloomy day. And it's why you should have
    your headlights on in such conditions--not for visibility (which you
    might think is adequate), but for contrast.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 7, 2005
    #19
  20. Hi there,

    I don't really think so. Some gamers swear they need 200 fps and so
    forth, but I think thats 99% bragging rights about their 'rig', and
    1% actual improvement to their gameplay...

    --
    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 8, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.