Graphics performance- what rig can do max settings?

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Th3ory wrote: 1 month ago

ghostpos wrote: 1 month ago

Ah didn't know it was 25FPS originally, thanks for the correction! @Th3ory

All good! That comment was not intended to correct you - more so agreeing with you on the point of vsync fast + 65 FPS Cap. I've played both with it capped at 65 and uncapped and it plays the same plus it puts far less stress on the GPU both with temps + utilization.

And that trade-off enables you to then push everything else to max settings if you choose.

Even if the underlying engine still calculates at 25FPS, the animations on top will be much smoother at high FPS (also cursor movement), so if someone has a high refresh rate display, he should absolutely use it.

I have a 60FPS limit monitor that i've played on for 10 years, the difference above 60 is generally negliable or outright nonexistant.

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Even if the underlying engine still calculates at 25FPS, the animations on top will be much smoother at high FPS (also cursor movement), so if someone has a high refresh rate display, he should absolutely use it.

I have a 60FPS limit monitor that i've played on for 10 years, the difference above 60 is generally negliable or outright nonexistant.

Once you try a high refresh rate display, you will change your mind. Even scrolling in the browser feels so much better, going back to 60Hz will feel like everything is stuttering.

btw it also applies to phones, so if you've got a phone that can do 120hz, you can test it for yourself.

I don't really understand why it should be >60 FPS.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Even if the underlying engine still calculates at 25FPS, the animations on top will be much smoother at high FPS (also cursor movement), so if someone has a high refresh rate display, he should absolutely use it.

I have a 60FPS limit monitor that i've played on for 10 years, the difference above 60 is generally negliable or outright nonexistant.

Once you try a high refresh rate display, you will change your mind. Even scrolling in the browser feels so much better, going back to 60Hz will feel like everything is stuttering.

btw it also applies to phones, so if you've got a phone that can do 120hz, you can test it for yourself.

I didn't say i didn't have a monitor with higher FPS did i? I DO have TWO monitors with higher FPS. But again, the difference from just upping FPS is negliable or outright nonexistant. Extremely so, when it's for a game like D2 that, as noted previously, has an engine based on 25FPS.

While the advantages in picture and color quality on my 60FPS IPS is noticeable.

Once you try a high refresh rate display, you will change your mind.

No i wont, because i've already tried.

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

No i wont, because i've already tried.

Age old discussion. Tbh, I've never heard anyone who own a high refresh rate display to have an opinion like yours, but each to his own I guess.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Even if the underlying engine still calculates at 25FPS, the animations on top will be much smoother at high FPS (also cursor movement), so if someone has a high refresh rate display, he should absolutely use it.

That isn't a simple answer as his question was less about FPS, but about overall settings relative to his hardware inputs.

I have a 165 high-end AW, and I've tested it at 165 vsync fast vs. 65 vsync fast and I can tell you that the difference was not majorly noticeable to the untrained eye. This is not a FPS, high-pacing animated game. Diablo 4, Last Epoch, PoE2 I run all at 165 for more obvious reasons.

You put far more stress on your rig if you cap to your max refresh rate and depending on your overall build, that typically for many requires down-shifting a handful of your other settings.

If you have mid-tier hardware, and you want to push it, then you are better off capping at 65. If you have high-end and you've run diagnostics and you can easily push to your max refresh rate 100% go for it.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

No i wont, because i've already tried.

Age old discussion. Tbh, I've never heard anyone who own a high refresh rate display to have an opinion like yours, but each to his own I guess.

No, it's a question of the QUALITY and TYPE of the monitor.
I have a high quality IPS monitor. Which has near perfect color fidelity and width, no backlight bleed, perfect grayscaling, exceptional motion clarity(looks better at 60Hz than most gaming monitors can do at over 240Hz) etc...

Or in short, the picture is extremely high quality. Way beyond what your average high FPS gaming monitor has. And because what i do MOST on my computer is reading, that is far more important than getting a bit more FPS that i don't even notice unless i have a FPS counter active.

Once you hit 60, unless you're playing very FPS-dependent games, there's no longer any serious difference from increasing the FPS. I found this after i got my first TFT monitor, because it took months to notice that its factory default limited its FPS to something really low like 50 FPS. Upping it to 100 or 120 FPS, it made a difference, but nothing huge. Put it next to my current monitor and the difference is however very blatant, on the old you have the tiny bit more fluidity that higher fps brings, on the newer however, you have perfect picture clarity, vivid colors, Black is Black, White is White, anything that moves looks less blurred...

And if you're mostly running strategy games and the like that doesn't care about FPS at all, the only thing you do running at higher fps is to increase your electricity

Bill.

Which is why i also chose a 3050 gfx card, because the games i run are CPU bound, not gfx bound, and i'm yet to find any game where the 3050 isn't perfectly well enough.
And for the same reason, how i actually USE my system, i chose to get a monitor that at the time was considered an acceptable entry level monitor for professional desktop publishing and graphics editing, beacuse i wanted a clear and high quality picture far more than high FPS.
It has served me well for over 10 years and isn't showing any signs of needing replacement anytime soon.

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

No, it's a question of the QUALITY and TYPE of the monitor.
I have a high quality IPS monitor. Which has near perfect color fidelity and width, no backlight bleed, perfect grayscaling, exceptional motion clarity(looks better at 60Hz than most gaming monitors can do at over 240Hz) etc...

Thats a totally different topic. There are very good high refresh rate displays too (oleds for example).

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

Or in short, the picture is extremely high quality. Way beyond what your average high FPS gaming monitor has. And because what i do MOST on my computer is reading, that is far more important than getting a bit more FPS that i don't even notice unless i have a FPS counter active.

IDK, even for reading, having high refresh rate doesnt hurt, scrolling really feels better on it.

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

Once you hit 60, unless you're playing very FPS-dependent games, there's no longer any serious difference from increasing the FPS.

Even mini\maximizing a window on the desktop feels sluggish on a 60hz display.

FULCRUM75 wrote: 1 month ago

And if you're mostly running strategy games and the like that doesn't care about FPS at all, the only thing you do running at higher fps is to increase your electricity

Bill.

I’d much rater undervolt my card, than

Cap it to 60FPS. Like in Florian’s case, i’m fairly sure he could do around 170W with a bit of undervolting/underclocking on his 3070

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Thats a totally different topic. There are very good high refresh rate displays too (oleds for example).

And their cost goes up along with the quality, yes.
I'm not going to pay over 2k$ for a monitor.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

IDK, even for reading, having high refresh rate doesnt hurt, scrolling really feels better on it.

Wait, what? Dude... The only monitors where framerate matters for reading are poor quality LCDs or old CRTs.
There's a reason why Dell was so big in the corporate/office market for monitors for so long with their comparatively low Hz monitors.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

Even mini\maximizing a window on the desktop feels sluggish on a 60hz display.

Uh, dood... That's not a monitor Hz matter...
Because the speed at which that happens is limited by CPU, not GPU or monitor.

There's no actual difference to how fast that happens even if you have an older monitor with a 25 or even 30 ms DSP delay.

Because the OS is still slower...

Any difference you think you see, either doesn't exist at all, or is caused by some other indirect interference like driver to monitor desync or the encryption interface DSP.

uuee wrote: 1 month ago

I’d much rater undervolt my card, than

Cap it to 60FPS. Like in Florian’s case, i’m fairly sure he could do around 170W with a bit of undervolting/underclocking on his 3070

I'm yet(after over 2 years) to run any game that my 3050 gfx, which tops out at 75W, is unable to run perfectly fine.

I'm just annoyed it was impossible to find a gfx card with passive cooling only, as i learned to love my old Ga 6770 Silent cell i used until 2015, that went well over 130W but still stayed chill despite no fans and caused zero EM interference.