JAD said:
but since the eye can only see 30FPS,
ya know I have said this cause I'm old school too, BUT I was shot down by
an instructor at a seminar, as he explained that its not
necessarily the speed that needs the higher frame rates but the layered FX that needs them?
Well yeah, sure, that AND the fact that that 100FPS is not constant. You
want plenty of overhead because when things become intense (when it's most
important for things to stay smooth) the frame rate may drop too low. What
is a more important number would be the minimum FPS rather than maximum ...
but you rarely see benchmarks like that. Tom's Hardware however, when
benchmarking a video card, gives both the highest and lowest FPS a card puts
out.
Yes, I realize these things ... but I've never really heard anyone say that
layered effects needed that frame overhead. I certainly don't know that it's
NOT true. But I would think that a FPS measurement would be a measurement of
the actual number of frames delivered to the monitor ... this would be
completely separate (I would think) from whatever processing the card had to
do behind the scenes to render said frames. I mean, if the card has to work
overtime to process all of the multi-layer effects then FPS would go down
.... but if FPS is high, then I would assume that it's doing all of that
efficiently.
But I am by no means an expert on such things ... but I would think that
even the 9600 Pro's 60FPS (twice what the eye can see) would be fine for
rendering any layered effects. If it takes over twice the noticeable frame
rate to render these "layered FX" then they are certainly relying too much
on this technique and will hamstring themselves in the long run.
Drumguy