Is over 40 FPS really important anyway?

I see those high benchmarks scores and the proud owners of such and it reminds me of hi fi specs. They get to where the number is more imporatant than the actual ABILITY to SEE or HEAR the difference. We watch movie's at 30 FPS and all seems ok. So a laptop game running over that has to be better than watching a movie......Who cares if one is running 115 FPS!

I have a Dell 8600 1.4 geforce 5200 64MB ram WXGA with crappy scores but every game I run is fine. The lappy STAYS COOL, no freeze ups and at least 30 FPS in FS2004 . Madden 2004 looks great. Even Max Payne II and Sim City 4 look great. I thought after reading these and Dell forums I was going to need a $2000 + expenditure to play any games at decent resolutions and quality and do video editing, but I decided to back in and buy a refurbished Dell for $1268 Shipped thinking I will return it if it does not do what I need it to.

Well it's a keeper. Just goes to show it's not all about the numbers all the time. With the grand I saved I will use it to buy another refurbed BETTER Dell Dothan based lappy in a couple years.

Because i have a home built desktop maxed out I suppose I can really get the most out of the new games as they arrive. But for slopping around and playing on the road. The 8600 1.4 is fine!!

So those of you who think you have to have the top of the line in order to play games and do serious computing. Im here to say except for bragging rights and/or high 3d Mark scores. It's really not all that neccessary for everyday use and to enjoy most of your favorite games in all their splendor.

MY point exactly

MORE FPS the better? I think not. Thats what your friends and NVIDIA and ATI want you to believe!

I run FS 2004 and I really dont see much if any difference from 40 to 30 and thats a 25% drop in FPS. I have a hard time believing anyone would notice the difference between 115 FPS and 60 FPS. Surely not enough to affect gameplay. I LOCK my FPS on FS2004 at 35 FPS so the system is not perpetually and needlessly processing to provide more FPS than looks "right" to the normal eye. Then {as PROPHETZ pointed out above} if there is some lag somewhere else in the chain it can be handled because the processor and video card is not working CONSTANTLY to keep MAX FPS. It has the excess bandwidth to handle the other issues and program needs as they arise with ease. Another huge benefit is that it keeps the machine cooler and allows for other processess to take place without stress causing further hiccups. I just feel If I did not lock the FPS the system would constantly use clock cycles to process to whatever FPS it can obtain needlessly without massive visual result which would ultimatly result in much higher heat.

Why tax the video card and processor to process information that will not be visible in most cases. I realize the manufacturers only way to sell the next best thing is to feed us cryptic specs,Its really theory, just like in the audio world, Most people cannot even tell if a CD was initially recorded at 24 bits or 16. 100 Mhz or 44! Yet all the big adio programs are touting 24 bit recording while the final result is on a 16 bit CD and MANY of us are listening to that as a compressed MP3 file futher denegrating the audio!!!! go figure!

Everyone on these boards seem to get caught up in the 3d Mark benchmarks scores of 100000000, playing right into the manufacturers hand. The benchmarks only serve to see differences RELATIVE to other systems. Even when the systems are already good enough. Bragging rights I call them. Thats their only real purpose. I don't blame the manufacturers. They stay in business by creating NEW and SEEMINGLY better product. The buyer of these products than whine about lock ups and have heat issues and need fifty fans and water coolers and ultimatly burn up the components before their time just to have some random test result which beats their neighboors which is way overkill anyway for many of the applications out there. The technology has surpassed the visible result so the programmers have to devise better specs which in most cases are not worth upgrading to.
Paying for Bragging rights is foolish in a world where they are so short lived!

I have even seen posts where someone wants a $400 9600XT card because he is going to edit video!!!! Video editing does not require 3D acceleration!!!! It is 2D like a spreadsheet!. Many Motherboard imbedded graphics chips are good enough for that!
IgnoraNCE IS THE MANUFACTURERS HOLY GRAIL!

There also seems to be a general idea that a game will not look or play any better on any card but a 9600XT or Nvidia 5650 Ultra. That is simply not the case. The specs will be better yes! However,The same game looked just fine on the 9600 pro a few months ago and the 9500 pro before that. The manufacturers a fighting each other for the SPECs and sucking in the hobbyest in the process. I say let them fight while I play. The programmers are usually a year or two behind the specs anyway!


BTW I still run an TI4200 on my desktop and have no issues at all with DX 9 FS2004 or MAx Payne II. Maybe Im missing some sublties in the graphics but it sure looks great to me. I am ready to upgrade the whole system so I will go for the 9600 Pro. I never buy the bleeding edge today when I can get it for half price in not too many tomorrows. Oh and my 'puter' is not the envy of my friends, my bank account may be though!

Wow great article. I get it now. I guess I don't play the super fast games. FS 2004 , SimCity, even MOH is not a really fast game.

MAkes sense. So the new benchmark should be 72 FPS min. for perfect visuals.?

I would not call it spamming, CABLEMOOSE. Before I decided to make a purchase of a lappy I read all the forums I could find. I nearly bought a Sager until I realized a desktop chip in a lappy is not a good thing. Because Dell has great reliability and reputation for solid performance as well as Toshiba I decided to try the Dell after looking at the P25 Toshiba's .

Reading this and Dells forum I saw there were many hung up on benchmarks. It's as if the first program they load on their new machines is 3d Mark! I began to bellieve I had to spen over $2k to play a game.So I configured a 1.7 with the 9600 card and UXGA screen even though I wanted the SXGA+ (but there were "issues" with that). I nearly pulled the trigger when I began reading about some guys who were having heat issues and UXGA issues with small fonts. I stepped back and re read some threads and read the Compaq forums and others. I found there were many who had much less 'horsepower" and graphics who were running games and discussing their benchmarks as well. The whole FPS issue came up because I have no idea what my FPS is in Max Payne II BUT IT RUNS WELL on my Desktop with a lowly TI4200 64 card.

I decided to "back into a Dell' intending to send it back if it did not work for me. So I bought a refurbed 1.4 WXGA with the 5200 go card for $1268 shipped! Now I cannot offer the self proclaimed computer expert and "med student" (wow Im impressed, I suppose that makes him credible) his benchmark technical specs on my gaming experiences.(The link Ed posted is understandable enough in all its Physiological glory) .But I will say I was pleasantly surprised by my REAL WORLD results in the gaming arena on a machine I was nearly convinced would not be good enough by the many posters here and in Dell having wet dreams re: 3D mark scores!

I just want the guys who are in the position I was in to know from one person's experience, they don't HAVE to spend $2-3000 for a lappy and DO NOT need to have a certain 3D mark score or card setup to play popular games satisfactorily. I dislike the full size Sonys (I have a 'mini" TR2 Viao) but I know those who play on them. They don't even have the V cards Dell offers.

So I offered up a FPS question and it was answered ultimatly to my satisfaction by a great link which yes CABLEMOOSE, I did post on the Dell forum as well! Is there something wrong with that?
My 30 FPS turned into a min of 72 according to that great article.

I do not mean to discredit those who cream over having today's screamer in 3D mark scores and be the envy of their friends. It's the American way! Thats their thing. Benchmarking scores are important for those guys. Good for them. This was mainly here (and yes in Dell as well) for those who could care less about that, want to save a few dollars and enjoy their lappys just as much. Thats all.

I also posted about the waste of money "extended warrantees" everybody is selling lately. Thats been pretty controversial as well.

The bottom line I got from the article is

1. Everybody has a differentphysiological reaction to the refresh/flicker rate and FPS.
2. Generally speaking anything over 72 FPS may not be really important.
3. The benchmark scores are not relavant when determining what to buy.
4. Real world results are the final word and one has to have the machine in front of them to see if it is acceptable to them.