New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trouble with FPS - i9300

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
hi guys,
I just have problem with steam (particularly cs); it seems i cannot get higher than 60 fps even after changine fps_max to 100. Is this a problem with refresh rate (60)? IF so, how can i get higher fps? THNX.
P.S. i have the True Life UXgA.
post #2 of 25
FPS above 60? lol. 25FPS is all you can see anyway. The refresh rate has nothing to do with FPS. It is standard 60hz. 60FPS is VERY good. Leave it.
post #3 of 25
yea i don't understand why you want more FPS for that game

that looks enough more than enough trust me!
post #4 of 25
60hhz is the refresh rate of the screen and your getting 60 FPS. Sounds like vsync is on to me. Try turning that off.

edit, btw you can see more than "25fps"
post #5 of 25
Make sure you have 'wait for vsync' disabled. If it's enabled then the max fps will be limited to whatever your montior refresh rate is.
post #6 of 25
Let's start this off in the right end of the ladder: which graphic card did you choose?
post #7 of 25
turn off your vertical sync. vertical sync keeps your frame rate from raising above your refresh rate therefore eliminated tearing.
post #8 of 25
Stop playing CS, believe me, with only 60 FPS you have no chance against those 100 FPS guys.
post #9 of 25
Anything above 35 is smooth gameplay. You won't be able to notice anything above 50 unless you're looking for it (and even then I'd be surprised). I'd just leave the Vsync on.
post #10 of 25
35fps is also what tv/movies run at, so if you "need" more than that...you're operating on a whole other level than the rest of us
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith_25
35fps is also what tv/movies run at, so if you "need" more than that...you're operating on a whole other level than the rest of us

this is so untrue, first off tv/movies move at 24 fps, but there is a difference between film/tv and graphics being displayed on a screen(natural motion blur, etc). Almost anyone can notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
post #12 of 25
at what resolution are you running CS. Is this source or 1.6???
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirBA
yea i don't understand why you want more FPS for that game

that looks enough more than enough trust me!

It looks like more than enough but the more fps you have in a fast paced game like CS the better..
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaks
It looks like more than enough but the more fps you have in a fast paced game like CS the better..

Exactly.
I hate when Im in a CPL tourny and Im getting a 25 ping and 68 FPS and that awp whore on the other side is 22 ping and 73 FPS.

He has an unfair advantage. That a-hole


[/sarcasm]
post #15 of 25
haha nice one target
post #16 of 25
Without getting into specifics, the eye can see much more then 25 fps. TV and movies blur images between each other, PC's do not. the air force has done tests showing 250+ fps are infact viewable by the human eye. With that said, most people find 35+ to be adequaltey smooth (as long as it is stable at 35fps).

Anyway, you have Vsync turned on. Vsync locks the fps at your refresh rate to stop tearing. Turning that off should fix your problem.
post #17 of 25
Someone ought to rig up a really simple test ... simply have a sprite move real fast across the screen from left to right - something that even a low end vidcard can do at 60fps. Then show it running at the same speed but at framerates from 15fps to 60fps and see who notices the difference.

Now add a little motion blur and repeat the test.

Now vary the speed that the sprite moves at and repeat the test.

I wonder if anyone has done something like this before ... for me at least, playing slow moving games like Thief or Splinter Cell, I can tolerate framerates down to 10fps (that's what I get on Thief 3 on my GeForce FX5200!) ... but I certainly notice the difference between 25fps and 40fps playing, say, Unreal Tournament (I can't speak for higher - I've never had a video card capable of going any higher!)

As for Vsync, once your hardware refresh rate is reached, any more isn't going to help because the panel physically can't update fast enough! You'll STILL be running at 60fps ... in fact, if your video card is at 120fps, what you're actually getting is the first half of frame n and the second half of frame n+1 (but you're still getting 60 whole frames per second) ... there IS a reason they use Vsync!
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali3350
Without getting into specifics, the eye can see much more then 25 fps. TV and movies blur images between each other, PC's do not. the air force has done tests showing 250+ fps are infact viewable by the human eye. With that said, most people find 35+ to be adequaltey smooth (as long as it is stable at 35fps).

Anyway, you have Vsync turned on. Vsync locks the fps at your refresh rate to stop tearing. Turning that off should fix your problem.
I wonder when we'll get 4ms LCDs, then we can run at 250fps

Seriously though, I don't know about what the latency is of the panel on the 9300s but I seriously doubt it'll be any less than 15ms (for a desktop LCD, 8ms is already bloody good and 20-25ms seems reasonably standard) meaning that any refresh rate over 67fps/67Hz isn't physically possible (the pixels can't switch fast enough!).
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith_25
35fps is also what tv/movies run at, so if you "need" more than that...you're operating on a whole other level than the rest of us
Quote:
Originally Posted by relapse808
this is so untrue, first off tv/movies move at 24 fps, but there is a difference between film/tv and graphics being displayed on a screen(natural motion blur, etc). Almost anyone can notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Wraith - you're completely wrong.

Relapse - you're only partially right.

Basically, film is SHOT at 24 frames per second. The NTSC standard video standard used in North America dictates a 29.97 frames-per-second rate (the film is converted from 24 to 29.97 frames per second). The European PAL standard operates on 25 FPS. I could go on, but I'd probably wind up exceeding what I know and saying something untrue.
post #20 of 25
Actually, isn't film (as in movie theatre film) physically 24fps but is shown at 48fps (ie. each frame is flashed twice) and doing so actually reduces the flickering (compared to showing each frame once at 24fps)? I heard that somewhere but I can't quite remember where ...


Ironically, the screensize can also have an effect on perception of framerate ... the center of your visual field is slower to respond than the edges (that's why you can sometimes see a monitor flickering out of the corner of your eye but when you look directly at it, it doesn't appear to flicker anymore).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home