I'd like to change my GPU (and CPU if needed) to run the game at 120fps or more most of the time... I tried searching in google and in the forums, but I got strange results (like previous generation GPUs that outperform latest gen GPUs). To be sure about what to buy I wanted to ask here: as of now, is there anyone with a configuration that runs at least at 120fps? If yes, could you post at least your CPU and GPU?
Thanks in advance =)
What CPU/GPU runs the game with at least 120fps?
Printable View
-
03-17-2014, 07:51 PMFengelWhat CPU/GPU runs the game with at least 120fps?
-
03-17-2014, 08:11 PMLithera
Why would you want 120 FPS?
-
03-17-2014, 08:13 PMispanoThere are plenty of monitors that do 120Hz now, is why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithera
-
03-17-2014, 08:15 PMKule
I think you'll be stuck with uncapped frame rate unless you can sync to your monitors refresh rate. As for getting 120fps you'll probably have better luck using the older i7 cpu's/mobo as they overclock better and wait for the 880gtx or something.
-
03-17-2014, 08:17 PMJudge_Xero
I don't think there is anything that will give a constant 120 FPS. There always seems to be dips in crowded areas.
I'm running an overclocked I5 4670k with R9 290 Crossfire. I see up to 80FPS at 1440p.
So at 1080p you might get close with GTX 780ti in SLI. This game does favor nVidia -
03-17-2014, 08:24 PMispano
Yeah I use Dual GTX 780s with, the same, an OC'd 4670K. I run 2560x1600 though, and even with that I can dip under 60 in some places.
-
03-17-2014, 08:51 PMDelsai
Highest I get is 89-90 and I am happy with just that.
-
03-17-2014, 09:03 PMKarnyboy
Your eyes won't really notice anything over 60 anyway
-
03-17-2014, 09:06 PMProvoke
I run at 25-30 fps, my life sucks pretty bad
-
03-17-2014, 09:26 PMDay_Night
You really don't need to spend lots of money or even get fooled by building what people call a "future proof" gaming pc nowadays, Especially now that Gsync monitors are out.
I'd say 3570k + GTX780 would perform really well with any G-sync monitor at 60fps and you don't have to worry about tearing and such at all for at least another Generation.
Goodluck. -
03-17-2014, 09:46 PMlxSchRTSS (part of MSI Afterburner) allows locking fps (per application) at any value without the stuttering issue, but there will be minor tearing sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kule
-
03-17-2014, 10:00 PMispanoThis has been proven wrong actually. People can tell the difference between 60 and something like 90 or 120.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnyboy
-
03-17-2014, 10:14 PMPseudopsia
My PC can't sustain 120 FPS on 1080p maximum settings. I average around 90 FPS on normal areas. In areas with a lot of characters such as popular fates and Revenant's toll the FPS can drop below 60. I think there's too much CPU overhead. If I lower some settings I can increase FPS by a lot.
With 120hz monitor set at 120hz the 60 FPS cap setting actually caps at 120 FPS. So text description is misleading since it's based on refresh rate.
My PC:
i7 3930k @ 4.5 Ghz
GTX Titan
Samsung 27" 3D Monitor S27A950D
I did create a video of the benchmark where I used a hardware capture device to not impact performance and fraps overlay to show FPS. This shows FPS fluctuations. Most intense area in benchmark(1:23) it drops to 60 FPS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgZZPQ-TPQQ -
03-17-2014, 10:31 PMAvenol
I run:
i5 4670k @ 4.2
GTX 780
and I'll get about 120fps while also streaming. -
03-17-2014, 10:56 PMNyneAlexanderThis greatly depends on the content/media that is being viewed. With something like gaming, the average person isn't going to notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ispano
-
03-17-2014, 11:07 PMPseudopsiaAverage person doesn't notice because they don't have a 120hz monitor to experience it. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by NyneAlexander
I find it's noticeable in gaming especially when rotating camera and objects are moving fast. -
03-17-2014, 11:29 PMSchalaZeal
I play in 60 fps on "standard" settings in 1920x1080. I think anything above that (in fps) is a waste of money, though I'd like to hit max settings (instead of standard), I won't rush. I'll save up for a PS4 long before I save up for a graphics card. I'll probably get a 700 series (760 or 770) by the time the 800 series become old news and are all out. Right now I have a 550 Ti.
After all, I play my PS3 on a 720 resolution TV using composite wires (so 480 res) and don't notice its crap except for small text, which looks weird (especially the lowercase I).
I'll admit I'm poor though. But I'd rather spend my money on games than on stuff I wouldn't even notice. Like buying a car vs a 2000$ extra on your car you won't even remember a year later. -
03-17-2014, 11:44 PMSheerIf you want to talk about the fastest possible framerate a game could be for a player to react to each individual frame, then yes, there is a limit. But you really won't notice a 120Hz refresh rate until you play it for awhile and then switch back to a 60Hz monitor - people will tell you they feel a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnyboy
At any rate, running this game at 120FPS consistently would require one heck of a setup. You could try getting top-of-the-line hardware that'd cost you a fortune and get pretty close to it, but I don't think you want to spend the money for that. -
03-17-2014, 11:52 PMGamemakoEstimates are 300-450FPS in terms of not noticing any single frame. In terms of gaming, though, the problem is more complex. Consistency of framerate is more important than actual framerate, and your brain fills in the gaps one way or other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ispano
-
03-17-2014, 11:52 PMKupoNutsThe threshold for no longer seeing a difference for the current generation use to looking at screens is in excess of 100 FPS. 60 FPS is a long quoted level of just starting to be smooth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnyboy
Even 120 FPS is not smooth. When staring at 120 FPS images with large fields of view, choppiness continues to be visible during full screen movement by peripheral vision at the edges of the media, when viewed from a correct viewing distance. -
03-17-2014, 11:55 PMAssirraYou talk about not spending a lot of money yet we see a 780 and a gsync monitor...Quote:
Originally Posted by Day_Night
What do you call spending a lot of money i am wondering then, triple SLI and a 4k monitor? -
03-18-2014, 12:33 AMTiggyI can see the difference between 60 and 80 easily. It's around 90 that it skill feels the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by NyneAlexander
-
03-18-2014, 08:46 PMFengel
Thank you all for your replies, now I have a better idea of what I'll need to reach 120fps (or at least to get close to that framerate).
To answer a question in the first page of the thread, "Why would I want 120fps?", it's mainly because of this:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/video/
Strobing the backlights of a 120hz (or faster) 3D LCD screen, the movement becomes as fluid as on you could see on a CRT screen.
Quoting a description from their website on how strobing works:
Quote:
The backlight is turned off while waiting for pixel transitions (unseen by human eyes), and the backlight is strobed only on fully-refreshed LCD frames (seen by human eyes). The strobes can be shorter than pixel transitions, breaking the pixel transition speed barrier! In addition, it eliminates the sample-and-hold effect.
-
03-18-2014, 08:47 PMFengel
Here are some FAQ: http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost-faq/
And here some comparison shots between a 60hz monitor, a 120hz monitor and a strobed 120hz monitor: http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/
Since I switched to LCD monitors some years ago due to CRT straining too much my eyes, I always missed CRT's ability to show fluid motion without stuttering or blurring: this strobing is the solution. The last time I saw something similar, it was on my old CRT monitor 1280x1080.
If you decide to try it, here you can find some tests to run: http://www.testufo.com/