Question about GPU Performance

Faladu said:

The human eye struggles past 30 FPS. NTSC is 23.xx FPS and PAL is 25 FPS for TV standards, to use as REAL comparison.

It's much more complex than just a FPS game. I did gave a shot at explaining what is known about it in this post.

Yes, I know it's way beyond the general discussion on what his ? was. :)

I hate motion blur and bloom in games, I look for check boxes to disable them immediately.

I'm getting too old, I don't need artificially created eye trickery. haha

Yeah it's just smoother.... It's like using 30 images vs 60 images in a cartoon for the same movement.

I just got a 120 refresh rate TV, I haven't noticed a difference yet. [using it as 3rd monitor, also]

Supposedly, it will be noticeable during blu-ray fast action sequences, and I just haven't been using it for that yet, price was right, was shocked available on a $400 set, albeit, Costco, still up $ in regular chain stores.

I really just wanted to say that 42fps was playable, nothing more. :)

The refresh rate matters if the content on it does have a fps that needs it. As I said, most TV broadcast/cable companies don't give a flying... so you are probably looking at stuff at 25-30 fps with true motion blur (being filmed from real life or when each frame is rendered by a BIG render farm for CGI in movies).

Also because a video stream at 120 fps is something like 4 times the bandwith of one at 25-30, and that's significant for a company dealing with TV broadcasts, as they do pay for the infrastructure.

To have a chance to notice an improvement on that screen Vs a computer screen at 60 hz you need to have a FPS somewhere more than 60. (duh!) And even than it may or may not be apparent (depending on how good the game was in the first place).

I guess in other words, it's digital.

I'd say it's just because of imperfections in current technology. It's temporary.
The physics employed in the game engines are far from perfect, so they don't manage to simulate motion blur in a really convincing way. Better physics code would greatly help, possibly harnessing CUDA or the AMD's equivalent.
The other way is if the GPU tech starts going a bit faster than game development speed and the FPS of actually still images jumps over the 100 threshold and the eyes are fooled by sheer brute force.

WOW !

Yup. CGI in movies broke that barrier a few years ago, and games are getting real close. That is still recognizable as a game (at least to my trained nerd eye), but hey, that is pretty motion-heavy. For more simple idle animations and mundane movements games are more or less already there.