brossyg wrote:The upper limit of the FPS axis of your FPS graph has been getting higher with each new video card reviewed ... now 350 FPS. The human eye stops being able to detect improved fluidity of motion beyond a certain FPS and the game makers can only include so much detail in each frame that would require rendering a new frame to see the changed detail.
So, for a video card, it seems as if we are WAY past the point where higher FPS actually improves the detail/fluidity of motion of even the fastest-action games. I have researched the desirability of FPS capability beyond 150 or so FPS and cannot find a reason to pay for it. Is there specific research from the game makers that shows their games are perceptibly better when played with a video card capable of higher than 150 FPS?
yeah, it's time to dust off the 30-inch monitor and up the resolution. I haven't been benchmarking at 25x16 as <1% of gamers have a 30" monitor. You are right that the human brain can't tell the difference between 200FPS and 300FPS, but the only chart that goes up that high is HAWX 2. We have everything enabled and 8x AA turned on, so no way to make that benchmark tougher to run. We can drop that benchmark from future reviews.
I know the charts are getting big, but sadly all the drivers are still golden. It's been a busy few months around here. Hard to believe that I have benchmarked 27 cards on 8 games in just 9 weeks. I just spent my morning running benchmarks on a Radeon HD 7770 right now as well for an AIB, so that makes 28.
28 video cards x 8 games x 3 runs each x 2 resolutions = 1344 benchmarks run and that doesn't include overclocking, noise or temperature testing... lol
The average benchmark run is around 5 minutes, so that is 6720 minutes or 112 hours of benchmarking fun in those charts.
With Kepler right around the corner I need to find the closest bridge and jump!