3 ms·
The "games don't use CPU" line is only really true for multiplatform games that must also run on the low performance PS4/XBox One AMD Jaguar CPUs. If we look a
by Strom 10y ago
The "games don't use CPU" line is only really true for multiplatform games that must also run on the low performance PS4/XBox One AMD Jaguar CPUs.
If we look at PC exclusives [1] then we can see that these are extremely CPU-hungry games. This hunger only goes up if we want to achieve a framerate higher than 60, say going for 144.
I personally have an i7 @ 3.8 GHz with GTX 1060 and none of these games can hold a stable 1080p @ 144 Hz. What's more, I've benchmarked the effect of changing GPU/CPU and increased CPU power increases FPS far more than increased GPU.
I upgraded from Radeon R270X to GTX 1060. In multiplatform games this is a huge leap. Battlefield 4 (1080p Ultra) goes from 43.1 to 94.8 [2], a whopping +120% increase. While in Dota 2 (1080p Ultra) that only netted me a +11% gain. Then when I overclocked my i7 from 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHz I got a +23% increase.
--
[1] For example Dota 2, H1Z1, DayZ, Civilization 6, Guild Wars 2.
[2] http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1043 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1043 & http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771
- ido 10y agoJust curious: why do you want to run a turn based game like civ6 at 144fps? Or for that matter anything except super reaction-dependent FPSs?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Strom 10y agoYou're correct that it has a significantly bigger impact in reaction-dependant games. [1] Civilization 6 was just a good example of a CPU-heavy game, regardless of whether those frames are that useful. However there's also the case of normalization. After using a high refresh rate monitor, even something as simple as moving the cursor in Windows feels laggy with lower refresh rate monitors. -- [1] This being all reaction-dependant games, doesn't have to be FPS. Even fast paced pong qualifies.
- tbrowbdidnso 10y agoDoes it matter that every piece of scientific evidence shows that humans can't see anything at more than ~70hz?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- LordJZ 10y agoThis is false.
- tbrowbdidnso 10y agoWell, I guess that decides it
- Strom 10y agoThe thing is, anyone with a 144 Hz monitor [1] knows from experience that what you're claiming here is complete bullshit. Then there's also the fact that 70 Hz causes demonstrably more nausea in VR users than 90 Hz or more. Beyond that, if you wanna act innocent and play a citation game, I can throw you a bone. I'll give you this [2], what do you give me in return? -- [1] This was already evident back in CRT days when 70 Hz was garbage and 100+ Hz was what every serious gamer was after. [2] http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
- tbrowbdidnso 10y agoReally? Your first citation is youself[1] and the second one is a random website that's clearly not scientific or published. How about the NIH? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826883/figure/F2/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826883/figure/... Gap detection thresholds for different age ranges. Notice that the average for vision is around 20ms, or 50fps. Yeah some people are lower but the large majority of people don't see any faster than 60fps [1] so its not actually a citation it's just annoying.