5 ms·
You can see on the photo at the top that they were running at 1280x720. As for graphics settings I would guess minimum. Edit: seems mobile and desktop have a d
by leddt 6y ago
You can see on the photo at the top that they were running at 1280x720. As for graphics settings I would guess minimum.
Edit: seems mobile and desktop have a different crop of that image. Here is the image that shows 720: https://images.ctfassets.net/rporu91m20dc/1XYHhlYZzNI1NxRRJlrZYG/cdf10579d7387a9a9e87be46ff107690/DE_1000FPS_MOBILE_633x424.jpg?q=70&fm=webp https://images.ctfassets.net/rporu91m20dc/1XYHhlYZzNI1NxRRJl...
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoThanks - I even looked in the images for it. That would make sense as well in their discussion about CPU power - that resolution would require a lot of it compared to, say, 4k.
- sedatk 6y agoSo, does it count if I push 5000fps on 320x200?
- leddt 6y agoLooks like the benchmark was cpu bound, so I doubt going to an even lower resolution would help much.
- thih9 6y ago1x1px seems simpler. Or a 4k static background. I’d say they all count, though some are less exciting.
- sushshshsh 6y agoWell, there's always the 3990x humming along at 2.3 trillion instructions per second.