- Apr 1, 2002
- 3,829
- 0
- 22,960
Why is it that in bench testing there is no listing of the minimum FPS a card gives. We all know that the top of line and even most mid range cards will do more FPS than we will ever notice. What I think would be better to see is what was the minimum frame rate the card would drop to.
I realize that usually if one card does 170 and another card only does 100 that the 170 card will have a higher minimum speed.
I would rather have a card that has a higher minimum frame rate then one that is only good for bragging rights. Why have a card that does 200 fps when you monitor can only display 60 to 100 frames of that and your eye can only tell upto about 30 to 40 fps.
It seems like the graphic cards are doing what intell did for sooo long. More FPS means better card is not always correct.
Anyone have thoughts on this.
I realize that usually if one card does 170 and another card only does 100 that the 170 card will have a higher minimum speed.
I would rather have a card that has a higher minimum frame rate then one that is only good for bragging rights. Why have a card that does 200 fps when you monitor can only display 60 to 100 frames of that and your eye can only tell upto about 30 to 40 fps.
It seems like the graphic cards are doing what intell did for sooo long. More FPS means better card is not always correct.
Anyone have thoughts on this.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram