Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

At what minimum fps game starts hanging?& how much min fps for smooth?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 2, 2010 12:35:57 AM

hi guys,
dont know where to post it as its also related to gpu.
so,
i wanna know that at what minimum fps a game like crysis and other heavy games starts hanging?? if i get 30 fps will it hang? ( i'll be using gtx 460 evga or cylone,

one more thing ..

my 2 friends are using the same card & both of them got hanging problem while they are getting 25 + & some times 33+ fps on i3 540 with gtx 460. i am afraid. is i3 a bottleneck for gtx 460.. remember, i dont wanna overclock.

and also, how many (minimum, minimum, minimum :@ remember this) fps do i need to rum heavy games smooth and also what would be the resolution?
i wanna play at high res and i will be using 18.5 inch lcd

thanks in advance.
December 2, 2010 12:47:28 AM

FPS will start stuttering around 25-30. For smooth gameplay, FPS has to be above 30. The i3 shouldn't be that big of a bottleneck, but it depends on what games you play.

For your last question, resolution doesn't really matter...it depends on your rig (CPU, GPU, etc.) as well as the game you're playing. If playing games at max settings and your FPS is stuttering, you can try to turn down the game settings, or you can turn down the in-game resolution, that's your call.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 12:54:31 AM

can i get about 40 + fps at max settings on i3 540 with gtx 460 & 2 gb ddr3 ?
i just wanna do gaming on this rig but its budgeted to i3 :( 
any suggestions will be appreciated

i am gonna buy

i3 540
p7h55 d m pro
2 gb ddr3
500 gb seagate
gtx 460
antex ea500 d green

how many max fps can i get on this machine on max settings e.g in crysis or gta4
can i play more than medium settings?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 2, 2010 1:39:20 AM

I need to know what resolution you will be using before I can answer you.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 1:46:15 AM

An 18.5" LCD is going to be low resolution, not high. Probably 1440x900 or 1280x1024. Even an HD5770 would be extremely good on that monitor.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:05:07 AM

so, m using gtx 460 that means i can get higher resolutions on 18.5" lcd??? isnt it?
actually i dont know what you are trying to say,

@bdcrlsn
hey please dont ask like that man. your reply must be like, you can play at highest resolution of ____ x ____ yeah. and i also wanna play at highest as possible. i wish i could play at 1080p
but what jyjjy saying 18.5" lcd cant handle this resolution.. or gpu is not capable of handling 1080p resolution on 18.5" lcd?
:S
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 2:16:51 AM

LCD monitors are made up of a distinct number of screen elements(pixels) and they all have a native resolution which represents such. You can not effectively set an LCD higher than the native resolution as the screen simply does not have enough pixels to display it. A better video card will do nothing to allow your monitor to display more pixels than the screen contains. All it will do is allow you to more effectively play games at higher resolutions if you were to connect the card to an appropriate monitor. If you want to play at 1920x1080 you'll need to buy a 1920x1080(or higher) monitor. They are usually 22-24".
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:20:08 AM

I apologize if I offended you.

Most monitors below 19" can't do 1080p. Most max out at 1440x900 or 1366x768 (Widescreen) or 1280x1024.

If that's the case, then you should be fine in terms of FPS on the games you listed, though I would invest in more RAM in the future, because having 2GB will eventually hold you back on performance.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:25:13 AM

ohhh! every lcd got native pixels? never heard of it before :S using my old crt 17" would be better then? cuz is supports something like 1786x 992 ( currently its showing this) when i was using xp it show some thing like 2500x ---- ( dont know )

leave it,

which lcd should i buy? is there any lcd which supports higher resolution?
my budget for lcd is about 120 $ :S

one more thing please reply for this one plz

you said that lcd has a native resolution of 1440x900 or 1280x1024 i think its low, so playing with low resolution on 18.5" lcd means an increase in fps? plz reply for this one :( 
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 2:36:02 AM

Yeah, CRT monitors are different and have more flexible resolutions.
Looking up some 18.5" screens they all have a resolution of 1366x768 actually. A lower resolution means you don't need a high end video card. Less pixels means the card has to do less work to render the screen. 1366x768 = 1.05 million pixels while 1920x1080 = 2.07 million pixels.
A decently sized 1080p monitor for $120 is pretty rare so if you are in the US I suggest you jump on this deal while it is still around;
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2438346
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:43:19 AM

it costs more than 150 $ in pakistan :(  i cant afford it,
listen, what would you suggest? use crt or get new lcd 18.5 with low resolutions.

in lcd ( 18.5 ) i'll have bursted gameplay then? i think buying lcd like this is useless:(  isnt it brother?
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 3:02:25 AM

Yeah, if you are in Pakistan you are on your own looking for monitor deals. If your CRT is still functioning well and decent quality you might as well keep it. CRTs also have no issues with viewing angles like most LCDs(unless you spend a lot) so they are superior in that way. Response time of the display tends to be better as well. The main drawback of CRTs is they are huge, heavy and use a good amount more power. Check out the resolutions available on your screen in the Windows settings and see what the highest resolution is that will give you a decent refresh rate(70+).
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 4:40:04 AM

@jyjjy
1786 x 992
its my current crt's highest resolution shown in display resolution settings, but when i choose the highest ( 1786 x 922 ) there were no display at all and a dialog box appears saying "Out of scan range" but its working on 1600 x 1200.

@ all
may be using my current 17" monitor will be a good deal instead of spending 150 $ and no gain with native resolutions & will i see any difference in 18.5" lcd at its highest resolution.

distance of my eyes from lcd would be 2.2 feets away from lcd or may be less. what do you guys suggest finally???

i have both options :
i can afford lcd of native resolutions
and i can also use my sony crt 17"

give me the final suggestions please.

m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 4:50:51 AM

1600x1200 is quite high really(1.92m pixels.) A real HD LCD would still be a lot better as the screen area would be much larger but that doesn't seem to be an option right now. The 18.5" won't be much of an upgrade there either so you might as well keep the CRT and save up some more money until you can afford a nice 23-34" 1080p display.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 4:51:14 AM

Quote:
Of course buy lcd.Crt will ruin your gaming experience.
I thought shops in pakistan only sell Ak47.Lol just a joke.

How will it ruin the experience?
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 6:14:09 AM

That would be great but he only has $120 to spend on a monitor. That's why I recommended he use the CRT until he can save up enough to afford a decent LCD,
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:13:17 PM

Quote:
Of course buy lcd.Crt will ruin your gaming experience.
I thought shops in pakistan only sell Ak47.Lol just a joke.



no problem brother i know its a joke, but its not worth .. they only say pak is a terrorist but i took birth here and i am 21 now, didnt see any thing like this..

sorry for the useless thread moderator hope u understand.

m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:17:15 PM

hey hey hey all
i am bot locked at 120 $ :S i can afford 18.5" lcd but it has low resolutions

now tell me what to choose?

my current crt monitor which is running on 1600 x 1200
or
lcd with low resolutions

lcd = 18.5"( any )
crt = 17" sony
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 2:25:25 PM

I'd go for an LCD, get with the times :) .

And as for your previous question, the lower the resolution, the less work your graphics card has to do, therefore the more frames it is able to render per second (more FPS). Higher resolution means more work to do, therefore less frames rendered per second (lower FPS). However higher resolution means nicer looking picture as higher resolutions are less prone to aliasing etc.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 2:29:40 PM

I guess noticing the FPS is all a personal thing...
For me i guess i'm super sensitive,i notice stuttering when it gets around 40fps.
Although i've talked with a sales rep in the GPU section at frys and he says games are playable at 30fps.
I like to idealy play at around 50+ thats when things get smooth and it starts to seem like a game instead of a computer.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 2:37:25 PM

You can easily obtain 50+FPS for GTA IV maxed out but Crysis is another story,i think you would get around 40+ with everything on med.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:38:32 PM

ok thanks all

1 last question, am i forced to play at lcd's highest resolution? i understand that it cant be increase but would it decrease?

like others said you'll see bursted pixels in lcds comparing to crt so, whats the use of making gpu doing less work on less resolution to get higher frames.
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 2:40:48 PM

remember ill be using 460 gtx
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 3:16:32 PM

I think 1 main advantage of using an LCD is they can display 720p HD.Don't know if CRT's can display in HD or not.

Using a smaller resolution means that you will have higher FPS and a higher chance at playing games with maxed out settings.

Their is no disadvantage of playing at the native(highest) resoultion of an LCD,since you would be playing at it's native theirs no reason you would loose any type of quality in displaying the image,the smaller the image the graphics card has to display the better FPS you will get...
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 4:21:34 PM

ohh purple stand you have not got what i wanna know,
listen,
if i compare :

1 lcd of 18.5 inch and playing crysis (for example) at lcd's highest i-e 1024x768
and
1 crt of 17" and playing crysis on it at the same resolution. i would get better quality of picture in crt while gpu work less and same.

please give me a conclusion

if lcd is better than why? ( dont say its smaller in size wide or e.t.c )
and if crt is better for gaming than why?

what i think is that crt has better refresh rates and no ghosting at all but low in quality

where lcd has better quality but with ghosting, lower resolution which cause bursted pixels and low refresh rates.

i am talking about normal lcds for gaming not of that expensive one designed for gaming purpose.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 5:09:52 PM

I'ts actually the other way around. Normal CRT's have a LOT more quality than normal LCD (by normal I mean that crap of Dynamic contrast of 50,000+, when in reality holds only 1000 contrast static)

Best LCD's out there are the ones with 2000 contrast static (I say this from experience, but research says the same) which also show that in their prices(2 years ago, I bought a 19 inch 2000 contrast ratio RGB for more than 200$, and it has been by far, the best quality I have experienced visibly.

There is no "HD". They are just resolutions, the bigger the resolution, the better the image quality, that's all, and the human eye cannot make too much difference (some humans can) with for example 21,5 inch LCD with 1280x720 to 1920x1080.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 5:40:02 PM

Back to your original question.

FPS is not a good representation of "hanging" and the GPU is not likely the cause of hanging. I assume the term hanging is when you get a long pause between the screen updating (.5 seconds or more). Often these problems are a result of low cache, or low amounts of ram, a slow harddrive (not likely these days), or a poorly coded game.

If you mean just choppy FPS, then most consider 30 FPS to be the point of being smooth, but from personal experience, 30 FPS makes me motionsick. I need at least 40 FPS, but much prefer over 50 FPS to be happy. Otherwise I cannot play for prolong periods of time. Some people experience different symptoms of motionsickness, which I guess I should call it by it's true name, simulator sickness. These can include headaches, nausia, eye strain etc...

These problems are definately helped by a faster GPU. Of course the lower your resolution, the less of a powerful card you need.

If you are looking to increase your resolution, you are going to need a more powerful card, if you already have issues with low FPS.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 5:46:39 PM

I believe he's still asking about the main differences between a CRT and a LCD...
m
0
l
December 2, 2010 5:54:12 PM

Arrey bhai jaan. Couple of things about fps.

Most sites say that a minimum of 30 is required. But trust me, even if you are running at 60fps and it dips suddenly for 1 sec to 30 fps the difference will hit you in the face.

You are gaming on a low resolution so I would suggest you increase AA and all related DirectX 10/11 visual effects while gaming. Your card is very powerful and will easily cut through any game with max settings at your resolution.

Also, 18.5" screens usually run at 1366x768. For larger screens it is not necessary that the resolution will be more.

Simple logic:
- More the resolution more is the data being moved. So a better card is needed.
- Also, aapne dekha hoga ki bahut saare 32" ke screens are going for Rs.28,000 or so. These screens are cheap as they run a 1366x768.
- At lower resolution more of your CPU is used. At higher resolution more of your GPU is used.

Aayi monitor ki baat, the whole deal about CRT being better than LCD or vice versa depends on what you use it for. Any modern monitor(LCD) worth around 8,000 will be good enough for your purposes.

In fact you can try to buy slightly older monitors a bit cheap. A samsung 940 or 943 nwx is a good idea for your purposes. These monitors are not very old and can run at 1440x900.

Ghosting is also another non issue. Most times ghosting is only apparent for slow frames or scenes which change very fast. Gaming is not much of a problem. Calibrate your monitor though. Adjust your screen for contrast and brightness. LCD hi le lo. Even watching movies on 16:9/10 is better than on 4:3.

Hope you found this helpful.

Let me know if anything else is there.

m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 6:20:39 PM

edenkhan said:
hey hey hey all
i am bot locked at 120 $ :S i can afford 18.5" lcd but it has low resolutions

now tell me what to choose?

I'll just repeat what I said earlier. Use the CRT until you have enough to get an LCD of a decent resolution/size. Spending a lot of money for a slightly larger display(+1.5") with a much lower resolution than your current screen is pretty pointless IMO. If you are going to upgrade wait until you have the money to do it right. If you do end up with a full HD 1080p display your GTX 460 will still perform very well and especially so if you give it a nice overclock(easy to do.)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2010 8:45:38 PM

jyjjy said:
I'll just repeat what I said earlier. Use the CRT until you have enough to get an LCD of a decent resolution/size. Spending a lot of money for a slightly larger display(+1.5") with a much lower resolution than your current screen is pretty pointless IMO. If you are going to upgrade wait until you have the money to do it right. If you do end up with a full HD 1080p display your GTX 460 will still perform very well and especially so if you give it a nice overclock(easy to do.)


+1

I will now explain slightly the differences between CRT and LCD.

CRT: Better blacks and whites, can be cleaned without worries, resistant and very long life friendly. Heavy as hell and a pain in the ass for the table.

LCD: Wide screen (the plus of this: Watching series, movies, and work related softwares [ video editing, photoshop etc], worse black and whites, brighter (which can be as good as it can be bad) less long term life friendly, will most likely develop serious bleeding effect at the corners, cheap and good looking.

I could go into specifics but there is no point to it, the aboves are the main differences that concern us end users.

I like my old 17 inch tft better than the new cheap LCD's, though it's low brightness is a big step-back.
m
0
l
December 3, 2010 8:32:27 AM

mainpranshu, mujh se contact kr skte ho hotmail pr?

i've decided to stick with my sony 17" 1600 x 1200

but if i buy lcd what should be scene first for gaming? its ms and hertz? only?

http://www.buy.com/prod/acer-v203h-abd-widescreen-lcd-m...

what about this one? will it perform more than crt? using same resolution?
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 12:12:37 PM

I would stick with a lower resoution,it would be easir to max out settings in games and oyu will get more FPS,Infact save some of the money and buy some more RAM.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 5:08:21 PM

A GTX 460 shouldn't have a problem with 1920x1080, especially if you give it a nice OC. I'd go for 1080p and as large as you can afford.
m
0
l
December 3, 2010 5:10:45 PM

yar still ms problem

if i buy large one it will bother me what should i do
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 5:20:47 PM

What do you mean by "bother me"?
m
0
l
December 3, 2010 6:07:40 PM

i am talking about 5ms problem in lcd. if i buy large will have the same problem.

sorry for my bad english. actually i meant to use bother me that i still must have to suffer from ghosting problem so buyin any of it is worthless comparing to crt.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 6:11:33 PM

The response rate has nothing to do with ghosting. Ghosting was an issue with early LCDs but it isn't something you should be worrying about much at this point.
m
0
l
!