Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quality vs Frame rate vs Resolution

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
February 9, 2011 6:06:16 PM

for here i want to ask everyone of you here what is the first thing in your mind before purchase a graphic card, is it color demanded(color rich)? or texture image detail? shader/lighting? larger resolution(2560x1536)? or just pure frame rate/pixel&polygon fill rate speed(ignore most of color/shader quality)?

please discuss.
a c 592 U Graphics card
February 9, 2011 6:27:51 PM

High frame rates at my native resolution with all details turned up, using both in-game settings and custom settings in the Nvidia Control Panel. Then, I look for added benefits. At this point, I wouldn't consider running any card that doesn't have PhysX. It's always nice to know it's there, even if I don't need it.
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
February 9, 2011 6:50:11 PM

These days the cards can be calibrated to look pretty much identical so colour etc isnt really relevant to most users same with textures/shaders/lighting really DX is a standard and all DX11 cards will have more or less the same set of capabilities at a basic rendering level.
Things like PhysX, Cuda, Direct compute would matter to some who use applications that utilise these things. The nvidia cards seem to have a higher tessellation ability to the AMD cards but again its not really that relevant to your everyday user. The AMD cards will do just fine.
Personally i look at performance FPS in games i like to play and most importantly value for money. I flat wont buy something i don't think warrants the price. I would rather drop some details than pay out over the odds for hardware.

Mactronix :) 
February 9, 2011 6:56:51 PM

To me, playing at native resolution is everything, so it is important to me that the card can perfectly handle the game I play at that resolution (1050p) at MAX settings. The fps I always expect is above 60.