8800 GTX or not?

"heycarnut" wrote:


nospam wrote:
And you wont see any more than 60 fps. Why do so many have difficulty
comprehending this, especially with DVI? Your DVI link runs at a fixed
frequency exactly enough to transfer 60 frames per second at your chosen
resolution. If you render more than 60 frames per second then parts or
whole frames get thrown away.
--

This truly shows your level of ignorance. Ever even read the spec, much
less watch a signal on this with a logic probe? Geez - go away and go
shoot at backwards running wagon wheels or something.

Yes I have browsed the spec, and no I have never watched a DVI signal with
a logic probe, unlike you however, I do know what a logic probe is.
--

nospam wrote:
...browsed the spec...

Then I'll assume you didn't understand it, since it clearly shows no
such 60HZ limit. I think perhaps the only twitch you may have, instead
of 'gaming', is that from your tardive dyskinesia from your
medications.

End of this discussion for me, you've shown your ignorance to be not
worth a response. My offer for you to prove your claims still stands,
of course, though I expect it will just be met by more posts
demonstrating your...
whatever.

R

"heycarnut" wrote:


nospam wrote:
...browsed the spec...

Then I'll assume you didn't understand it, since it clearly shows no
such 60HZ limit. I think perhaps the only twitch you may have, instead
of 'gaming', is that from your tardive dyskinesia from your
medications.

I didn't say or even imply the DVI specification has a 60Hz frame rate
limit.

What I said after McGrandpa said he was running a DVI connected LCD display
is

"Your DVI link runs at a fixed frequency exactly enough to transfer 60
frames per second at your chosen resolution"

*His* DVI link runs at a fixed frequency exactly enough to transfer 60
frames per second because it is plugged into a 60Hz LCD display which tells
it to.

End of this discussion for me, you've shown your ignorance to be not
worth a response.

Oh please blame me some more for your lack of comprehension....
--

heycarnut wrote:
Mr.E Solved! wrote:

Heycarnut, prove me wrong!

Don't have to - you, and the other clown here, are making the
extraordinary claims. You have to provide the proof, same as someone
who claims to be friends with bigfoot, or says they can hear the
differences in power cords on their stereo - both in the same league as
the claims you both make. On the other hand, I'll put my money where my
mouth is. Either of you uber-gamer-super-eyes find your way out in the
SF bay area, we'll go out to the stanford neuro labs, and you can try
to prove your claims. If I'm wrong, and you can target better at say
200FPS than 100FPS, I'll donate $1000.00 to the charity of your choice.
When you can't , you agree to do the same. I'll keep this offer open
until say end of march 2007.

You've got my email from my profile, if you're so sure of yourselves.
Until then, onto my ignore list, along with the bigfoot believers....

r


Your distracting, boisterous crap is just an attempt to ignore my well
intentioned attempt at educating people on this pathetic subject. I am
not going to respond in kind, Internet tough guy. The truth is, I've
likely forgotten more advanced computer engineering than you will ever
learn in your lifetime. You are lucky people take the time to educate
inform and assist you and others in this NG. For what reward, your
insulting ingratitude and aggressive ignorance? Go back and read what I
wrote, scream bloody murder and throw a tantrum to end all tantrums if
it suits you. Just read it...slowly, carefully, it's there to help you
understand, no other reason.

That said, Mr. Moneybags, I accept your hidden apology and I would ask
that as penance for your fallacious ad hominem attacks, strawman
arguments, burden of proof shifting, red herrings and worst of all,
appeal to emotion, (shame on you) that you donate that $1000.00 to the
Bay Area Make a Wish Foundation. Link provided. Call to see if your
employer will match your donation.

http://www.makewish.org/site/pp.asp?c=bdJLITMAE&b=81888

Greater Bay Area Make-A-Wish Foundation
235 Pine Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

"McG." wrote in message


[...]

There is no 'ghosting' at all with these LCD flat panels.
McG.

Ghosting and motion blur are two completely different things.

Mr.E Solved! wrote:
...

More blah blah blah. Let me know if you have the guts to be educated
that you can't tell the difference
in a controlled laboratory test. Otherwise, just more babble....if you
really can see such enormous FPS differences, you get to show the
world, and you get a kilobuck to your chairty of choice. But I think
not,
you're no different from say a sylvia browne. I'm sure you really do
believe you can see a x hundreds of frames per second. But then, she
believes she can talk to the dead. Go figure.

R

"Mr.E Solved!" wrote:

What he failed to mention, and is relevant, is that games have an
internal cock, a heartbeat: the game state is sampled x times a second
and all actors and objects get refreshed each and every beat.

I didn't mention such things because they are game specific and I
understand them less well.

They are not relevant to my assertion that visible artifacts will be
present until you reach a few thousand fps except that the objects and
viewpoint of what is being rendered must be updated at a similar rate.

I accept that games need some kind of internal timebase and agree that
aliasing between the internal timebase and achieved display frame rate can
lead to additional unpleasant effects.

Interesting you still use a CRT display. I suspect they are going to be
hard to find and expensive in the future.

I don't know what the technical limitations determining maximum frame rates
are within LCD displays, i.e. if demand for higher frame rates could easily
be met. Disappointingly a DVI interface puts a hard limit on frame rates of
for example about 160Hz at 1600x1200.
--

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"McG." wrote in message


[...]

There is no 'ghosting' at all with these LCD flat panels.
McG.

Ghosting and motion blur are two completely different things.

Ok, I'm not getting either Using an Envision 19" LCD with 20ms
response, ghosting was visible in movies. Motion 'blur' was so bad I
have to call it frame tracking, because you could see lines in the
frames clearly. That was bad.
With the Samsung 930B's it was improved, with these Samsung 204B's all
of that is gone. No ghosting, motion blur or 'frame tracking' at all.
McG.

"McG." wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"McG." wrote in message


[...]

There is no 'ghosting' at all with these LCD flat panels.
McG.

Ghosting and motion blur are two completely different things.

Ok, I'm not getting either Using an Envision 19" LCD with 20ms
response, ghosting was visible in movies.

Ghosting is defined by the VESA Flat Panel Display Manual as interference
with the signal resulting in false images. It's got absolutely nothing to
do with problems due to poor response times (motion blur).

nospam wrote:
"Mr.E Solved!" wrote:

What he failed to mention, and is relevant, is that games have an
internal cock, a heartbeat: the game state is sampled x times a second
and all actors and objects get refreshed each and every beat.

I didn't mention such things because they are game specific and I
understand them less well.

They are not relevant to my assertion that visible artifacts will be
present until you reach a few thousand fps except that the objects and
viewpoint of what is being rendered must be updated at a similar rate.

I accept that games need some kind of internal timebase and agree that
aliasing between the internal timebase and achieved display frame rate can
lead to additional unpleasant effects.

Interesting you still use a CRT display. I suspect they are going to be
hard to find and expensive in the future.

I don't know what the technical limitations determining maximum frame rates
are within LCD displays, i.e. if demand for higher frame rates could easily
be met. Disappointingly a DVI interface puts a hard limit on frame rates of
for example about 160Hz at 1600x1200.

I'll gladly recap for someone who doesn't insult, or claim to "think
they know" when in fact they just "feel like they do". Thank you for
your civility. Authoritatively and for your amusement:

Ignoring network latencies, an accurate representation of a gamestate is
only achieved when the refresh rate of the display device matches or
exceeds the fixed refresh rate of the game. This allows for perfect
positional information, which is the ideal condition. Otherwise, as
mentioned, a rocket will travel x amount of pixels in a game tick, and
you will not know it until your client pc is able to redraw its screen.
If you happen to be that target and you are within that x-pixel range,
you get hit before you know it. A modern game with a 100 tick per second
refresh rate, can have five updates before your 20FPS rig can display
them. Hence affecting "what you see".

(n.b. this issue is fatal to net-play, that is why measures such as
positional prediction algorithms have been created to compensate for
latencies, visual or network)

Of course, such a vivid and indisputable example is useless in a ng
discussion, since it leaves no room for misunderstanding or meaningless
rebuttal. Let me then provide less rigorous examples, rife with
possibilities for false interpretation, to appease contrarians' need to
fume:

I am a virtual paintball player, and I see my opponent on the other side
of a fence, it's a combination fence, with slats and some chain parts.
I am running now on one side of the fence he starts running too...we
both start shooting at each other...through the fence....assuming
perfect aim...who hits who?

Laser beams weapons are not so new in video games, super fast, one shot
one kill, very dangerous! One of their drawbacks is that they require
line of sight to operate...but you can be tricky and bounce the rays off
certain reflective materials, to get a corner shot. You lined up this
great shot, bouncing your beam off a weather vane and to your target.
Alas, your target knows this and creates wind to spin the weather vane
in circles, faster and faster it spins and you take your shot....where
does it go? Can you predict where it will go if you can't accurately
determine which direction it is pointing in? Are you willing to bet your
game life it won't reflect back to you?

Those two scenarios are symbolic of "sampling error due to insufficient
frequency" When events happen faster than can be displayed, you lose
data, or the data becomes meaningless since it loses it's timeliness.

The key to all of this is the scene or events must be in motion, and
objects in motion on available displays, all of them, every one, only
approximate the objects position. With this approximation comes inherent
error. This error can be minimized by matching refresh rates to the
highest possible rate of change in the application, which can be 100FPS,
as in BF2.

Notice, I never mention anything about "the limits of the human eye" or
"thousands of frames per second". Nor do I mention, the obvious fact
that static images can have a frame rate of 1, and look picture perfect.
Ask Mona.

Lastly, why a CRT? I think it's obvious, CRT's have refresh rates that
can match those of certain applications. Which minimizes not just "where
are things" but "how do they appear". That is a whole separate issue of
"texture tearing" which only further demands high refresh rates.

LCD's have different concerns, but being digital, they are fixed
frequency and that's that. Once new tech, such as SED is available,
LCD's will finally be as flexible as CRT's in this specific feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_display