With those specs I would highly recommend upgrading from W7 to W10. It's a pretty straightforward and painless upgrade and the stability and performance increases were notable here.
Most people who know little about Windows recommend that. I recommend to never use Win10, if anything, no longer use Win7 and only use Linux distributions. But then for gaming, still use Win7 virtual machines.
Yeah, just that 60+ fps is totally unnecessary. Your eyes are able to see 30-60 fps. For me it seems fluid at 30 fps.
13 ms or ~77 FPS according to a 2014 study.
Care to elaborate why?
No, that concerns how fast our eyes+brain can process an image. The thing is that our brain creates in illusion of motion when the images are just fast enough, around 24 fps.
Those two statements seemingly contradict each other, so it'd be interesting to have a source as well.
60fps on "untrained" average people. 90fps on trained people (like gamers, ironically), up to 230fps on highly trained individuals (fighter jet pilot).
1. Privacy nightmare
I've been a gamer for ~22 years, partially e-sports games, but 30fps still does not disturb me. I guess it is similar to those people who despise movies/series with dubbed voices, but one can just choose to not focus on the lips movement and enjoy the translated video.
Sorry to hear that, but didn't Windows 8 release 9 years ago? Gotta get with the times.
I guess everybody experiences it differently, but I could clearly see a CRT flickering up to at least 75 Hz and with regards to higher framerates, can easily perceive the difference between 30/60/120 FPS.
Unlike most people seem to conceive it, the quality of software does not reduce from aging.
Nightmare, you still just limited to Ultra in your G2
There is no contradiction there since the brain's perception of two different things can of course be different, but you can very easily google that.
Because more than that would've used too much film, and thus be too expensive.
Thank you for providing sources, but I believe the 24 FPS standard set back in 1927 (mostly for economic purposes as well) has fairly little relevance to modern day scientific research into image processing by the human body.
Your're quite mistaken if you believe that common sense and knowledge that has been validated over decades could be deprecated by scientific results that even talk about another thing. Maybe you're still missing that maximum image processing speed is an entirely different thing than minimum image frequency for the brain to interprete a sequence of images as fluid movement.
True, those results from 2014 merely found an upper bound for this kind of optimization.
