Hardware & Technical single gtx 980 running 144htz on 3 screens

bloodhound62

B
im running a gtx 980 on 3 screens which has the standard a 60htz rate, they run very happily on ultra settings with 100+ frame rate, is any one running a gtx 980 with 3 x 144htz screens and still getting good frame rates at ultra setting? or will i need to sli the 980 to get good frame rates at 144htz?

thanks in advance
 

Dandare71

Dandare71
Most games are designed to run 60 frames and there is no point going higher because humans won't notice any difference, its like having a hifi that plays sounds you can't hear.

If your showing off them fair enough but it will strain the processors for no good reason.
 

Ancipital

Ancipital
Dandare71 said:
Most games are designed to run 60 frames and there is no point going higher because humans won't notice any difference, its like having a hifi that plays sounds you can't hear.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue, and flying in the face of years of science regarding the human visual system, and modern display engineering.
 
Last edited:

Synthetic Frost

Synthetic Frost
Dandare71 said:
Most games are designed to run 60 frames and there is no point going higher because humans won't notice any difference, its like having a hifi that plays sounds you can't hear.

If your showing off them fair enough but it will strain the processors for no good reason.
Click to expand...

I am so tired of people regurgitating this awful misinformation. I'll just c/p what I wrote just yesterday in another thread...

The idea that the human eye can't see more than 60fps is a total fallacy. It depends on the individual, and how developed your optic nerves are, how fast those electrical impulses get from your eye to your brain, and how fast your brain processes that information, but even the slowest human brains can distinguish thousands of frames per second.

On most monitors, the reason why you can't tell a difference between 60fps and 150fps is because even if your PC is capable of that, your monitor isn't. Most monitors are limited to 60Hz refresh rates, which can pretty much be directly translated to 60fps. So your monitor can't display more than 60fps no matter how fast your computer is. Get a good quality 144Hz monitor, and you will most CERTAINLY notice the difference.
 

Jaeger

Jaeger
Ancipital said:
Completely incorrect.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
Click to expand...

I completely agree with Ancipital. For years 20 fps was good enough to trick the eye into seeing fluid movement. I don't have the specific references but human visual perception does not have a digital max frame rate. It's a totally different system, that fact is sometimes forgotten by the best trickery of the day vendors.

- - - Updated - - -

Dandare71 said:
If its smooth there is no point going higher, its not going to get any smoother. :D
Click to expand...

fyi, mostly it's smooth because your brain interpolates and fills in the gaps.
 
Last edited:

Dandare71

Dandare71
Jaeger said:
I completely agree with Ancipital. For years 20 fps was good enough to trick the eye into seeing fluid movement. I don't have the specific references but human visual perception does not have a digital max frame rate. It's a totally different system, that fact is sometimes forgotten by the best trickery of the day vendors.

- - - Updated - - -



fyi, mostly it's smooth because your brain interpolates and fills in the gaps.
Click to expand...

Wrong, its motion blur that makes it look smooth but that takes more processing power than running 60 frames.

The BBC are a bunch of facists, what would they know?
 
Last edited:

Ancipital

Ancipital
Synthetic Frost said:
The idea that the human eye can't see more than 60fps is a total fallacy. It depends on the individual, and how developed your optic nerves are, how fast those electrical impulses get from your eye to your brain, and how fast your brain processes that information, but even the slowest human brains can distinguish thousands of frames per second.
Click to expand...

Also, motion perception depends on a function of the spatial (x/y) resolution and the temporal resolution (framerate). The "dynamic resolution" so produced suffers badly if the temporal resolution isn't increased with the spatial- e.g., 4k at 60fps suffers from far more motion-based degradation than HD at 60fps would. The various filter functions that apply here aren't just about perception of framerate, but representation of motion and correct preservation of detail during it.

I do love the "60fps is the maximum framerate of the human eye" meme, too. I've seen it disproved under lab conditions so trivially. It's a popular one in the gaming fraternity, for some reason.
 
Last edited:

Dandare71

Dandare71
Ancipital said:
Also, motion perception depends on a function of the spatial (x/y) resolution and the temporal resolution (framerate). The "dynamic resolution" so produced suffers badly if the temporal resolution isn't increased with the spatial- e.g., 4k at 60fps suffers from far more motion-based degradation than HD at 60fps would. The various filter functions that apply here aren't just about perception of framerate, but representation of motion and correct preservation of detail during it.
Click to expand...

Theres a little trick you can do, look at the screen with you peripheral vision, if you see flicking the frames are too low, if you don't that's your limit.
 

Synthetic Frost

Synthetic Frost
Dandare71 said:
Theres a little trick you can do, look at the screen with you peripheral vision, if you see flicking the frames are too low, if you don't that's your limit.
Click to expand...

Wow. No. That's almost completely dependent on the type and quality of the monitor. You see flickering for the same reason you see it when you go look at older footage of a camcorder pointed at an old CRT monitor, but don't when the camcorder is pointed at a newer LCD monitor.

You could have two identical monitors side by side, and one might flicker a lot more than the other even if they both have the same specs simply because one has a slight defect in the backlight or the panel itself. That's not way to test the limits of your eyes.
 

Rasilon

Rasilon
A friend of mine plays using a 770 with three screens with no problems at all. Why all the fuss are you just trolling?
 

Zieman

Zieman
Rasilon said:
The OP post has no relevance because it does not matter.
Click to expand...
That is purely subjective. It might not matter to you, but bloodhound62 clearly would like to know if one GTX980 is powerful enough to run E: D in triple 144Hz screen setup with 'good' framerates. The resolution used and how high FPS he deems good remain unknown though.
 

Rasilon

Rasilon
Zieman said:
That is purely subjective. It might not matter to you, but bloodhound62 clearly would like to know if one GTX980 is powerful enough to run E: D in triple 144Hz screen setup with 'good' framerates. The resolution used and how high FPS he deems good remain unknown though.
Click to expand...

Ok then the answer is anything over 35 fps fine. 60 fps is overkill and a 100 fps is well double triple overkill.
 

Synthetic Frost

Synthetic Frost
bloodhound62 said:
im running a gtx 980 on 3 screens which has the standard a 60htz rate, they run very happily on ultra settings with 100+ frame rate, is any one running a gtx 980 with 3 x 144htz screens and still getting good frame rates at ultra setting? or will i need to sli the 980 to get good frame rates at 144htz?

thanks in advance
Click to expand...

As long as the 144Hz monitors are running the same resolution as your current 60Hz monitors, then your FPS should be more or less the same.

If they're a higher resolution however, like going from 1080p to 1440p, then yes, you might need a second GTX 980 to maintain 100+fps.

Rasilon said:
Ok then the answer is anything over 35 fps fine. 60 fps is overkill and a 100 fps is well double triple overkill.
Click to expand...

Either you haven't actually seen a game played on a real 144Hz monitor, or you need better eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom