View Full Version : questions

17th February 2000, 16:11
what's the difference between fps and refresh rates (eg 85Hz).
When using digital monitors is the ramdac still needed? there will be a performance boost, right?

17th February 2000, 18:00
fps vs. refresh rates: The fps is the "frames per second" that your computer can calculate new pictures of the action. This usually varies as to how much action is in the current scene. With heavy action with a lot of effects, your fps is going to drop. However, your monitor will be locked in at a given refresh rate. It just may not get a different image from one refresh rate redraw to the next.

With digital monitors, I the ramdac is moved from the video card to the monitor. I do not think that this will produce a performance boost. However, it will likely improve the image quality if you have a good monitor. The raw digital bandwidth to send and receive an image such as 2048x1536@85Hz (which a G400Max + ViewSonic P817 can currently do) is pretty high, and it is not going to be exactly cheap until it catches on and becomes a commodity item.

18th February 2000, 05:54
Exactly, the refresh rate indicates how quickly your monitor will redraw the image. Generally, you want to avoid running with a refresh rate less than 72Hz. Anything less than this number will cause eye strain, and is also the cause for headaches when you stare at a monitor for an extended time. I personally find that 80Hz is needed to completely avoid headaches. This number is limited by your video card and monitor. Most of the video cards produced today can provide 72Hz at 1024x768. The better monitors can provide 1600x1200 resolutions at 75Hz or more(The Viewsonic PS790, P810, P815, and P817 can do this, and even better for the higher models). The video card is NOT the limiting factor anymore, though the low end, "bargain" cards may not be able to provide this.

The framerate indicates how many images your computer can generate per second. The more frames, the smoother things become. Generally, you want at least 30 frames/second(fps). After this, it's not as noticable, but will help eliminate any delays. So 40fps and up is preferable, though I don't see that you get too much of an improvement from it beyond 60fps. Also, if you ARE able to get 1024x768@60fps, you may want to experiment with higher resolutions. You need to decide if the extra visual quality provided by higher resolutions is worth the speed drop.

I remember the old days of 320x200, and how slow things would become at 640x480. The ammount of CPU and video card power needed to provide images at the higher resolutions was more than most people could afford. In time, 640x480 became the standard, and you'd see the high end systems going at 800x600. 3D accelerators were created for these game players to allow the video card to handle some of the 3D functions previously needing to be powered by the CPU. These 3d accelerators also provided features that allowed the programmers to more easily add features. (this is why you never see games with software "acceleration" that's worth playing when compared to a 3D accelerator). True, these features and quality ARE possible, but for the time taken to code this level of detail without a 3D accelerator, it's not worth the return I suspect.

So, now we have Pentium 3s, and Athlons that give us the CPU power we need, we have it where almost all video cards have SOME 3D acceleration on them, and it comes back to which video card provides what the users are looking for. For many who read these forums, the G200 and G400 based cards are the key. The G200 is a bit slow by 3D standards(though not too slow for many games), but gives VERY good image quality. The G400 improves on the quality and features of the G200, adding a number of features such as dual monitor output from one card(there are two 15 pin connectors on the back of the card), and allows for a single card to "act as two video cards". There is also bump mapping, which provides VERY cool water effects compared to all other video cards in games that support it. The G400 may not be as FAST as the geforce, but the image quality is noticably better. So you need to decide, what's more important to you, fast and awesome video quality, or super-fast with video quality that isn't as good.

Sorry for being so long-winded, it's 6 in the morning here, but hopefully this will answer most of the questions you may have had on the subject.

The framerate indicates the numb

20th February 2000, 16:33
Phank you everybody!
has anyone got the G200 MMS yet? is it any good ? better than the original G200?