Silkroad Online Forums

so i wanna know how many fps can have this vid card

Asus EAH4650/DI/1GD2, AGP Rad. HD4650

I would venture that it may depend on the game, the settings, etc.

That depends on too many things.

Even if you post us all your specs (including resolution) it would still be hard to tell.

Although that card isn't old, it's definitely far from being one of the better ones on the market.

over 9000 fps

30.

To be 100% honest with you: With a decent PC, with moderately recent hardware, you're looking at mid-range performance with that card. Maybe a little lower. Current games would be playable but they won't look too good doing it. Games from a year back or more will cruise just fine at 30+ fps.

cmon dutch education is better than this

Need to know the rest of your setup and what are you upgrading from?

id say on something like css... roughly 40-50? maybe? and then on sro maybe 35? im not sure... depends on your processr and ram. it depends on how much you can process.
if you have a 4870X2 with a crap processor and crap ram you would bearly scrape 30.

woutR wrote:cmon dutch education is better than this

I was thinking the same thing, lol.

oh yeah i forgot, its for call of duty 1&2, highest settings.
my pc :

2 gigs ram
AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.8GHz
hard drive: 164 gb

CoD1 will go piss easy, and prolly CoD2 will be around 30-40fps on highest settings, but that's only my guess.

Try to find some benchmarks for that card first, even though most benchmarks are done with a high-end machine, sometimes you can find benchmarks with lower systems

dunno about amd processors ,but anyway i say u will do fine

wtf? im can get instantly around 50-100 with this gfx card:
ATI Radeon 9550 / X1050 Series

i thought i wold get around 200-333 wit this one
Asus EAH4650/DI/1GD2, AGP Rad. HD4650

also my mate told me wit that gfx card you can get arond 250 fps

why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

well.. with cod 1 it is when you have above 125 fps you can jum higher and 333 you can jump on things what others with a low fps cant do.

soz4english

Ploxy wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

well.. with cod 1 it is when you have above 125 fps you can jum higher and 333 you can jump on things what others with a low fps cant do.

soz4english

That really makes no sense -_-

yup ,doesn't make sense ,though i thought they were 60fps that human can see not 24 ,24 would be kinda laggy ,30 is fine

Wee obviously it depends on the game. This biggest problem I see is you processor, Athlon XP ws amazing in its time but is extremely outdated now. You have average ram. You video cards is ok but any higher-end video card running AGP will not run anywhere compared to its pci-e counterpart. CoD1 Will run perfect, it will cap on frames. CoD 2 Will run smoothly probaly until a big battlescene then u may notice a little lag. But most Games after 2005 will be a challenge because your processor, most games stopped supporting it and even better single-core processor became out of date like Athlon 64.

Overall opinion I think it was a bad buy, you shouldve bought a new MB, and processor, ur ram too cuz its probaly on DDR 400. But hey, as long as you can play the games u like and use the essentials it'll be fine.

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

Because that's a myth and human eyes can see well into the hundreds of frames per second.

Reise wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

Because that's a myth and human eyes can see well into the hundreds of frames per second.

Is it now..

I've heard way to many opinions like

120hz tv are useless, 240hz tv are useless

23 frames is max, 30 frames max, 60, 200++

Any sources to prove..? I'm interested in reading about it but I'm to lazy to search for proper articles..

The human eye can catch over 9000 frames per second. No need to ask for proof, just believe.

Azilius wrote:

Reise wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

Because that's a myth and human eyes can see well into the hundreds of frames per second.

120hz tv are useless, 240hz tv are useless

23 frames is max, 30 frames max, 60, 200++

Any sources to prove..? I'm interested in reading about it but I'm to lazy to search for proper articles..

most shows on the tube are at 24fps, 30fps for movies, higher for higher quality i think.

i read this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm
pretty interesting

Hz = Fps, didn't actually know that.

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

not true, the human eye can tell a difference even above 40 fps and if you were to use your brain for a sec as a gamer you would know that 25 fps is not playable therefore it's obviously noticeable.

now most monitors can only produce 60 fps ( your system could be computing over 100 fps, it doesnt matter your monitor will cap at 60 ) and this is why the magical number to reach on any gaming system is 60. truth is that after 40 fps it becomes really hard to notice an improvement so once you are there, be happy. don't be the kid who spent 3 grand couse he was convince that the reason why he was getting owned on CSS was his 45 fps.

I have intantly about 50 fps, but sometimes it drops to 35 and laggs very bad, for cod or any other fps game you need at least 100+ fps (intantly) to play without fps lag.

Ploxy wrote:I have intantly about 50 fps, but sometimes it drops to 35 and laggs very bad, for cod or any other fps game you need at least 100+ fps (intantly) to play without fps lag.

................................................moron.

woutR wrote:cmon dutch education is better than this

Obviously not HAHAHA.

Love wrote:not true, the human eye can tell a difference even above 40 fps and if you were to use your brain for a sec as a gamer you would know that 25 fps is not playable therefore it's obviously noticeable.

now most monitors can only produce 60 fps ( your system could be computing over 100 fps, it doesnt matter your monitor will cap at 60 ) and this is why the magical number to reach on any gaming system is 60. truth is that after 40 fps it becomes really hard to notice an improvement so once you are there, be happy. don't be the kid who spent 3 grand couse he was convince that the reason why he was getting owned on CSS was his 45 fps.

Oh really? I don't think so.

Ploxy wrote:I have intantly about 50 fps, but sometimes it drops to 35 and laggs very bad, for cod or any other fps game you need at least 100+ fps (intantly) to play without fps lag.

Lag and frame rate are two different things. Lag happens when objects on the screen don't move, due to low RAM, CPU, memory, etc. Frame rate is the number of image passed on the screen. You can have a lag in your game, but the refresh rate is still >25 fps otherwise you'd see a black frame on your screen.

Love wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

not true, the human eye can tell a difference even above 40 fps and if you were to use your brain for a sec as a gamer you would know that 25 fps is not playable therefore it's obviously noticeable.

now most monitors can only produce 60 fps ( your system could be computing over 100 fps, it doesnt matter your monitor will cap at 60 ) and this is why the magical number to reach on any gaming system is 60. truth is that after 40 fps it becomes really hard to notice an improvement so once you are there, be happy. don't be the kid who spent 3 grand couse he was convince that the reason why he was getting owned on CSS was his 45 fps.

Your theories are full of holes, too much assumptions. 25 frames is playable, annoying but playable. When you get in 15-20 frames then its unplayable. And yes the human eye CAN tell the diff but doesn't mean it will. Anything about 30-35 is good for me, I don't notice anything. Im not sure why your saying they CANT produce anything about 60FPS, they can, there's no difference. Though you will get image tearing usually. Though what you said about 40fps is normally true. Most don't really tell the difference above 30, it is hard to tell. Though its always good to have a good buffer, cause if you play at 30 and something major goes on you'll definitely feel the drop.

Sharp324 wrote:

Love wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:why would you want 100+ fps when your eyes can only catch 24 fps?

not true, the human eye can tell a difference even above 40 fps and if you were to use your brain for a sec as a gamer you would know that 25 fps is not playable therefore it's obviously noticeable.

now most monitors can only produce 60 fps ( your system could be computing over 100 fps, it doesnt matter your monitor will cap at 60 ) and this is why the magical number to reach on any gaming system is 60. truth is that after 40 fps it becomes really hard to notice an improvement so once you are there, be happy. don't be the kid who spent 3 grand couse he was convince that the reason why he was getting owned on CSS was his 45 fps.

Your theories are full of holes, too much assumptions. 25 frames is playable, annoying but playable. When you get in 15-20 frames then its unplayable. And yes the human eye CAN tell the diff but doesn't mean it will. Anything about 30-35 is good for me, I don't notice anything. Im not sure why your saying they CANT produce anything about 60FPS, they can, there's no difference. Though you will get image tearing usually. Though what you said about 40fps is normally true. Most don't really tell the difference above 30, it is hard to tell. Though its always good to have a good buffer, cause if you play at 30 and something major goes on you'll definitely feel the drop.

I said most monitors can only display 60 fps but there are certainly some able to display more, 120hz-240hz namely. Thing is that those are rather expensive and not common by any standard so bringing them up is kinda pointless.

Hmm back to my "theory" I'll keep it short. Most monitors operate at 60hz, meaning they are only able to refresh the "screen" 60 times in a second. Translation, your pc could be pushing a billion fps but your monitor is only able to actually display 60 of those, is a hardware limitation not a situation of you and your eye not being awesome enough to keep up.

Hope that helps ....