Exploring new approaches to frame rate concepts
Exploring new approaches to frame rate concepts
I considered where to share this content and picked PC gaming since that's the main audience. The focus is on quality settings and frame rates overall. My approach has been to stick with 60fps, as it’s sufficient and still delivers a solid experience. I started reflecting more after watching a PCper interview about Sapphire’s 480 launch. At first, I seemed like a Nvidia enthusiast when the person mentioned that developers aim for 1080 at high settings, not ultra, which positions 480 as a middle ground. Sapphire primarily supports AMD, so they promoted 480 as the fastest option for older cards. He suggested playing at high rather than ultra to see if it makes a difference. If the game performs well, you won’t notice much beyond screenshots, and you’ll enjoy smoother frames. I haven’t personally tried this yet but have benchmarked Elite: Dangerous before and think it could work. That’s only part of the picture. Another video discussed monitors generally—some liked IPS like mine, others preferred ultra high refresh rates at the cost of panel quality. Regardless, once you try it, you’ll know for sure. Back then, we usually aimed for 30fps, but as tech advanced, 60fps became a goal. Now I’m thinking about getting a reasonably priced 144Hz monitor to test if higher refresh rates and IPS panels really make a difference. It’s expensive, but it might be worth it.
I remember my first monitor was TN and I was really disappointed. Eventually, I upgraded to an IPS model and now rely on it for everything. I strongly dislike TN—it’s just too bad. The colors feel fake and don’t match what IPS offers.
Wow! Since graphics cards became common and tube monitors could refresh quickly, 60FPS gaming was possible. With LCDs we took a step back—performance dropped. Cheap tube monitors even managed to refresh at 120Hz, causing screen tearing and affecting color accuracy and pixel response. Those new panels didn’t have the same problems before.
I have a 1440p, 144Hz IPS Gsync monitor. You're correct they can be costly, but I never felt a penny for it. It's simply amazing. Definitely worth considering a closer look.
I dislike the colour changes and inconsistency with angles mostly. I think there are some better TN panels or VA panels as a middle ground between TN and IPS. I’m probably a bit older when I first started using PCs over 20 years ago. Back then, there was practically no 3D hardware—everything was software-based. I still remember VGA being introduced. At that time, most people had 14" CRT monitors, and anything bigger was extremely costly. My setup could handle 800x600 at reasonable quality, but 1024x768 pushed it into interlace mode, making it hard to use effectively. My first 3D adapter was the 3dfx, which let me play Final Fantasy 7 in 640x480 instead of the 320x240 software output. I do remember screen tearing even back then. While refresh rates were more supported, you could only choose one, and without V-sync it felt similar to today. My issue is that I’ve already spent a lot on a 3440x1440 UW monitor, which caps at 60 Hz. I’m not sure I want to invest that much in another screen that won’t fit on my desk—I really need another desk.
ZX Spectrum is often seen as a PC. If that's true, I've been exploring PCs since 1990—screen tearing was handled with OpenGL, triple buffering existed, CRTs used VBLANK between frames to reduce tearing. G-Sync and FreeSync later introduced similar VBLANK techniques from the 1970s to 1980s.
I had a Spectrum too But like when most people say PC, I mean x86. I first used a 386SX16. Can't remember exact year but it was early 90's. Later I got my own 486DX2/66. It was the right monitor choice at the time, as G-sync or higher refresh models didn't exist then in UW models. But they would be nice to have today...
I'm hoping for a 27-inch 4K OLED display at 120/144Hz with excellent colors, but it might take a while.