PS3 to run at 120 fps?

[quzar]

If you wish to render 120 unique frames it does. Because that means you now have 1/120 of a second to perform a cycle process vs 1/60. If you don't remember back in the ps1 days, it was considered amazing if a game was able to pull off rendering at 1/60 of a second because it was too much for the psx or n64 to handel. Take for instance F-zero for 64 which looks like ass and has very low polygon count running just so the game could lock in at 60fps vs 30fps.

Yea, and i clarified in a later post in this same thread as to that fact. The only thing limiting previous systems from doing this is the actual video output hardware though. Like you said, lots of PS and N64 games ran at 30fps when they could have run at 60, What I was saying is that the PS3 being capable of outputting at 120fps says nothing about it's processing power. Same way the PS and N64 being able to do 60fps doesnt say anything about their processing power.

[Cap'n 1time]

Bull S**T!

The higher the FPS, the more fluid things run & sure you might not be able to walk up and say "hey that games running at 30/60/120 frames a second" but yet if you fliped between all 3 you would instantly reconise a difference.

I have always heard the same thing. 60 FPS is supposed to be the max fps the human eye can see. Dunno if that is true.

Read up on Frames per second at wikipedia (where it doesnt actually state what the persistence of vision is.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

[PSmonkey]

I have always heard the same thing. 60 FPS is supposed to be the max fps the human eye can see. Dunno if that is true.

Read up on Frames per second at wikipedia (where it doesnt actually state what the persistence of vision is.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

"It should also be noted that there is a rather large controversy over what is known as the "feel" of the game frame rate. It is argued that games with extremely high frame rates "feel" better and smoother than those that are just getting by. This is especially true in games such as a first-person shooter. There is often a noticeable choppyness perceived in most computer rendered video, despite it being above the flicker fusion frequency.

This choppyness is not a perceived flicker, but a perceived gap between the object in motion and its afterimage left in the eye from the last frame. A computer samples one point in time, then nothing is sampled until the next frame is rendered, so a visible gap can been seen between the moving object and its afterimage in the eye."

This is part of the problem why fps matters. More frames, usualy means less motion gaps.

Also Its been a while but in the past I have read a study showing people precieving a difference up to 1/121 of a second. I'll have to look into it some more again when i have time. Hense the BS stance as this is something i've known for a while.

A small test you can always do (if you monitor handles it), is play with the refresh hz, the higher the limit the easier it is on your eyes. The lower the more it hurts your eyes (trying to adjust to the difference). You will have no problem feeling & registering a differecen between 60, 75 & 80 hz.

[PSmonkey]

Yea, and i clarified in a later post in this same thread as to that fact. The only thing limiting previous systems from doing this is the actual video output hardware though. Like you said, lots of PS and N64 games ran at 30fps when they could have run at 60, What I was saying is that the PS3 being capable of outputting at 120fps says nothing about it's processing power. Same way the PS and N64 being able to do 60fps doesnt say anything about their processing power.

Actualy a bit wrong. In most instances the CPU & BUS speeds are the bottleneck and not GPUs. This is a huge reason more and more is being hw optimised and pushed off onto the gpu to reduce the amount handled by the cpu & transfered over the bus.

If a game was fully optimised right, it could be posible to run at 60fps. Don't forget the ps1 was missing many things in it's time so much more was done by the cpu and not gpu.

[quzar]

i havn't understood how to say it, i'm not talking about the gpu, i'm talking about the video output hardware. the dac, and then the output from the gpu, but not the gpu itself.

I'm talking strictly about the capability of the hardware to be able to output at a frequency of Xhz independent of wether the frames are all unique, colored, textured, whatever. You could probably modify a NES to have a 120hz output system, if you were so inclined, and that would in no way relate to it's processing power.

Once again, I'm talking about the capability of the system to do such a thing, not to take advantage of it at all. In the strictest terms, that is all the press release talks about, which in itself may be faulty. Only time will tell.

[PSmonkey]

i havn't understood how to say it, i'm not talking about the gpu, i'm talking about the video output hardware. the dac, and then the output from the gpu, but not the gpu itself.

I'm talking strictly about the capability of the hardware to be able to output at a frequency of Xhz independent of wether the frames are all unique, colored, textured, whatever. You could probably modify a NES to have a 120hz output system, if you were so inclined, and that would in no way relate to it's processing power.

Once again, I'm talking about the capability of the system to do such a thing, not to take advantage of it at all. In the strictest terms, that is all the press release talks about, which in itself may be faulty. Only time will tell.

Ah ok. I though you were more in the guts with the way you stated it. Sure the output signal could be increased for a higher refresh rate but I think the article more ment the ps3 would be powerful enough to handle doing amazing visuals at 120fps if tv & signal processor could suport that. Thats what I got out of it.

The article probably was not translated well.