in some cases only 1% of pixels are actually rendered.
BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 days ago
So, while the little RTX 5060 can churn out a 258 fps result in NBA 2K27 at 1080p Ultra settings with ray tracing and DLSS 5 enabled, the game underneath will actually be running at around 43 fps.
Lol. Nvidia with the toilet paper math. “You’re only getting 6 frames but it’s actually 11 billion frames.”
Like, I’m playing Bully. Render the locked 30, barely consume any power and shut up. “Run your computer at full tilt all the time so your games can run like shit!” I cannot stand any frame gen. Makes games look like static.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Asafum@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I getting older and honestly only recently came to appreciate 60fps, it blows my mind to hear people say shit like “doesn’t do 120fps, unplayable.” …like wtf?
addie@feddit.uk 2 days ago
I think that “more fps” is important when there’s things that move quickly compared to their size. My go-to game here is Batman: Arkham City - in the steel mill sections, there’s a lot of “sparky” particle effects; in general, there’s a lot of dust flying about. That stuff does look noticeably better at 90 fps than it does at 60 fps. My eyes can’t really see the difference at 120 fps, but I can definitely hear the GPU fans, so locked to 90 is fine. Makes absolutely no difference to the gameplay at all, of course.
Games that are designed for 30 fps tend not to have the same kind of particle effects, mostly because they would look terrible. I do feel sorry for the graphics artists having their hands tied, rather than being able to fully express themselves, but all engineering is about weighing things up and finding the right compromise, of course.
Yassifying all of your games with a slop filter is the complete opposite of artistic expression, of course.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 days ago
I always just play at locked 60 fps. It’s a simple life.