What graphic cards are u using?

[noissance]

i have 2 desktops, one is a quad core with a amd r9 fury x, the other is a 8core intel with quadro m6000. Both suck compared to my laptop with intel iris pro graphics, however.

lol

Sad but true.

[deleted_user]

I asked a guy what I needed to run an RTS game from a decade ago and he said GTX 970 minimum, so das wut I got.

It works OK.

[iNcog]

Especially since the GTX 970 is about a year old. Kappa

[lordraphael]

I asked a guy what I needed to run an RTS game from a decade ago and he said GTX 970 minimum, so das wut I got.

It works OK.

better safe than sorry id say. Guy only wanted to help .....

[leaf4]

I have a 980ti but thats overkill for this game. Cheap cards will get you through this game, you could get something like a AMD Radeon 7750 or 7770

[Mimsy for President]

Even an old 9800 gt (1GB not 512MB) could run aoe3 in max settings.

[iNcog]

"Could run" isn't the same depending on who you're asking.

40 fps isn't the same as 150 fps, which isn't the same as 300 fps. For some people, "good enough" doesn't exist, since basically there is no limitation to how fast a given game can run; the better your hardware, the better the game runs.

Generally best to look into cost-efficiency.

[Mimsy for President]

For AOE3, 60+ fps of course. Beyond, it doesn't matter and it's not regular anyway on AOE3. And for any RTS games, 30 fps is absolutely OK.

[iNcog]

meh not for meeeeeeee

60 fps is on the low side

120 is where it's nice and pretty, and beyond that the game feels beyond smooth. i have a 144hz screen though, which is some next level shit compared to 60hz. worth every € i spent

starcrat as well, 60 fps in the low side and having it at 140 is nice, but it's not always easy to get that number, you need a stupidly fast CPU. w_w

for RPG or shooter games you play in single player, then yeah 60 fps is ok. 40 is a little low though, imo, something easily visible compared to 60 fps

[Garja]

anything lower than 60 fps is psx level aka 20yo gaming
30 fps is ok output for streaming

[momuuu]

30 fps is absolutely okay lol. I can hardly even tell the difference.

[iNcog]

30 fps is absolutely okay lol. I can hardly even tell the difference.

you sure that you don't see the difference between a youtube video at 60 fps compared to 30?

[momuuu]

30 fps is absolutely okay lol. I can hardly even tell the difference.

you sure that you don't see the difference between a youtube video at 60 fps compared to 30?

yes

[iNcog]

you peasant

how can i even consider you a friend anymore

[momuuu]

I have a theory that the brain just combines the seperate imagines into a flowing image. I saw a "comparison" of 30 fps vs 60 fps on the same screen and 30 fps looked extremely choppy, more so than how I experience 30 fps in the few games that don't run as smoothly on my computer. So I feel like your brain takes the input and tries to make something smooth out of it. I mean, the vision isn't in frames per second like some people claim, its a continuous stream of information coming into your brain and your brain makes something out of it. Maybe thats why some people see more difference than others?

[deleted_user]

Jerom the human eye can in fact only see 30 frames per second. The difference is placebo and in fact, actually makes 30 fps games superior to 60+ fps because it alligns with our natural percievable frame rate. This is why consoles are superior to gaming computers - and why console players are more skilled. It is why competitive COD > competitive CS:GO. Kappa.

[momuuu]

Jerom the human eye can in fact only see 30 frames per second. The difference is placebo and in fact, actually makes 30 fps games superior to 60+ fps because it alligns with our natural percievable frame rate. This is why consoles are superior to gaming computers - and why console players are more skilled. It is why competitive COD > competitive CS:GO. Kappa.

That bait was amazing haha. But yeah, the truth is that we don't see "frames".

[noissance]

@sircallen

notification

Correct conclusions, but wrong reasons. Contrary to popular belief, people's eyes don't really see in frames per second. In fact, the brain does some interesting things to make us see continuous 'vide' by interpolation (guessing) between optic signals. See:http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

My only complaint is that my game doesnt even use 2% of the gpu at all times, and the frame rate stays around 50-60 FPS (Vsync is off!!!!). The reason is that the game has terrible optimization ("Lag").

Also console players would be superior, but only if they were as good on console as on pc with controller and 0 autoaim/aim assist. They can easily prove this by playing games on pc with controllers vs those with keyboard/mouse.

[momuuu]

Is there any research out there that lets humans perceive extremely quick flashes of light? If you really see in frames per second, these flashes would be missed a good percentage of time.

Also, the effect where quickly rotated objects and kinda displayed poorly on cameras in a specific amount of frames per second, and the fact that that never happens to us, implies that we are either watching in some crazy amount of frames per second or just not at all :p

[Garja]

Human eye can totally see more than 30 fps per second. That's why you can tell the difference between psx and ps2 gameplay or simply when a youtube video plays in 60fps.
That however is not even the point when it comes to pc power. You just want a high fps count because from time to time it drops way lower than what gets displayed on counters, so having a high fps means that the lowest fps value you get is still smooth enough to play without any perceived lag.

[iNcog]

it's also more responsive

csgo players need to make very quick movements iirc and lag is actually pretty big

30 fps is 1/30*1000 = 33 ms

60 fps is 1/60 * 1000 = 16 ms

120 fps is 8.3 ms

^That is input lag due to your computer set up

network would be: kind of how like 200 ms is bad to mediocre ping (which we've all experienced), 100 ms is OKish and under 50 is fine. though it needs to be as low as possible, which is why competitive game play is done in LAN settings


that's why i love 144 hz even when i'm just doing desktop things or browsing the internet. the entire computer just feels so snappy, it's great


and i'm an rts player who occasional goes to Hawken to play some fps. when i first tried an FPS at 144 hz with blur reduction, i was on my butt on how clear everything was

[momuuu]

Well in rts 200 ms is still acceptable tbh.

[iNcog]

well it's noticeable

why settle for less when you can obtain hardware which does more?

some day we'll be under 1ms of latency and that'll be the best shit ever. though not cross continent though, since speed of light remains a limit (assuming optic fiber)

[illusioNtEk]

I just got a Dell Inspiron 7559

Has a new skylake i5 with gtx 960m

Im able to run aoe3 highest settings and stream in 1080p just fine

[iNcog]

I think i5s for laptops are dual cores with hyper-threading, which is like a desktop i3.

What clock speed does your i5 have?