Hi
my name is ALberto Doriguzzi, alias mrKaizen, and I’m an Italian developer.
I’m writing 'cause I have a big issues with unity and my os, windows seven. Ok, it’s not THE biggest problem ever, but it pissed me off a lot
I’m developing games for android and sometimes I send them as .exe version to another developer. This week the guy sent me his exe game and asked me some questions about it.
THEN he tells me that on his old xp machine (from 2004) his game is running 2000 fps. So I looked on mine, a dell pc bought last December with a Nvidia 435, 4 Gb ram etc etc (nice machine) and I found out that on my machine the game runs at best near 400 fps. I was very surprised and tried to find out why my machine has so low performance.
I made some tests (I’m still making when I have 2 minutes of free time…) and I found out that if I turn off the transpatent/blur effects on the windows borders, the game reach 1200 fps.
A great news BUT it pissed me off much more.
Does anyone have fund this problem or has issues like this?
Modern graphics cards do not allow the framerate to go too high when they do not have much work to do, they only go maximum speed under “load” or when required, to reduce heat and power consumption.
Older graphics cards sometimes did not have many of these features, or drivers did not permit them to trottle.
You are only making things bad for yourself. You cannot ever measure performance over 120 fps or so - it is pointless due to graphics cards throttling when idle or not doing much. The numbers will not make sense, do you understand it?
Do not worry.
For example my old card is happy to go 1800fps, it is a 2008 card. My latest gfx card will not go over 1300fps. But my latest card is 10x faster.
It does not matter.
Nobody in the game development industry is concerned with fps over 100-200, it is just bogus numbers and will rarely make any sense especially with mobile games running on desktops.
yeah, yeah, sure… I mean, even my “bad” 400 fps are sure over the top and I know that over 120 the numbers will not make sense.
But when I find out that windows blur efx make this big difference, honestly I scream
still it does not matter at all… 30 FPS (e.g. a regular TV is 29 FPS (NTSC)) is fluent on TV.
On a monitor it’s double (because of the sharpness of output from the GPU and resolution).
If you’re monitor is set to e.g. 75Hz and having a fairly high resolution e.g. 1600+ x 1000+, you need between 50 and higher FPS to convince the eye the motions are fluent.
if your monitor is set to e.g. 60Hz (most flatscreens) and having a fairly high resolution e.g. 1600+ x 1000+, you need between 30 and 60 FPS to convince the eye the motions are fluent.
Although these are generic rules, it’s still personal from person to person. Some people like 30 FPS, instead of 60 FPS.
Too high FPS in combination with a too low refresh rate (Hz), with a high resolution can also result in Epileptic like symptoms (therefor most GPU’s have a threshold, so it won’t go to the maximum by default)
2K FPS is very very high, so i doubt it’s true. Maybe he ment 200 FPS
Well, me being a stickler for such things, it’s actually 29.98 fps. A movie in the theater is 24 fps. The minimum fps for the human eye to see fluid motion is 15 fps.
