The Framerate Analysis Thread part 2

Sorry I get that first part of your post but I don't see how a display the refresh 60 time per second can exceed 60fps.
It will start "refreshing" itself every 16ms, so at 0, 16, 32, 48, 64, 80ms etc.
A torn frame doesn't count as an extra it's more a mix of an old and a new frame.
When a render exceeds its rendering time it will fall to 20fps (or less) no matter it is double triple buffered .
Starting at t=o the first frame will be displayed @ T=48 then 96 then 144 which is 20fps.
The talk that I read a lot that double buffer fall to 20fps as soon as the render take a hit is unfair as the same happens for a triple buffered game (or non buffered game). It's misleading the triple buffered rendered may run at 22FPS in the mean time but for the observer the result will be the same on screen ie 20fps.
 
liolio said:
Sorry I get that first part of your post but I don't see how a display the refresh 60 time per second can exceed 60fps...
A torn frame doesn't count as an extra it's more a mix of an old and a new frame.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you count as a frame - is it a frame shown or a frame rendered? In terms of frames shown, you're right, you can't exceed the display. In terms of visual output from the game, which is what frame analysis of games is looking at, you can send updates to the screen faster than it's refreshing, which draws part of a frame. If you have a vertical wall edge as you turn in an FPS rendering 240fps on a display refreshing at 60fps, you'll see four positions of the wall in four different bands, each a slice of a new frame. Hence I said I don't know what to call these bits of a frame, because they're clearly not whole frames! That's kinda immaterial though in real use I think, and in >refresh rate outputs framerate (only a PC issue) will be considered refresh rate rather than output rate, contrary to sub-refresh rate updates which are counted by the number of updated frames sent to the display.
 
I count frames shown ;) especially as most console games run around 30fps.
EDIT
ANd I guess that Df and the like only measure "shown" frames.
 
liolio said:
I count frames shown ;)
Click to expand...
That's definitely the right call for consoles, but when talking about what speed an engine runs at, it wouldn't be accurate to call a game with 240 frame draws a second a 60 fps engine. It's not the engine that's the limiting factor in such a case but the display device. All very academic in this forum!
 
Shifty Geezer said:
That's definitely the right call for consoles, but when talking about what speed an engine runs at, it wouldn't be accurate to call a game with 240 frame draws a second a 60 fps engine. It's not the engine that's the limiting factor in such a case but the display device. All very academic in this forum!
Click to expand...
Obviously not, but trust me that most people have no clue. When Granmaster says that "whatever double buffer games" falls to 20fps vs its triple buffer counter part I'm pretty sure 99,9% of the pepople are mislead for example. On screen it's the same mostly the same and even more likely perceived the same.
It's clearly academic discussion but on console we have no mean to measure the actual speed of the renderer and I feel like thing are blown out of proportions in regard to how double buffered games compare to triple buffered one or the merit of using triple buffering vs the merit of the render by it-self. A bit of a bold statement but I'm pretty sure Uncharted 2 running @30fps almost without a miss would perform exactely the same (or almost) if it were double buffer. Basically the render is so good that it manages all the time (or almost) to push a new frame every 33ms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been a while since i heard from mercurysteam or konami on Lords of shadow, Has there been any word on this patch fixing the performance issues of either copy?
 
COPS N RAPPERS said:
It's been a while since i heard from mercurysteam or konami on Lords of shadow, Has there been any word on this patch fixing the performance issues of either copy?
Click to expand...

the new patch that fix the save corruption problem for PS3 is out, and I highly doubt that they will be working on a patch to improve the performance. There is dlc coming out later though.
 
Tbh Lords of shadows runs above 30FPS for the majority of the game, the initial levels are reminiscent of the demo's performance which was around 25-27FPS but for the rest of the portion, the game maintains a much better framerate overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shifty Geezer
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
59 60 61
Replies
1K
Views
93K
arandomguy
A
BRiT
  • Locked
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
252 253 254
Replies
5K
Views
470K
chris1515
C
Shifty Geezer
Why isn't framerate upscaling being progressed when TVs have it but it's a better fit in game engine?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
7K
xz321zx
X
D
  • Locked
Request reopening a thread
Replies
2
Views
757
BRiT
BRiT
X
Shimmering lines, common in menus, HUDs: Term for the artifact? And possible to "fix" with post-processing?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Davros
D
Back
Top