Why Am I Lagging?

Some people seem to be having a lot worse performance then I think they would get. I've got a 750m and I can get 20-30 FPS on medium settings at 1680 x 1050.

 

well if your hardware is capable of only 89fps for example, VSync limiting to the next factor below what your hardware is capable of will limit you to 60 as that is the next whole number factor of 120 being 120 / 2.

However this is a null point really. I would leave VSync on in your scenario. The human eye physically cannot distinguish between 120fps and 60fps. Any improvement your mind things you are getting is purely placebo effect. Frame limiting to 60fps on hardware that can do 89 would save some power ultimately produce less heat not rendering those extra frames.

 

Well, that clears up that, I thought I lost a driver disc or something was installed incorrectly.

Thank you.

 

I have GT 750M and the game can't run on it, every time I change to GeForce, after the restart it comes back to integrated Intel graphics, I can't change it, anyone had the same problem?

 

why in the world, does everyone in the freaking world, think we see in fps, seriously, and then they think we can only see up to 60 fps, and any hgiher is pointless, when its NOT, my cousins have a monitor with a refresh of 120 as well, and i see a huge diff between 60 and 120, so yeah, no, the human eye can see up to 250fps (for those who think we see in fps, even though we DONT) any higher is pointless, also, before you come back, your wrong, there is a HUGE, improvement, as our eyes can very easily distuinguish between 60 and higher fps's up to 250 or so :/

 

I used to play Call of Duty, and the difference between 60, 125, and 250 is huge.

 

I never said we do see in FPS. However, go online, there are plenty of resources and tonnes of academic whitepapers on the subject. The human eye can't even discern 60 (its actually thought that the human eye only relays information back to the brain less than 20 times per second per eye, it is not realtime). So if I am wrong, how about instead of telling me to not come back, you go tell the men and women with degrees who conduct this research that they are wrong. All research points to any difference being entirely placebo.

- - - Updated - - -

Call of duty is capped to 85 on PC.

 

no, at least Cod 4 and 5 aren't.

 

5 is capped to 91, its possible to tweak but apparently no matter what you set it as yourself it wont go higher than 125 which appears to be a hard coded limit.

Cod 4, search for that on google and you either get results about call of duty ghosts and its xbox frame rate issues and ps4 release date or search for modern warfare and you get modern warfare 2 and 3. But seeming as all the later games also suffer from frame rate limiting and the tweaks not working beyond 125, it stands to reason that cod4 would be 125 with tweaks also.

 

I've been playing cod 5 for years limited at 250 fps (competition mod limited to 250). And also if you use the command: /max_fps 0 then you'll get as much fps as your pc can handle, but there is no actual limit. If you google it you'll see it, people playing at 125, 250, 333, etc

 

A good human eye can see the difference in fluidity until around 300-400 fps. At 30 fps or even 60 fps, the human brain just blurs each frame together resulting in blur central to an experienced eye. I find 60 fps lacking, but it is all I can muster up with my budget.

 

Haha, no. The diffrence between 40 and 60 is already small, 60 and 100 even smaller but 125 and higher is more or less impossible to distinguish between each other.
I could bet every little money I own that if I show you 5 Screens, one of these runs at 125 and the rest 250 you couldn't see the difference.

And I even think that if the fps is going higher than 60-70, there is no difference. From a scientific point of view, the human eye is not capable to recognize more than +-60-100 images. Those calculations are not exact but made over and over again by very smart people wich have studied the human eye for there lifetime.
And I think what they say might be a little more "accurate" than what some wannabe pro-gamers say.

And even 60-70 is to much. A human eye might be able to see a little bit more, but it is proven that our Brain can only handle max. 24-30 images in one second.
So yeah.

 

the Human eye operates at something like 34 frames per second or thats natural movement thats how fast our eyes move at from what I was told

 

I would thoroughly enjoy a source on this "human eyes can see only 60fps" thing.

 

it was either 34 fps or 60 fps it was a while since I read the article...

 

The average fps cap on a human's head mush is around 300. It differs from person to person obviously, but saying 60 fps is the most a person can distinguish is objectively wrong.

 

your brain does not process the light your eyes receive in 'frames' so that argument cannot be made. 34 is a number you completely made up on the spot.

regardless of visual differences, computer programs read input from your mouse/keyboard once per frame in most cases. playing at 10 fps means your input is processed and updated on the screen very infrequently and makes any game extremely difficult to play. 60 fps makes it better. 120 fps makes it even better.