Was this kind of choppy performance acceptable for pc enthusiasts back in the day?
>>11391626I think many people were fine with 30fps back in the day.That game is also running at 1600x1200. Most people were running games at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 back then.
>>11391626>>11391637This, but as a minimum when action gets hot. I beat Farcry on a 9800 xt and I turned down the settings a little. I consider 20 fps far too slow for FPS.
>>11391626Back in 2004 no one was playing games at 1600x1200 and definitely not with 4x MSAA.
There was the 6800 Ultra and SLI for enthusiasts.
>>11391626This is like posting a 4k raytracing benchmark with a 3080 and saying that means that people are ok with 15 fps. Nobody was running those kinds of settings without having an expensive high-end setup.
>>11391657>and definitely not with 4x MSAA.I always turned on AA as far as my GPU allowed. Ironically, with modern games, I turn it off sometimes, because they're blurry as fuck otherwise
>>11391626the games were designed for it to be acceptable, 60fps was mainly swooned over in racing games. there werent many pro esea sniper games that required 480hz monitors
Pc gaming was always a struggle for framerate. 1997 quake 1 was still a struggle for 25fps at 640x480 on the newly released pentium 2.Ouake 2 was little better off in 1998 but only with a voodo2 and a fast p2 MMX. Any non-voodo card didnt hit 30fps.
>>11393435Quakr benchmarks from other thread.
>>11393396>Ironically, with modern games, I turn it off sometimes, because they're blurry as fuck otherwiseModern TAA is fucking eye cancer that blurs everything. You need 1440p and 4K just to get half decent image clarity with it.
Summer of 1999 quake 2 was approaching 60fps on a fast pentium 3 and top end gpu (when not crashing). Games were still wildly u predictable from one card to the next. It felt there were never ending patches to make any given game with with a specific card, especially with inconsistent implementation of bump mapping and lighting.
>>11391657Were they playing on some sort of very low 4:3 resolution like 800x600?
>>11391626Old PC games don't feel choppy at 30 like modern ones do for some reason
>>11391654>I consider 20 fps far too slow for FPSDepends on the game, but with a slower movement fps like Doom 3 it's where I draw the line. Most games need 30+Framerate stability is more important though, imo.
Things were different back then. A lot of the PC games you still hear about now tended to push the envelope and barely ran at the highest settings on hardware available when they came out. Also almost no one played at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF.
>>113935101024x768 was common.
With Far Cry you absolutely need textures on high to get the normal mapped surfaces but almost everything else is alright even on normal. I think one setting needs to be high for the dynamic light/shadow effect (see the suspended ceiling light right before you leave the cave in the beginning). Higher than high didn't look any different as far as I could tell. In the original release.
>>11391626Depends how the game was programmed. For stuff like Doom you can run at 20 to 25 fps and it looks fine. Later on 3d card stuff forced v-sync so even at 45 to 50 fps you could get a terrible stuttery look and inconsistent speed. I specifically remember Viper Racing being really annoying because it ran at about 45 but could sometimes look a lot less smooth than ps1 games that ran at 30 fps consistent. GTA 1 if you run it at 60 fps will play too fast. Carmageddon was fine at 20 to 30 fps as well as many others from the time.>>11391637i was happy at 30 fps if the speed was ok
This is not retro and therefor not allowed. Mods should remove this offtopic thread immediately to safeguard the integrity of /vr/ post quality.
