Optimizing my computer for WoW

[mafao]

No my Vsync is diabled... I don't change settings unless I know what I am doing, or asking people who may know more then me. So that's why I come on here and I get some replies that help, and some that don't :/ but nonetheless thanks all.

Than I would recommend that you enable it and cap the game at 60fps. Your monitor is already locked at that resolution and increasing your fps further should not result in any visual difference. Right now, its just doing unnecessary work. Capping it to 60 fps will give you the same quality but will most likely help your computer run cooler.

[Elgand]

Using V-sync is a pretty good idea. Anything beyond your monitor refresh rate is really unnecessary, and tearing can occur even if infrequently.

On the topic of what the eye can see ill leave this interesting read here: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

People really need to get off of the idea that we can only view 60 fps. The article even states that pictures flashed for 1/220th of a second were visible and capable of being identified.

[mafao]

On the topic of what the eye can see ill leave this interesting read here: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

People really need to get off of the idea that we can only view 60 fps. The article even states that pictures flashed for 1/220th of a second were visible and capable of being identified.

That is a very good article. However, you seem to misinterpret its point. The eye (and the brain) are expert to detecting contrasts (that is, changes). I am talking about all kinds of changes here: temporal, spatial, qualitative (e.g. color) etc. changes. Take for instance the example with 1/220th second exposure . It is a known experiment and, alas, its result is often interpreted wrongly in discussions like these. The thing is - that experiment does not measure the perceivable fps. It measures the minimal 'buffer' of visual comprehension in a distraction-free environment. What this experiment shows is that 1/220th second of exposure is a) enough for the brain to start processing and b) to leave an afterimage. Now, because there is no other signal (the room will turn completely dark immediately), the brain i s able to process this signal pretty far before it deteriorated. But this is an artificial context - in real life you don't have situations like these. Try doing the same but instead of having a dark room, use a proper movie. I assure you that nobody will be able to perceive a 1/220 s long stimulus in such a context - simply because the brain won't have the time to start processing it before it gets overloaded with pletora of additional stimuli. In another words - its easy to hear a whisper in a large hall when its completely silent - but it is impossible while there is a music performance going on.

Now, I am not saying that '60 fps' is enough, by no means. I too believe that we should push the technology further and I believe people which say that gaming at 120 fps (with a proper monitor) is more enjoyable (even though I had not had the pleasure to experience this yet.) Still, right now, most monitors are locked at a 60fps refresh rate - and running a game with higher fps then that simply does not make any sense. Furthermore, only few GPUs are able to play modern games at proper settings, high resolutions and still give you over 100 fps. For me, raising the FPS limit of monitors is really the last priority, which comes after things like higher resolutions, better colors reproduction, better black levels. As far as games go, the quality can be increased tremendously by implementing proper motion blur, decoupling the animations from rendering and preventing visual lag spikes.