Highest reasonable FPS during WoW

[llDemonll]

There is no limit on the eye since it doesn't see in frames.

Pretty much this, but the average person can't discern anything over 40-50fps. End of discussion; that's not what this thread is about.

[boneschaman]

your monitor most likely only shows 60 fps. everything above is just a waste of energy (and money)
enable vsync!

[Deleted]

There is no exact limit to what the eye can see. It depends on how sharp the picture is. An old movie at 18-24 fps can look smooth because each image is blurred and smeared (like photos of moving lights in the dark). If the image is crystal clear however the human eye can detect flaws even if you're at 60 fps or higher. The reason its a waste for most people to go over 60 fps is because that is the refresh rate of most monitors.

[Deleted]

Pretty much this, but the average person can't discern anything over 40-50fps. End of discussion; that's not what this thread is about.

sure it is, since the op asked what fps are reasonable for playing wow... and people said that they have 200 fps.. and i just said that you only need 60 for a perfect fluid game.. even less i think.... but everything over 60 is completly not needed.

[Saithes]

it just makes absolutly no differnece if you have 300000 fps or 60 fps. sure the eye can catch more than this, but you dont realise it. its the same: so why should i need 4 graphic cards and 20gb ram, when i can play all games on ultra settings with only 1 200 euro graphic card and 4gb ram? its just plain stupid.....

i bet that if i show you a movie or a game, one time with 60 fps and one time with 200, you dont see any difference.

It depends on the monitors refresh rate but there is no limit on how many frames the eye can view since it does not view based on frames. The reason you cannot see more than 60fps on a 60hz monitor is because the refresh rate is limited to refreshing frames 60 times per second. If you had a 120hz monitor, then the monitor is capable of projecting 120 frames and anything else is unused. Once again though, there is no limit on how many frames the eye can see so some people can indeed notice a difference on 120hz monitors running 120fps.

Remember, the minimal framerate is what matters entirely.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure 8GB RAM will benefit you in terms of wow performance. Put the money into a good mobo, a kick-ass CPU heatsink and OC the shit out of that i5 2500k, I guess that's your best bet.

[Diatus]

On ultra just questing around with an i5 quad core 2.66ghz 4 gigs ram and a 460 gtx i get 100 fps. In raids i get 50-60. If you cut down water and sunshafts and shadows .... from ultra... down a little, you can get more. My system is from last september. Spent 1k then. Just built a buddies computer for $1k pretty much same everything but a i5 2500k. He gets well over 100 frames almost always.

[Deleted]

TV's use a method of motion blur to make the frames transition better.

Yup, I've thought of that and adjusted my post before even reading yours

[Saithes]

Yup, I've thought of that and adjusted my post before even reading yours

Haha, I deleted mine

[arel00]

As it's been said, if you have a regular 60Hz screen and not a 120Hz one anything over 60fps is a complete waste, since your display CANNOT refresh more than 60 times per second.
What really matter is your minimal FPS when you're playing in full stressful conditions, 25m raids with a lot of aoe/visual effects going on. If even in the worst conditions you won't get under 40, you don't need to upgrade your computer, simple as that.
An optimal setup on a 60Hz screen will keep you at 60fps even in the worst case. Personally I run an i5-2500k with 8GB and I kept my old Radeon 4850 - with everything on Ultra and shadow on average quality I never drop below 50. A new GFX with DirectX 11 will let you stay at 60 all the time. Anything more (read: any form of i7) is useless.

[BicycleMafioso]

Anything more (read: any form of i7) is useless.

... for gaming. :P

[Asmekiel]

... for gaming. :P

Errm, LGA1366 i7's aren't really...
The 2600k however :P

[Saithes]

Errm, LGA1366 i7's aren't really...
The 2600k however :P

The 2600K is useless overkill for gaming lol.. Maybe in the future though it'll become somewhat useful but I'm not holding my breath haha.

[arel00]

... for gaming. :P

Sorry, I should have mentioned that.

I thought it was implicit given the topic :P

[BicycleMafioso]

Errm, LGA1366 i7's aren't really...
The 2600k however :P

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. ._.

[Asmekiel]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. ._.

That not all i7's are overkill for gaming.

The 2600K is useless overkill for gaming lol.. Maybe in the future though it'll become somewhat useful but I'm not holding my breath haha.

Not even in the future probably. By the time games will use 5+ cores the 2600K will be considered a slow CPU (I think).

[Saithes]

That not all i7's are overkill for gaming.



Not even in the future probably. By the time games will use 5+ cores the 2600K will be considered a slow CPU (I think).

Maybe.. I'd say it depends on the next gen consoles mostly lol. I do like however that Witcher 2 stresses my CPU a fair bit

[BicycleMafioso]

That not all i7's are overkill for gaming.

That wasn't the question, either? It was about the i7s being useless.
Which they are not. They have several niches.

Gaming just isn't it.

[Asmekiel]

I was under the impression arel00 just forgot the mention those 2 words "for gaming."

[Cyanotical]

so why should i need 4 graphic cards and 20gb ram, when i can play all games on ultra settings with only 1 200 euro graphic card and 4gb ram? its just plain stupid.....

i bet that if i show you a movie or a game, one time with 60 fps and one time with 200, you dont see any difference.

try playing across triple monitors with that 200 euro card

also, the "average" person cant see past 60fps, most life long gamers can