Jump to content


Photo

Debate about definition of FPS (Frames Per Second) in gaming


  • This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

Poll: In gaming, is FPS a measurement of performance of CPU & GPU, or measurement of performance of every component working together? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

In gaming, is FPS a measurement of performance of CPU & GPU, or measurement of performance of every component working together?

  1. CPU & GPU (2 votes [6.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.45%

  2. Every component (27 votes [87.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 87.10%

  3. Other (2 votes [6.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.45%

Vote

#1 reko

reko

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 13043 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 12 October 2008 - 03:36 PM

Verne and I were having this debate on #GamingW today, about what FPS really means. Well we obviously know it means "Frames Per Second", but what it really means beyond that. Verne insisted that FPS only measures the capacity of the CPU and GPU to produce as many frames as possible, while I insisted that it's the sum of every component working together. Verne's basis for the argument was that CPU and GPU process the frames while parts such as RAM don't really process anything, but are just used for storage. My basis was that FPS indicates that how many frames are actually displayed, and even component like RAM has direct impact on the performance since if there's too little of it swapping will occur, and if it's too slow it takes more time to transfer data with the RAM thus acting as a potential bottleneck.

So basically this boils down to question which do you think FPS is a measurement of. Overall performance of all components, or just CPU and GPU? Or maybe something else? Tell me what you think!
Posted Image
big thanx to dragonslayer for sig!

#2 Artis Leon Ivey Jr

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 20067 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 03:39 PM

oh...my...god...

this topic...its so boring...

must post to warn others...

also you're right.

also also YOU'RE BOTH WRONG ITS FIRST PERSON SHOOTER.
brian chemicals

#3 JohnnyCasil

JohnnyCasil

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 2134 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 03:48 PM

I agree with you rami, and I have seen this happen first hand at my job.  Anything and everything can affect the FPS (can we just say speed?) of a game.  Just as your example, RAM can play a major part due to swapping.  This can be made even worse if the end user is using an integrated solution that shares its VRAM with system RAM.  Hell, depending on the system something as innocuous as a sound card could potentially slow down the game due to poor drivers.

#4 Marcus

Marcus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 16347 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 03:50 PM

Uh, frame frequency is the measure of the frequency an imaging device produces consecutive images.  30 frames per second (or more precisely 29.97) is the standard number for NTSC televisions while film uses a lower number around 24 frames.

Oh wait you guys are talking about vidya nevermind
Posted Image

#5 DS

DS

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 26236 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 04:02 PM

verne is wrong as always
To Never Be Known Is The Worst Death

#6 Barack Obama

Barack Obama

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 4725 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 04:36 PM

final fantasy 7 has awesome graphics

Posted Image


#7 goat

goat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1675 posts
  • LocationOhio, United States

Posted 12 October 2008 - 05:12 PM

I can't see how it would only be CPU and GPU. Since there are so many other factors, including your drivers, your operating system, the game being played, and every piece of silicon on the motherboard that helps connect the two. Your monitor could even have a very low refresh, effectively capping your FPS while having nothing to do with your CPU or GPU.

BECAUSE of all these factors, there is no way to get a direct CPU and GPU reading of FPS, and all FPS readings will be "everything together" because the only way you're finding out the FPS is by looking at the end result.

#8 reko

reko

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 13043 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 12 October 2008 - 05:18 PM

Yeah, there's a lot more into it than just the hardware part, but we were debating about upgrading a computer which is why I left drivers and the software in question from the equation. There are tons of other things that matter as well.. Room temperature, case air flow, component quality, et cetera. But let's keep this realistic. Anyway basically what I was trying to say is that FPS is  by no means a measurement of CPU/GPU performance like Verne thought it is (that's what we use flops for!)
Posted Image
big thanx to dragonslayer for sig!

#9 Chubby Skelly

Chubby Skelly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 4391 posts
  • LocationSunnyvale, CA

Posted 12 October 2008 - 06:05 PM

Yeah this is a pretty fucking stupid poll. The combination of all your components makes the difference; it's not just two things.

#10 Bobberticus

Bobberticus

    now that's what I'm talking about

  • Salty Members
  • 2484 posts
  • LocationVancouver BC

Posted 12 October 2008 - 06:57 PM

There's nothing really to debate here.
Verne is wrong.

fuck it all, dd is dead


#11 DS

DS

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 26236 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 09:17 PM

wow this is like a public humiliation

unclerami helps my ass
To Never Be Known Is The Worst Death

#12 reko

reko

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 13043 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 12 October 2008 - 09:39 PM

ultimately it will help verne... he will know one thing more. sometimes the only thing you can do is getting more people to tell how things are before someone is willing to accept it (plus i hate not winning a debate when i know i'm right :<).
Posted Image
big thanx to dragonslayer for sig!

#13 Frisky SKeleton

Frisky SKeleton

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 4715 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 10:27 PM

hi here's some reality for you: without a gpu you're not going to see ANY frames per second. the gpu is the greatest limiter to actual frames per second and thus fps only measures the capacity of the gpu directly, the rest is measured secondarily.

I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S


#14 King Arthur

King Arthur

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 1250 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2008 - 05:35 AM

If playing back videos on the computer has shown me anything, it's all the components of the computer working together that dictates the FPS you get in the end. Agreeing with rami.
Posted Image

#15 Mr. Actionist

Mr. Actionist

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 233 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 09:02 AM

All I know is that Oblivion runs shitloads faster now that I have 2gb of RAM rather than 512mb. 'Nuff said.
Upon arriving the attending doctor could find no abnormal physical symptoms other than extremely dilated pupils. After spending several hours terrified that his body had been possessed by a demon, that his next door neighbor was a witch, and that his furniture was threatening him, Dr. Hofmann feared he had become completely insane.

#16 Carrion Crow

Carrion Crow

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 5038 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 10:46 AM

All I know is that the rain in spain is mainly on the plain.

Sorry... was that irrelevant?

#17 Vanit

Vanit

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 709 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 14 October 2008 - 03:28 AM

I voted for every component since that how it works in practice and especially games, but really its the incorrect answer. You're assuming that you're measuring FPS in a game or a poorly coded program. Games are one type of program, that are usually coded somewhat inefficiently. If your computer is fully functional and we're not talking games, then Verne is mainly correct as it'll come down to the CPU and GPU what your FPS effectively comes out as while rendering 3D. This is especially true if you're running benchmarks, where the FPS is the main indicator of your computer's performance in an intensive graphical situation.

Really the initial question is flawed. But by definition Verne is correct.
"the way you speak about rm2k3, like "modules, arrays, pointers" sounds like
you're some badass c++ programmer stuck in the past and only has rm2k3 to
work with"
-Gutts

#18 headphonics

headphonics

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 6616 posts

Posted 14 October 2008 - 03:38 AM

i posit that your all gay

#19 reko

reko

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 13043 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:04 AM

I voted for every component since that how it works in practice and especially games, but really its the incorrect answer. You're assuming that you're measuring FPS in a game or a poorly coded program. Games are one type of program, that are usually coded somewhat inefficiently. If your computer is fully functional and we're not talking games, then Verne is mainly correct as it'll come down to the CPU and GPU what your FPS effectively comes out as while rendering 3D. This is especially true if you're running benchmarks, where the FPS is the main indicator of your computer's performance in an intensive graphical situation.

Really the initial question is flawed. But by definition Verne is correct.

Uh, no. Your computer can be fully functional with say, 256 megs of RAM, but if game requires a gig to run well, that doesn't mean it was coded inefficiently. It means that you have an insufficient setup, and that directly affects the performance. So no, I'm not assuming that you're measuring FPS of a poorly coded game. The only thing that Verne is right about is that CPU and GPU are the biggest factors. You can't get a huge increase by upgrading RAM if you already have a sufficient amount of it and at sufficient speed, but you can by upgrading CPU or GPU. That's all.

And like said, there are tons more factors that come to play, from heat production to your OS and drivers, that are independent of how the game is coded originally. The game can't help if the user got a shitty drivers (yet still functional, just poor), yet that can still result in noticeable drop in performance.
Posted Image
big thanx to dragonslayer for sig!

#20 Vanit

Vanit

    Advanced Member

  • Salty Members
  • 709 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:39 AM

Thanks... for expanding the first statement in my post? I said every component affects games, but the question was not about games, it was about FPS. Game performance != FPS.

I agree that RAM matters ofcourse, its just kind of silly to state it like that. Your FPS is not an indicator of how much ram you have, unless your rating system is from "not enough" to "enough".
"the way you speak about rm2k3, like "modules, arrays, pointers" sounds like
you're some badass c++ programmer stuck in the past and only has rm2k3 to
work with"
-Gutts




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users