Remember when Sony said the PS3 would render at 120 fps? Forget it, 240fps

[arsenicazure]

Deneidez said:

arsenicazure said:
Even though the human eye cant percieve anything above 3 million colors or 60 FPS and even though quad HD screens are atleast 15 yrs away from being commercially viable..this is a good achievement.. i applaud you SONY..

so now....... wheres my price cut!

Its about 100-120fps and some ppl can do even beyond that.

 

Anyway, GT5:P is simple enough to be run in system like this. You cannot do this with games where theres a lot more stuff going on. Network just couldn't handle it. And about every system today can render at those resolutions and fps. The thing is there wouldn't be much stuff going on at those resolutions and fps. :)

 

 

yup i just read up on that. my bad... the refresh rate is the limiting factor.. not the eye..

The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second. With a high quality non-interlaced display (like plasma or a large LCD FPD) and a nice video card capable of HDTV resolution, you can today see well above 120 FPS with a matching refresh rate. With some refresh rates as high as 400Hz on some non-interlaced displays, that display is capable of 400 FPS alone. Without the refresh rate in the way, and the right hardware capable of such fast rendering (frame buffer), it is possible to display as cameras are possible of recording 44,000 Frames Per Second. Imagine just for a moment if your display device were to be strictly governed by the input it was receiving. This is the case with computer video cards and displays in a way with adjustable resolutions, color depth, and refresh rates.

 

check out the full article here :

http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html