| OttoniBastos said: We were talking about CPU tasks specifically.What you said about GPU task is right just not what we were talking. |
The context was still running a game, including rendering.
OttoniBastos said:
¹ Tell that to japanese developers |
And Bethesda... It's still a good point though.
Intrinsic said:
No it doesnt, but that doesnt mean there is enougj headroom for the CPU to manage doiblong the framerate. In an over simplistic way of lookong at things, there are basically frame based tasks, input based tasks and system based tasks for the CPU to do. All arranged in order of complexity. Look at it this way, if a game is already using 100% of the CPU to hit 30fps, Then doubling the framerate could require that that CPU works at around 130-150%. Or you know; you get a more powerful CPU to do just that. But a game that is already internally averaging around 45-50fps, with a 30-50% boost in cpu power can hit 60fps as long as the GPU is not a bottleneck. |
Thanks, that's a good point I forgot about. However, it's not all black and white with that either. A lot of games are locked to 30 FPS to keep the framerate stable, and I bet most of the time they could probably run at a higher framerate. Because the devs are going to be targeting 30 FPS anyway, they might not focus so much on optimizing the game because it already runs at 30 FPS, but if they're going to be targeting 60 FPS in the future, they might do those optimizations. It's probably not feasible for all games, but some games could definitely benefit from that, I imagine.







