[ale] Nvidia Magic for dual head

[Joe]

Fletch <fletch at phydeaux.org> writes:

> >>>>> "jknapka" == jknapka  <Joe> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>     >> The performance on the card with Gears is about ~5800fps which
>     >> isn't
> 
>     jknapka> Are you serious? Fifty-eight HUNDRED frames per second?
>     jknapka> That's so far beyond human visual time resolution it's
>     jknapka> not even funny. One tenth of that performance would be
>     jknapka> vast overkill. What's the point?
> 
> He's serious and not dropping decimals.
> 
> rodan:~ 403> DISPLAY=:0 glxgears -geom 1280x1024               < 130 > 11:35:07
> 56991 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11398.200 FPS
> 64561 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12912.200 FPS
> 64899 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12979.800 FPS
> 64479 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12895.800 FPS
> 64834 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12966.800 FPS
> 64553 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12910.600 FPS
> 
> 
> Of course I've got the next card up from the 4200.

So I repeat my question: What's the point? There is no perceptible
difference, AFAICT, between 10000fps and 100fps. Normal NTCS video is
30fps, and the discreteness of the signal is nearly imperceptible even
at that rate. Why on earth would you ever need 10000fps for human
eyeball consumption? And what kind of Tyranno-monitor do you need in
order to accept that signal? (Jeez, the dot rate on that card probably
overflows the value of a 32-bit integer...) Why should I waste my
money on a 10000fps card as opposed to a 100fps card?

PS, I'm not a gamer at all, so it may be there really is a good reason
for this kind of hardware, but I just can't, heh heh, see it.

Cheers,

-- Joe Knapka
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale