Diablo 3 playable at 2800x1800 on the new retina mbp

[henrikrox]

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5998/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 8.36.33 PM.png

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5998/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 8.39.24 PM.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

"Diablo III is actually quite playable at 2880 x 1800, at least in the earlier levels (I haven't had time to make it far enough in the game to tell how bad it can get). I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked. Obviously things are smoother at lower resolutions. Diablo III exhibited some graphical anomalies at 1920 x 1200, but was fine at other 16:10 resolutions"

 

[cathyy]

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5998/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 8.36.33 PM.png

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5998/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 8.39.24 PM.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

"Diablo III is actually quite playable at 2880 x 1800, at least in the earlier levels (I haven't had time to make it far enough in the game to tell how bad it can get). I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked. Obviously things are smoother at lower resolutions. Diablo III exhibited some graphical anomalies at 1920 x 1200, but was fine at other 16:10 resolutions"

20 FPS doesn't sound very playable to me.

 

[bogatyr]

20 FPS doesn't sound very playable to me.

20FPS is my minimum and is quite enjoyable. But FPS required to enjoy a game is very subjective.

 

[stevelam]

20 FPS doesn't sound very playable to me.

you are missing the rest of the quote.

"I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked"

diablo FPS is completely dependent on whats going on the screen. whether you're just running around a town or fighting huge mobs with demon hunter effects going off every second, FPS will vary wildly.

at 2880 x 1800 resolution, 20fps for a LAPTOP is more than respectable. apparently blizzard are working on a retina display optimized version of diablo anyway.

 

[henrikrox]

dunno what setting was used, but if it was medium/high its even more impressive. Excited mostly because 1920x1200 should be playable with 60fps i hope

 

[cathyy]

you are missing the rest of the quote.

"I managed to average 20 fps at 2880 x 1800 in the most stressful scene I have presently unlocked"

diablo FPS is completely dependent on whats going on the screen. whether you're just running around a town or fighting huge mobs with demon hunter effects going off every second, FPS will vary wildly.

at 2880 x 1800 resolution, 20fps for a LAPTOP is more than respectable. apparently blizzard are working on a retina display optimized version of diablo anyway.

Well that's the reviewers fault for not telling us what's the average FPS he gets in all scenes.

And yes, I agree that 20 FPS is amazing considering the insane the resolution it's running at. But to lots of people, 20 FPS is not enjoyable and they would get a far superior gaming experience playing at 60 FPS on a lower resolution.

But as of now it's still rather early so I'll refrain from commenting further.

 

[Xcelerate]

I'm not a gamer, but I am curious about this, so could someone explain to me the deal with the high frame rates?

The average human has about a 0.22 second response time (0.15 if you're really fast).

30 fps is 0.03 seconds per frame
120 fps is 0.008 seconds per frame

The total difference between a 30 fps and 120 fps game is 0.25 to 0.228 seconds response time to what you see on the screen. And then you take into account that each frame doesn't represent entirely new information -- humans have a built-in prediction mechanism which is the reason we can catch baseballs despite our sensory delay. So is there something proving this actually makes a difference in game play or is this just kind of a psychological benefit?

EDIT: Fixed 30 fps calculation

 

[niuniu]

You can play games at 20FPS 'pretty well'. 30FPS is the oft quoted benchmark for seemingly flawless gameplay, but I've played games at 20FPS just fine when I had to.

When you go over 30FPS it's really just about e-peen, not gameplay.

 

[cathyy]

I'm not a gamer, but I am curious about this, so could someone explain to me the deal with the high frame rates?

The average human has about a 0.22 second response time (0.15 if you're really fast).

30 fps is 0.05 seconds per frame
120 fps is 0.008 seconds per frame

The total difference between a 30 fps and 120 fps game is 0.270 to 0.228 seconds response time to what you see on the screen. And then you take into account that each frame doesn't represent entirely new information -- humans have a built-in prediction mechanism which is the reason we can catch baseballs despite our sensory delay. So is there something proving this actually makes a difference in game play or is this just kind of a psychological benefit?

Actually 30 FPS would be 0.032 seconds per frame, but anyway that's besides the point.

Generally it's been accepted that there's not much point displaying over 60 FPS as most LCDs are not capable of displaying past that speed. Therefore it would be better to compare 30 fps vs 60 fps.

Ask any FPS gamer and they can tell you that there's a HUGE difference in the fluidity and smoothness of the game when going between 30 to 60 FPS. Even for non FPS games, the difference can generally be felt that the game is jerking abit.


20 FPS is generally considered too way too low for FPS games to be playable. 30 FPS is the minimum. 60 FPS is ideal.