Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Another question :
What is better for battery life and what for better performance / how the game loooks? 60Hz and 30fps vs 40Hz 40fps?
In terms of battery life, from better to worst:
- 30fps@60hz
- 40fps@40hz
- 60fps@60hz
In the end, what matters the most are the fps, because those are the images that you're telling the game to create, and that's the hard part. Once you have that image, showing it multiple times is not as resource intensive as creating it. Think of changing the hz mainly as something you do to match the fps so it looks better (40fps@40hz looks better than 40fps@60hz). Notice how the hz is once/twice the fps.
Using the first two configurations I wrote as an example, telling the game to generate 10 less images saves more battery than telling the screen to blink 20 times less.
The special thing about 40/40 is that the time each image is shown is exactly in the middle between their durations at 30fps and 60fps; it's the middle ground between quality and battery.