What is the minimum fps for games?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?

Many thanks for your help!!!

--
Daniel

www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/ouonsenva (français)
ou/or
www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/english (english version)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
news:N5gOc.25402$9Y2.255694@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>


30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the minimum
fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you start
consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost. I
don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In a perfect world, you'd never drop below 85fps. However, even with today's
most powerful PC hardware, that's just not possible under certain gaming
situations. 60fps is acceptable for most games. 6fps is unacceptable in any
scenario I can think of. An average of 40fps might be acceptable, depending
on the game, as long as the minimum doesn't drop below 20fps. All of this is
of course subjective. My sweetspot is 85fps for the average which means I'd
like a max of around 110fps and a low of 60fps. Even with my FX-53 and
9800pro though, that's just not possible in certain demanding games at
certain quality settings.

To answer your question... YES - 6fps = major slowdown (lagg really isn't
the appropriate term here though since traditionally it's used to describe
network latency... but hey, use it however you want to)

--
Tony DiMarzio
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net

"cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
news:N5gOc.25402$9Y2.255694@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based
> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
seeing
> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
average
> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
> lagging?
>
> Many thanks for your help!!!
>
> --
> Daniel
>
> www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/ouonsenva (français)
> ou/or
> www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/english (english version)
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

cimetière wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
> based of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for
> not seeing "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when
> they say the minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum
> 60 and average 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the
> game will start lagging?


There was a bit of a discussion here a couple of days ago. Essentially it
depends on a lot of things, as well as being subjective.

For fast moving games, like first person shooters, 30fps would be an
absolute minimum.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

.... there came a great "cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> flying, and he
bore tidings beyond hope, crying:

>Hi!
>
>I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
>of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
>"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
>minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
>40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
>lagging?
>
>Many thanks for your help!!!

that's probably the most subjective issue in the world ...

(next to taste in women perhaps)

some feel the need to get 100 fps, others, like me, are completely
satisfied with 20 fps (as a minimum, I mean)

of course it depends ... when you are moving thru a desert with
nothing in sight, even your 6 fps can be enough, whilst in the middle
of a fight, 20 probably are too few to survive ...

some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..

best try it out with low res, so you can get your fps very high, then
play with it!

Cole ***
--
Johnny: [plugging back in the runway lights]
"Just kidding."
('Airplane!', 1980)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:31:35 +0200, Cole Turner
<REMOVEcole.turner@liwest.at> wrote:


>some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
>others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
>eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..
>

Well, 3DFX themselves said 60fps is needed for fluid framerate.
Anything over that *should* be indistinguishable. I don't like to drop
below 30fps myself, but in some flightsims I own it does drop to the
teens or low 20's during heavy action. And that's on a P4 3.2ghz
w/R9800pro. They keep upping the hardware performance and the new
games just drag it back down again. Maybe I should just buy a console
and be done with it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
> others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
> eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..

Since my screen refresh is only 75 Hz, I can't see anything over 75 fps
anyway.

Tom Lake

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"maggot" <maggot@no.email> wrote in message
newsdalg05jikh247pjf0qes616ub39pgba8p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:31:35 +0200, Cole Turner
> <REMOVEcole.turner@liwest.at> wrote:
>
>
> >some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
> >others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
> >eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..
> >
>
> Well, 3DFX themselves said 60fps is needed for fluid framerate.
> Anything over that *should* be indistinguishable. I don't like to drop
> below 30fps myself, but in some flightsims I own it does drop to the
> teens or low 20's during heavy action. And that's on a P4 3.2ghz
> w/R9800pro. They keep upping the hardware performance and the new
> games just drag it back down again. Maybe I should just buy a console
> and be done with it.

You could get a console, but then you would keep thinking how shitty the
graphics look, and wonder why you can't customise your skins, and play
expansion packs, add new maps, or in the case of the PS2 have only 2 choices
of controllers set-up (if you are lucky- virtually no customisable controls
that I have seen) oh, and not to forget crashes, even consoles crash
occasionally.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:25:26 +0800, "Blahguy" <z@z.z> wrote:


>You could get a console, but then you would keep thinking how shitty the
>graphics look, and wonder why you can't customise your skins, and play
>expansion packs, add new maps, or in the case of the PS2 have only 2 choices
>of controllers set-up (if you are lucky- virtually no customisable controls
>that I have seen) oh, and not to forget crashes, even consoles crash
>occasionally.
>
>

It was only a passing idea and nothing concrete. Most of the games on
consoles are not my bag anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 8/1/2004 11:00 AM maggot brightened our day with:

>On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:25:26 +0800, "Blahguy" <z@z.z> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>You could get a console, but then you would keep thinking how shitty the
>>graphics look, and wonder why you can't customise your skins, and play
>>expansion packs, add new maps, or in the case of the PS2 have only 2 choices
>>of controllers set-up (if you are lucky- virtually no customisable controls
>>that I have seen) oh, and not to forget crashes, even consoles crash
>>occasionally.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It was only a passing idea and nothing concrete. Most of the games on
>consoles are not my bag anyway.
>
>

I've got an XBox, I like it. I got it for $25 though.

--
The Brain From Planet Arous (1958):
"Bad alien Gor takes over scientist Steve's brain; good alien Vol takes over Steve's dog's brain."


Steve [Inglo]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:01:17 GMT, "Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:


>Since my screen refresh is only 75 Hz, I can't see anything over 75 fps
>anyway.
>
>Tom Lake
>

You can if you turn Vsync off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:30:30 -0600, "NightSky 421"
<nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote:

>"cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
>news:N5gOc.25402$9Y2.255694@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
>based
>> of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
>seeing
>> "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
>> minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
>average
>> 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
>> lagging?
>>
>> Many thanks for your help!!!
>>
>
>
>30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the minimum
>fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you start
>consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost. I
>don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.

Well 30/24 are video / film speeds.

If you can keep at least 30fps with full eye candy, then I would
consider it okay...


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:32:26 GMT, "pjp"
<pjp_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote:

>Are you suggesting that UT2004 will run at least approx the same as UT2003
>given the same pc?
>
>I've just assumed it'd demand more and as I've not upgraded recently

They are based on broadly the same engine so have very similar
performance.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote in message
news:10gj5obim13km23@corp.supernews.com...
> "cimetière" <cimetiere@dddt.com> wrote in message
> news:N5gOc.25402$9Y2.255694@wagner.videotron.net...
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
> based
> > of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not
> seeing
> > "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say
the
> > minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and
> average
> > 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will
start
> > lagging?
> >
> > Many thanks for your help!!!
> >
>
>
> 30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the
minimum
> fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you
start
> consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost.
I
> don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.
>
>
>

generally excepted because it the rate we see at... our eyes can't
distinguish anything above 30. Its a scientific fact.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:52:51 -0400, "Brenden D. Chase"
<brendenREMOVE77@cox.net> wrote:

>generally excepted because it the rate we see at... our eyes can't
>distinguish anything above 30. Its a scientific fact.

Get a clue before spreading BS around.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message
news:ddh0i0d2ae00maou2l47jmu4kjgi0fa7ig@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:52:51 -0400, "Brenden D. Chase"
> <brendenREMOVE77@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >generally excepted because it the rate we see at... our eyes can't
> >distinguish anything above 30. Its a scientific fact.
>
> Get a clue before spreading BS around.


Well, since you challenged me I went out and got it... and found this...

Here is clue #1....

The speed of light
is about 1 foot per nanosecond. A nanosecond is a billionth of a second\=
0.000000001 seconds.
With suitable flash equipment, you can take a clear picture of a very
rapidly rotating color
wheel. On the other hand, the response time of the eye is about 0.05
seconds, which is why
moving pictures show 20 to 30 frames per second. The eye then cannot see
the individual frames
and smoothly connects adjacent frames to produce the effect of smooth
motion.

From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00660.htm

However on the contrary... I wasn't satisfied with one opinion, so... clue
#2 a & b

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

Furthermore, this site posses the question that maybe there are no frames
when it comes to eyesight, therefore any fps speed will never be fast
enough.. clue #3

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Who to believe, I'm not sure, but I do know that I'm now aware of different
ideas on how our eyes work. And I owe it all to Andrew. Thank you sir.

And to be honest back in 94 when I was in highschool it was thought that the
eyes could only see 30fps... my bad for not keeping up with the research
behind that then so called "fact".


--Brenden






> --
> Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:35:29 -0400, "Brenden D. Chase"
<brendenREMOVE77@cox.net> wrote:

>http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
>
>Who to believe, I'm not sure, but I do know that I'm now aware of different
>ideas on how our eyes work. And I owe it all to Andrew. Thank you sir.

The difference in frame rate between 30 and 60 is like night and day.
I can see up to about 70fps, some can see a bit more, some less.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

.... there came a great Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> flying, and he bore
tidings beyond hope, crying:

>The difference in frame rate between 30 and 60 is like night and day.
>I can see up to about 70fps, some can see a bit more, some less.

I can't see ANY difference in stuff beyond 30 ... must be a bit less
than 70 !
--
Johnny: [plugging back in the runway lights]
"Just kidding."
('Airplane!', 1980)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message
news:2p63i0l7f3hmm9pqjcjip6cbsk3r9orvgg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:35:29 -0400, "Brenden D. Chase"
> <brendenREMOVE77@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
> >
> >Who to believe, I'm not sure, but I do know that I'm now aware of
different
> >ideas on how our eyes work. And I owe it all to Andrew. Thank you sir.
>
> The difference in frame rate between 30 and 60 is like night and day.
> I can see up to about 70fps, some can see a bit more, some less.

I love when you watch a movie like 28 days and its shot as a higher frame
rate and it looks THAT much crisper. I didn't really think about that til
just now...

--Brenden

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:38:39 -0400, "Brenden D. Chase"
<brendenREMOVE77@cox.net> wrote:


>I love when you watch a movie like 28 days and its shot as a higher frame
>rate and it looks THAT much crisper. I didn't really think about that til
>just now...
>
>--Brenden
>
>

Yea, it's the reason Super Imax is shot and displayed at 48fps, gives
a crisper image.