/ Sign-up
Your question

Frames Per Second in games and flat panels?

  • Flat Panel Monitors
  • Peripherals
Last response: in Computer Peripherals
February 23, 2002 8:37:10 AM

Maybe somebody can clarify two things for me about frames/sec and flat panels.

1) Here's a quote from Tom's Hardware review of 14 LCDs. Under the Drawback #3 of LCD vs. CRT, he states "For the monitors we tested, the response time ran the gamut from 25 to 50 ms. In other words, the maximum number of images displayed per second varied between 20 and 40, depending on the model." Does this mean, even with a panel that had a response time of 25ms, the most I could hope for in a game like Quake 3 is 40 frames/sec?

2) Sometimes I hear people mention that with v-sync on the maximum frames/sec that I can reach in games is equal to the refresh rate (i.e. 85hz=max of 85 f/s). If this is the case, wouldn't the max f/s be 60 when using a flat panel throught its digital connection (since all the digital flat panels I've seen list 60hz as their default)?

More about : frames games flat panels

February 23, 2002 1:36:54 PM

I am not sure what they mean, but I think you might start seeing "image/ghost" left over at over 40/50fps with lcd av 25ms because that's the fastest it will be able to response/switch on/off, you can say you never see ghost, but fact is fact and we are living in a real world with real physical limited!
February 23, 2002 2:23:48 PM

However, human eye can only see 30 fps, meaning you won't see it. And vsync does limit the FPS, so at native res on most LCD's, it'll be 60Hz, although lower resolutions it can be higher.

Only if you let me see the Umpa Lumpa- Homer Simpson.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 23, 2002 11:03:15 PM

Poster: flamethrower205
Subject: Re: Frames Per Second in games and flat panels?
"However, human eye can only see 30 fps"

Oh my gosh, I just lost all respect for you! Anyone who cares to do even the smallest amount of research knows this is not true. Personally, I learned this a long time ago and have seen it verified from many different sources and my own two eyes. If you really need proof try google. Here is the very first link that results from searching on "human eye 30 fps" -

Here are some quotes: "60 frames per second vs. 30 frames per second has been one of the most contested ideas around the web and in print for the last year. Today we will look to see who is right, who is wrong, and who is just plain confused. Chipmaker (and now boardmaker) 3dfx has been evangelizing gaming at 60 fps since the Voodoo 2 was released. Many have looked down upon 3dfx for this due to the common misconception that humans cannot distinguish framerates over 30 fps, so what is the point of having visuals running at 60 fps? Misconception you say? Yes. In this article we will look behind the technology of games, computers, movies, and television and the physiology and neuro-ethology of the human visual system."


"When a game runs at 30 fps, you are getting 30 perfectly rendered scenes. This does not fool the eye one bit. There is no motion blur, so the transition from frame to frame is not as smooth as in movies. 3dfx put out a demo that runs half the screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. There is a definite difference between the two scenes, with the 60 fps looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps."


"Contrary to the belief that we cannot distinguish anything over 30 fps, we can actually see and recognize speeds up to 70+ fps. How can you test this? You can quickly do this with your monitor at home. Set the refresh rate to 60 Hz and stare at it for a while. You can actually see the refreshes and it is very tiring to your eyes. Now if we couldn’t see more than 30 fps, why is it that flicker free is considered to be 72 Hz (refreshes per second). You can really tell if the refresh is below 72 by turning your head and looking at the screen through your peripheral vision. You can definitely see the screen refreshes then (due to rods being much more efficient and fast)."


"So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don’t get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps. What this does is saturate the pipeline from your eyes to your visual cortex, just as reality does. As visual quality increases, it really becomes more important to keep frame rates high so we can get the most immersive feel possible. While we still may be several years away from photographic quality in 3D accelerators, it is important to keep the speed up there. Looks like 3dfx isn’t so full of it.

*READ AT LEAST THIS PART* - Editor: In recent view of several findings, the human visual system can detect very small amounts of light (or changes in light). The US Air Force has done tests with their pilots to see how responsive the visual system is. In one experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This is a very specific situation though, but it shows how sensitive to light our visual system is. In terms of games though, that 72 fps number is a bit low. Many manufacturers are aiming at 85 fps for an acceptable frame rate, but are now concentrating on adding more quality to a scene."

The whole article is a good read for those that are interested in this old debate.

Here is a link that explains motion blur in detail:

Here is another link about the 30fps myth:

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eviscerate on 02/23/02 08:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 24, 2002 12:25:31 AM

I knew about the 70fps thing and teh human eye, but just saying that people seem to be fine with 30fps, thus meaning that one would be ok w/a 25ms response time.

Sig of the week.
February 24, 2002 12:31:24 AM

Oh, sorry to freak out. No hard feelings I hope. I can get carried away sometimes. :)  Personally, I think 30 fps is very playable but 60fps or more just seems a bit smoother to me. Others may notice no difference at all. My point was just that we are humanly capable of noticing the difference which your post seemed to be contradicting. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eviscerate on 02/23/02 09:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 24, 2002 12:56:55 AM

It's ok, everyone gets carried away (me especially sometimes:) . My friends and I have this saying that 30fps is smooth, but 70fps is ultra smooth. I certainly do notice it when it's 30fps, but that's b/c I know to look for it. If one doesn't know, it's much harder to distinguish. No hard feelings of course. However, from what I have read, doesn't how many "fps" in a sense the human eye runs at fluctuate b/c fatigue. Sometimes, when my eyes r tired I really ntice an odd flickering, or sometimes when my eyes are closed and I open them. It's kinda wierd.

Sig of the week.
February 24, 2002 1:01:47 AM

the "key" to good game play for "normal" folks is "never" drop below certain fps, so not stuttering and or skip! to me that is what it is all about!
min fps and full detail at high resolution!

on the other hand, if you want to win at all cost, you can always do the 640x480 16bit and min on everything, maybe get 300fps! :) 
February 24, 2002 1:24:07 AM

Wooo! Go 640x480!! j/k:) 

Sig of the week.