Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming FPS and Movie FPS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2006 1:46:39 AM

Movies are normally displayed with 30 or 24 FPS, and look perfectly fine. What is with gaming FPS's that reach from the 50s to 150s? Isn't this a little overkill? I am fine with a card that displays 45 FPSs at a resolution of 1024 by 1280. I may be wrong if the term FPS has different implications.

More about : gaming fps movie fps

December 3, 2006 2:08:03 AM

Here's why it's not (totally) overkill. Though a card may be able to produce an "average" frame rate of 50-120fps, the same card may dip below 30fps in very elaborate/complex scenes. For gamers (and me) it's extremely annoying; esp. in FPS's which require split second reactions and decisions. If the game drops below 30fps at just the wrong time, it could mean a frag.

When shopping for a card you should always research the minimum FPS benchmarks, which THG (unfortunately) doesn't do often. Anandtech and Xbit does though. Average FPS doesn't mean a whole lot, it's the minimum FPS that's probably the most important if you want that "awesome" gaming experience.

Does that make sense?
December 3, 2006 2:11:04 AM

Alright! I get to be the first post 8) [edit]damn you barney![edit]
Saw an article on this a while back, 2 or 3 years ago. They pointed out that the major difference is where a movie camera (unless your watching the blair witch proj.) doesn't move from side to side a lot, and when it does, it creates a 'blur' type of filler which give your eye the illusion of fluidity. On a game, most games today, have no blur effect. It's a raw frame to frame. Therefor, more fps is needed to give your eyes the "filler". They also stated that most movies are predictable, heh... I guess thats where YOUR cpu (your brain) does the work.
Related resources
December 3, 2006 2:16:33 AM

2 different answers, but both are right. Both are contributing factors to why higher than 30fps is required for "smooth" gaming. ;-)
December 3, 2006 3:22:03 AM

Thanks for the explanation! But where can I find out the average FPS required by a game and still retain fluidity? And which types of games take the most?
December 3, 2006 3:56:13 AM

Titles such as F.E.A.R. and Oblivion for the PC require the fastest hardware to keep the gameplay constantly smooth.
December 3, 2006 4:01:16 AM

Quote:
Thanks for the explanation! But where can I find out the average FPS required by a game and still retain fluidity? And which types of games take the most?


More performance than gets you a consistent 60fps in all cases is often redundant as many larger LCD panels only support 60Hz frame refresh at native res. (especially if you use DVI).

Your GPU could be doing 9999 fps but it doesn't make any difference if your monitor is only doing 60.
December 3, 2006 4:27:28 AM

The following is part of something I wrote for another thread, and I believe it applies here:

"An Optometrist will tell you that the Flicker Frequency Threshold for the human eye is 48, so we rarely detect faster image rates. This is why the video industry can squeak by with 30FPS interlaced, and is also why most people don't see the 60Hz flicker in florescent lights, and won't see the flicker in a CTR at 60Hz refresh rate. For flat panel LCD monitors, this is 16.7mS response time.

Remember that when you increase refresh rate (72 vs 60) and/or image matrix (1280 vs 1024), you decrease FPS. The goal is to design a rig that can consistently render FPS that never fall below 45. Anything above 60Hz is meaningless to the human eye, although the numbers are impressive for benchmarking and bragging rights."

Hope this helps to answer your question.
December 3, 2006 5:31:11 AM

The reason why video games need higher FPS is as follows.

For example...
Frames for a film;
1-Guy standing in the middle
2-Guy starts to move to the right
3-Guy is moving to the right.
4-Guy is now on the right of the screen
As a movie, you can print this on 3 individual (well more than 3 obviously) frames.

Game frames:
1-Guy standing in the middle
2-Guy starts to go left (guy then decides to go right)
3-Frame displays guy going left,
4-Guy is now all the way on the right, and missed the part where he was in the middle because the frames didnt update fast enough to display the fast change.

The fast pace of changing items in the image creates problems. If you have 100fps you can more accuratly display moving objects of games. With a movie it isnt as important because the frames do not have to keep up because they are already pre-printed and do not have to wait for the next frame to display things that are happening in the present.


I hope that made sense, there are some other things to it, and im not too good at explaining things.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
December 3, 2006 5:39:13 AM

Movies also have motion blur
December 3, 2006 1:12:15 PM

Ok I think I understand the idea more. Will 45 fps usually be good enough to cover fast motion?
December 3, 2006 10:05:58 PM

As long as your FPS don't fall below 45, the video will appear smooth to your eye.
December 3, 2006 10:17:17 PM

Quote:
The reason why video games need higher FPS is as follows.

For example...
Frames for a film;
1-Guy standing in the middle
2-Guy starts to move to the right
3-Guy is moving to the right.
4-Guy is now on the right of the screen
As a movie, you can print this on 3 individual (well more than 3 obviously) frames.

Game frames:
1-Guy standing in the middle
2-Guy starts to go left (guy then decides to go right)
3-Frame displays guy going left,
4-Guy is now all the way on the right, and missed the part where he was in the middle because the frames didnt update fast enough to display the fast change.

The fast pace of changing items in the image creates problems. If you have 100fps you can more accuratly display moving objects of games. With a movie it isnt as important because the frames do not have to keep up because they are already pre-printed and do not have to wait for the next frame to display things that are happening in the present.


I hope that made sense, there are some other things to it, and im not too good at explaining things.


Dude... no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. Refer to the first 2 posts for the right answers.

(did you just make that crap up?)
December 3, 2006 10:42:51 PM

SUP, i was wondering since you guys are talking about FPS; which GFX card is capable of displaying most games at a reasonable speed? please don't say the 8800's. thanx :) 
December 3, 2006 11:20:50 PM

Quote:
SUP, i was wondering since you guys are talking about FPS; which GFX card is capable of displaying most games at a reasonable speed? please don't say the 8800's. thanx :) 
Even though you don't want to hear the truth, the 8800GTX is the most capable GPU on the market.
December 4, 2006 3:23:40 AM

the secret of good fps in a game is :cards ho maintain the same number o fps all the time even if its a low number like 20

like somebody said up here : in some moments the fps of the game can dip below in very elaborate/complex scenes.

even if you are playng the most of the game above 100 fps, when you get very elaborate/complex scenes, you may fall to 80 fps , and that will make framedown that is bad

so is better always with 30fps then 100 to 80fps
December 4, 2006 4:08:56 AM

well since you're not willing to consider the 8800 GTS, then the 7950GX2 or x1950xtx are your best bets for highest FPS. 7900GTX is also a good alternative, but GX2 makes more sense on the nVidia side of things.
December 4, 2006 4:26:36 AM

There is no secret, but for the benefit of others, let's go over this again, so it's simply and clearly stated:

(1) 30 FPS is MINIMUM acceptable gaming. (This means NEVER dip below, regardless of conditions).

(2) 45 FPS is adequate.

(3) 60 FPS or more is imperceptable.

Depending on what gaming software you run, a certain combination of GPU/CPU horsepower is required to meet the above (1) requirement. The goal is to enjoy a visually smooth computer gaming experience, without feeling like we're trying to participate in a slide show.

I hope this helps you to understand how frame rate applies to a gaming rig.
December 4, 2006 6:12:47 AM

Quote:
30 FPS is MINIMUM acceptable gaming. (This means NEVER dip below, regardless of conditions).

(2) 45 FPS is adequate.

(3) 60 FPS or more is imperceptable.


this number may vary with people to people
December 4, 2006 6:18:37 AM

I don't like to quote myself, however:

Quote:
An Optometrist will tell you that the Flicker Frequency Threshold for the human eye is 48, so we rarely detect faster image rates. This is why the video industry can squeak by with 30FPS interlaced, and is also why most people don't see the 60Hz flicker in florescent lights, and won't see the flicker in a CTR at 60Hz refresh rate. For flat panel LCD monitors, this is 16.7mS response time.

Remember that when you increase refresh rate (72 vs 60) and/or image matrix (1280 vs 1024), you decrease FPS. The goal is to design a rig that can consistently render FPS that never fall below 45. Anything above 60Hz is meaningless to the human eye, although the numbers are impressive for benchmarking and bragging rights.


If you prefer, you can google "Flicker Frequency Threshold", or simply ask your eye doctor.
December 4, 2006 6:25:44 AM

i agree with you CompuTronix, but see my point ,

so is better always with 30fps then 100 to 80fps , dont you agree?
December 4, 2006 6:51:11 AM

To put it in different words, gaming frame rate will always fluctuate with continually changing game situations. A GPU/CPU combination powerful enough to continually maintain frame rates above 30, will sometimes render extremely high FPS, well above 60 and into tripple digits, which is imperceptable and irrelevant to the human eye. These highest FPS numbers can be disregarded, except for benchmarking overall performance characteristics.

Again, the most important consideration for a gaming rig, is never dipping below 30, and for a smoother gaming experience, preferably not below 45.
December 4, 2006 6:54:42 AM

so, no matter what is your system, you will always suffer with framedown
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 6:57:40 AM

As stated above, as long as the frame rate stays above 30fps the game will still have a fluid look to it. You are always going to have a varaince in your frame rate depending on the amount of data being processed. Eg: When you are walking thru a narow hallway your frame rate will be higher than when you have 5 enimies shooting at you in a cluttered warehouse. It would be mutch more desirable to have your frame rate stay in the 80-100fps range diping down to the 30fps range only under heavy load.
December 4, 2006 7:00:25 AM

Thank you. I was hoping someone else would jump in here.
December 4, 2006 7:00:29 AM

i agree with you outlw6669, but if the games have some options to run always on the minimum fps will be better, because will never happen framedown
December 4, 2006 7:03:10 AM

Not true. If you don't have enough GPU/CPU horsepower for your game, FPS will dip below 30, regardless of settings.
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 7:06:24 AM

Quote:
I don't like to quote myself, however:

[total crap deleted]

If you prefer, you can google "Flicker Frequency Threshold", or simply ask your eye doctor.


While you're at it, ask you optometrist if they believe that crap. If they do, then they never took a sensation and perception course in their life.

If that crap you posted were the only aspect, then those of us who see RGB artifacts in DLPs wouldn't experience that. Also the level of refresh required depends alot on the situation, the image, and the method being used to display/convey the image.

Second, fluro lights illuminate on the peak and trough of the sinus waves, therefore they fire at 120hz, also the coating on fluro bulbs has a latent illuminative quality, both of these lead to vary rare situations where we notice them and its usually only with sympathetic flashes that it becomes an issue, unless of course the ballast is F'ed up and you have exaggerated effects.

Many many aspects are involved in the appearance of fluidity, including contrast, brightness levels, image sharpness, convergent motion, level of sequential image divergence (similar frames are easier to make fluid than those with more differences), angle of solid lines, and angle of motion, also whether or not you look straight on at something or use more of your peripheral vision (rods are more sensitive than cones).

Quote:
(1) 30 FPS is MINIMUM acceptable gaming. (This means NEVER dip below, regardless of conditions).

(2) 45 FPS is adequate.

(3) 60 FPS or more is imperceptable.


Actually that's a false rule, since it depends alot on the game or scene as to whether or not 30fps is the min.

For something like Splinter Cell and other creeper style games 20fps would be fine because the need to refresh the scene and the view of the player is limited.
Whereas twitch FPS games have alot of motion and also require higher refresh rates to reduce the impact of entire scene motion. If your character is jumping while turning, you need far faster refresh to have fluid motion and proper visuals. Also remember that when doing something like a 180degree turn you need high refresh rate to paint scenes correctly so that you even achieve minimal refresh for the range of motion.

Effects like motion blur help reduce the number of frames required for fluidity, but it also reduces the level of accuracy for FPS games.
December 4, 2006 7:08:03 AM

so imagine this scenario:

you have your system on the signature: and you are playing a game with 50~60 fps, sometimes where the game comes with a very complex scene, the fps down to 30, and in all the game the minimum fps will be 30, so you must(thats dont exist) have an option to always run with 30 fps

i think thats could be better, sorry to be boring you guys hehehehe
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 7:12:56 AM

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, but if it's anything like clamping the framerate to 30fps, that's similar to what happens in consoles, where they adjust the scenes when developing them so that they can stay constant near 30fps. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen, as was seen in games like Quake4 for X360.
December 4, 2006 7:15:20 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe hehe is hard to say that name, you anderstand my point, sorry for my english, i don't know how to express myself properly
December 4, 2006 7:22:11 AM

Besides the fact that film and TV signals are often interlaced, etc.....

Movies are passive (output only) and as such do not require < 2 ms reaction times during combat at times.

FPS Games / Simulations have:
1) A non-static frame rate (Average of 60 may mean it dips under 2 fps at times, but only for a moment, then does 200 fps down a hallway latter on).
2) Require input and output, Especially from the mouse

A one frame delay (normal for both) on a movie makes no difference, as you don't know it is one frame behind.

In a video game being 1-2 frame behind (double, or triple buffering, and/or DirectX 'render ahead') is noticeable, especially if the frame rate is under 40 fps - to most people it can be 'just' perceived at under 60fps.

In double blind tests over a group of intense FPS gamers around 15% or so will be able to feel the difference between 60 fps, and 80 fps *(minimum sustained fps, not average fps) just through the mouse delay.

This is even more true if the input resolution (sample rate) is limited to the frame rate (eg: fps_max 60 in HL2, vs fps_max 80 in HL2 does this. In double blind tests it gives highly accurate and repeatable results 8) ).

And yes, this is even if the refresh rate is 75 Hz (vs 85 Hz plus) as it affects input delay (you get this zen like state and enter a feedback loop with the game after an hour or so above 60 fps in an intense fps, like Half-Life 2 DM, or Quake 3).

Things that do not require input / fast reaction and output video + audio stream only are typically fine to view at 24 - 30 fps, even as low as 12 fps over a large area (or 8fps over a small area).

Over the last decade or so I've researched this subject quite particularly - it is most interesting that it keeps coming up - Some people swear black and blue they can't see the difference between 40 and 60 fps, however if in an interactive FPS environment they will usually complain when performance dips under 60 fps (double blind) as it seams to affect input and accuracy.

Also bear in mind that a 1-2 frame buffer at 60 fps is only 1/60th (~17ms) to 1/30th (~33ms) of a second of latency between sight and reaction, while at 40 fps it is 1/40th (25 ms) to 1/20th (50 ms).

All OpenGL and DirectX applications use at least double buffering, so your sight is always at least 1 frame 'behind'.

Some games sample input only once per frame, others multiple times using an isolated thread at very high sample resolutions.

Sound / Audio is often heard within 2 - 5 ms, where as a frame relating to the sound might not be 'seen' for another 10 - 45 ms after the audio was heard. Which is why some players can react (or pre-empt) at very high speeds (if they play to use 3D positional audio to their advantage).

SLI / Crossfire may actually buffer 2-4 frames ahead too, but if the frame rate is +70% to +90% higher for a given scene then it keeps pace. However SLI / Crossfire at the 'same' frame rate (eg: higher res, more FSAA, etc) will have more frame-draw latency (often around 50 ms before 'current action' frame is rendered) and this actually disadvantages players using high resolution / FSAA, but only in CQB, at long range higher resolution is typically more desirable.



One of the reasons I've researched so much into this, is because I once wanted to make a 3D FPS MP engine that cancelled out 'all' forms of lag, so long as network latency was 125 ms or less. Via making all even slightly accurate weapon aiming take around 50 - 125 ms to occur, much as it does in real-life and some military simulators.

Lining up a pixel with someones head, and not modelling the ballistics accurately (eg: a 250m shot requires more aim up, different style, compared to a 50m shot, and the round will take noticeable time to hit the target).

Even at muzzle velocity a round at 600 m/sec will take over 400 ms to hit its target, if the target is moving then one must 'lead' the target before letting off a round (sniper rifle or not). This is assuming the round doesn't decelerate too, which is also incorrect, but more simple to model in a fast paced MP FPS.

It is unlikely I'll ever make such a MP FPS, but with any luck, one day, maybe some-one else will use these ideas in their own FPS, or a very anti-cheat Open-Source MP FPS.
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 7:22:25 AM

Caping your framerate at 30fps would not gain you anything. All it would do is make your gameplay less fluid. I fail to see how holding your systems performance back would be a good thing?
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 7:27:10 AM

No worries, just wasn't sure if I understood you correctly.

As long as the point is understood it's all good.

Main thing to remember is that there is no hard and fast rule as for what is acceptable to everyone, it's a question of situation and the number of people who see differences. Games are adding features like motion blur to help improve the appearance of fluidity, of course it's more GPU intensive to do that, so depending on the penalty for adding that effect it may be a case of improving one aspect at the cost of another, like if the framerate drops from 45fps to 20fps due to the added stress of properly rendered motion blur, then maybe the original 45fps without motion blur may have looked better before.

Anywhoo, this question has been discussed many times here, and while alot of people think they have THE answer, there really isn't just one single answer for all scenarios/games.
December 4, 2006 7:34:52 AM

Well done. Thank you for so politely presenting the fine details. I stand corrected.
December 4, 2006 7:38:07 AM

with my fps always in 30, i will never see a frame down and the game will never frag and will be more fluid

Quote:
Anywhoo, this question has been discussed many times here, and while alot of people think they have THE answer, there really isn't just one single answer for all scenarios/games.


said everything
December 4, 2006 7:42:01 AM

Oh these are the answers: :lol: 




Recommend Firefox or MSIE v7 for easy 1:1 zooming.
While most players were on 1536/256, same ISP, and similar distance from the data centre, a different configuration can knock off 15+ ms of 'game ping'*.
*(Not to be confused with network ping, as one includes frame draw delays, etc while the other is for a packet of size 'x' bytes to get to/from two points).

8) - Tabris:D arkPeace
December 4, 2006 7:45:58 AM

'game ping' thats a interesting thing, that's a real term?
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 8:00:57 AM

LOL!

Yeah, but that's a different question all together.

PING rate is different from single player screen drawing. In online gaming with high ping latency your opponent moves long before you see them move, and in most cases, you're dead before you see yourself being shot at.

It's like trying to play a video game on a PC capture card that introduces a 1 second delay into the picture, absolutely terrible to watch, especially for driving games, sports games and such.

BTW, anyone with a ping rate as high as that Steve guy (300+ms) should be bumped from the server, although he's mostly hurting himself, I hate when the games get laggy and yet my ping rate is around 50ms, but it's because of a few 200+ players that everyone gets a bit slow.

Anywhooo, time for sleep or else my response time in the morning will be affected. :lol: 
December 4, 2006 8:05:26 AM

i know about it, the famous LAG, but

Quote:
*(Not to be confused with network ping, as one includes frame draw delays, etc while the other is for a packet of size 'x' bytes to get to/from two points).


lag is not the network ping?
December 4, 2006 8:20:15 AM

for me
30 fps EWW stutter!

45 fps MORE

60 ... looks god.. but

80+ YAY! smooth action


i play my games at 120Hz as well, even tough my fps always random trough 50-80 D:
December 4, 2006 8:25:50 AM

I wonder what sorta ping you would get on T3...

offtopic Meh!
December 4, 2006 8:36:46 AM

Network ping is just normal PING:C:\>PING www.internode.on.net

Pinging www.internode.on.net [203.16.214.17] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 203.16.214.17:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 26ms

C:\>PING www.internode.on.net -l 128

Pinging www.internode.on.net [203.16.214.17] with 128 bytes of data:
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=128 time=31ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=128 time=29ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=128 time=31ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=128 time=31ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 203.16.214.17:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 30ms

C:\>PING www.internode.on.net -l 512

Pinging www.internode.on.net [203.16.214.17] with 512 bytes of data:
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=512 time=46ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=512 time=46ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=512 time=47ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=512 time=47ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 203.16.214.17:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 46ms

C:\>PING www.internode.on.net -l 2048

Pinging www.internode.on.net [203.16.214.17] with 2048 bytes of data:
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=2048 time=112ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=2048 time=111ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=2048 time=113ms TTL=57
Reply from 203.16.214.17: bytes=2048 time=114ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 203.16.214.17:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 111ms, Maximum = 114ms, Average = 112ms
PING will always differ with packet sized used, less so on 100/100 (up/downstream) Mbps full-duplex links or faster, and NETWORK PING does not incorperate any additional latencies added by a games multiplayer component, as a game is just a giant loop, with heaps of sub loops sometimes spun off as seperate threads.

For example on a 100/100 Mbps link, the delta between larger and smaller packets becomes much closer:
C:\>PING 192.168.0.20

Pinging 192.168.0.20 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.20:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms

C:\>PING 192.168.0.20 -l 512

Pinging 192.168.0.20 with 512 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=512 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=512 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=512 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 192.168.0.20: bytes=512 time=1ms TTL=30

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.20:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms


GAME PING by comparison includes many extra lines of code not strictly related to the universally accepted 'PING'

Games typically use UDP too.

100 identical pings tell you very little, except about fluxuations in ping over time (as it'll take ages)

10 pings of one size, and 10 pings of another size (20 in total) typically tell one much more.

8) - Tabris:D arkPeace

When comparing pings, do not compare PING to GAME PING, as packets used in games will vary from 64 to 256+ bytes in size, while standard 'network' PINGs are 32 bytes.

It is for these, and many others reasons, that the PINGs from one application (eg: Half-Life 2) can not be compared to another application (eg: the OS PING utility).

But getting back onto the subject at hand, look at the 2 screenshots above, notice my 'game ping' is a good 20 ms below everyone elses, despite having almost idential hardware (from router to ISP, to Data Centre), by going back to stock settings and similar video card to everyone else my game ping returns to 50 - 55 ms. The 2 above screenshots were taken from a quad-core (2 x dual-core) Opteron 270 on a Tyan K8WE with a Radeon X800 XL, while other players were using GeForce 6600 GT and Radeon X700 (Pro) cards.

This (the fact that system + video hardware alone can impact pings in games*) is one reason why gamers desire a higher frame rate.
*(but not PING from the command prompt).
December 4, 2006 6:47:42 PM

Something I didn't see addressed or I missed it, running your monitor at 60hz can be extremely annoying, I know it is for me. With other light source's in the room you can see the flicker which I do.
December 4, 2006 7:11:41 PM

Thats true. When a game goes from liquid to jumpy unexpectedly, it can screw your gameplay up where-as having a constant. You get accustomed to it. Though at 30, I'd be forced to use vsync as 'ripping' becomes very noticable.

Gotta tell you though, there's nothing like playing a first person shooter @ 75fps. Realism.
The ping to fps ratio is 1ms/100fps or 100/1000. 100fps can give you a theoretical ping of 0 (yet, you'd need to be on the same network to achive that) where as 70fps give you 30ms, 50fps/50ms. 23fps/77ms.
!