Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A Question on Frames per Second...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 20, 2006 4:27:13 PM

hey guys, if a game is running smoothly, how many fps is it running at???
when i say smoothly, i mean running at a respectable rate, and not being very jerky...
thanks, Raph

More about : question frames

December 20, 2006 5:06:54 PM

An average framerate in the 40s or 50s is ideal, assuming the framerate never drops below 25 fps when things get messy.
Related resources
December 20, 2006 6:19:01 PM

Quote:
anything higher than 20 should be fine if your using D3D or OGL. if its a movie you want it around 30


That's kind of backwards.

A movie is good at 24fps because it has motion blur which compensates for the low rate.

Games don't have motion blur (and the ones that simulate it don't do it accurately), So you need a higher framerate for smooth motion with D3D or OGL...

Like I said, ideally it shouldn't dip below 25 fps, and should average over 40. That's smooth gaming.
December 20, 2006 6:59:14 PM

Aren't you ultimately limited by your monitor refresh rate? Ie there would be no discernable difference between 60fps and 160fps in gameplay (though I guess the data making it to the monitor is a little bit newer). Is that the only difference?
December 20, 2006 7:01:15 PM

Like Cleeve said, if it never drops below 25fps, it's good.
December 20, 2006 7:16:55 PM

oh no not another one of these threads :roll:
It varies from person to person but generally anything below 25 is starting to look jerky.
December 20, 2006 7:31:35 PM

Quote:
Aren't you ultimately limited by your monitor refresh rate? Ie there would be no discernable difference between 60fps and 160fps in gameplay (though I guess the data making it to the monitor is a little bit newer). Is that the only difference?


In theory you are, but that's not much of a limitation since anything above 60 fps is pretty much perfect andf definitely playable.

It's the low spots and average that matters, not the max framerate.
December 20, 2006 11:31:48 PM

30fps is generaly the "playable" minimum but for me i can see the FPS till it hits the 50 to 60 rang. and i have absolutly no clue what beer is talking about. Never played any game that looked remotly good at 20fps unless your so use to game sutter that is. and yes he also has it backwords. want totaly smooth game play? keep it at and over 50 fps. 40 might be ok depends on how much you can personaly see.
December 21, 2006 12:17:34 AM

Quote:
Aren't you ultimately limited by your monitor refresh rate? Ie there would be no discernable difference between 60fps and 160fps in gameplay (though I guess the data making it to the monitor is a little bit newer). Is that the only difference?


You are ultimately confined to your monitors refresh rates though 60 Hertz is said to be painfull on your eyes while 75 is prefered.
Quote:

30fps is generaly the "playable" minimum but for me i can see the FPS till it hits the 50 to 60 rang. and i have absolutly no clue what beer is talking about. Never played any game that looked remotly good at 20fps unless your so use to game sutter that is. and yes he also has it backwords. want totaly smooth game play? keep it at and over 50 fps. 40 might be ok depends on how much you can personaly see.


IMO, 35fps really is my prefered bare minimum. If it goes below that, I'm turning something off. :? Fluxuation really kills the gameplay. A steady 45 - 50 wouldn't hurt. I'd take 60 in every game I ever bought for life and after about 70 it's all icing. And call me a judgemental bastard but I can see a difference from 60 to 70 8O Though it's not sufficient enough to make a difference within the gameplay.
December 21, 2006 10:42:17 AM

If you always play 60fps, then you maybe notice a difference. I always play around 30's and its fine for me, but above 50-60 i cant see the difference either , this depents on the game to. enemy territory and cs1.6, i DO see a differense between 50 and higher.

But i always aim for 25fps, except in online shooters.
December 21, 2006 11:37:27 AM

playing above 60fps?

Doom3, Prey, quake 4 are limited at 60. also playing games like HL2 there is no difference between 40-50-60 fps i mean come on .. even with a 7900gt it's hard to do it and it's not worth it anyway because you are limited by the refresh rate.
December 21, 2006 1:32:12 PM

Quote:
I always recommend 30 for movies because if you are using 60Hz refresh rate you will want to have the movie play in the same phase as the ref rate. other wise like you said it can get blurry and stuff


That's what Inverse Telecine (pulldown) is for...

Quote:
with the 3D games I have noticed most of them look ok when its higher than 20 FPS. there are some that have problems at ~20 FPS but not allot of them. I have also seen some games that look ok below 20 FPS. but then again only a few


I can't imagine a good experience playing a first person shooter at 20fps. Unless maybe you mean 20fps minimum and an average framerate higher than that.

You can get away with games that aren't 'twitch' based, like RPGs, at lower framerates though...
December 21, 2006 8:38:00 PM

Quote:
If you always play 60fps, then you maybe notice a difference. I always play around 30's and its fine for me, but above 50-60 i cant see the difference either , this depents on the game to. enemy territory and cs1.6, i DO see a differense between 50 and higher.

But i always aim for 25fps, except in online shooters.


Oh hell ya, for top downers 20fps would work fine.

Quote:
Doom3, Prey, quake 4 are limited at 60. also playing games like HL2 there is no difference between 40-50-60 fps i mean come on .. even with a 7900gt it's hard to do it and it's not worth it anyway because you are limited by the refresh rate.


Dude, can you say head room? Say you get 100fps at tops, well when something in the game happens that is demanding upon your GPU, you could drop to 20fps. 200fps tops may hit 60fps minimum and thats the true focus, the minimum.
40fps is smooth, it's ture. Though you need head room, even though your monitor doesn't display over 60 - 75fps. When you play Doom 3 at 20fps and jump to 60, you'l notice how much easier it is to play the game. Your reaction time gets better also, probably because we don't have to use the high bandwidth 'gap filler' option within our jello filled brains. :?
December 21, 2006 9:13:50 PM

As a FPS player, I find 100 is the magic number to shoot for. Its not hard on the eyes, and many cards can obtain that for older games like doom.

The minimum as blacken says, is the most important spec as that will make or break the playability of a game.
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2006 9:41:34 PM

Is that 100fps average? If its minimum, then for newer games either you need 2 8800s or nice low graphics. My 9800 pro can get over 200fps in FEAR, when I play at everything minimum and 640x480 res :lol:  Wow is it smooth, but wow does it look bad. If it wasnt for the resolution I would say that FEAR still looks "good" (relatively) at low graphics than other games do at the same relative graphic level. But anything lower than 1024x768 is not acceptable, even with 4xAA.
December 21, 2006 9:47:58 PM

I was talking average...

The game I play is Sof2 (soldier of fortune 2) and I lock the fps at 100, though I have tried many different fps. The 8800 will push the game to 2000 fps.. .which is stupid fast.
December 21, 2006 9:52:28 PM

R E D R U M
  N O R T C E L E
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2006 9:55:55 PM

Stop "murder[ing] electron" its setting a bad example for other sub-atomic particles.
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2006 9:57:16 PM

Quote:
I was talking average...

The game I play is Sof2 (soldier of fortune 2) and I lock the fps at 100, though I have tried many different fps. The 8800 will push the game to 2000 fps.. .which is stupid fast.

2000fps............ I should dream more often. The tearing would be so bad you wouldnt be able to see.
December 21, 2006 10:00:19 PM

naw, not really, I didnt play at that rate very long cause you can only do it in single player mode. Multiplayer servers wont send you info that fast and your game will just lock up.
December 21, 2006 10:13:44 PM

Has anybody here played games where they had 10 FPS? Am I the only one? Lol, I guess I was the only idiot who bought Intel integrated graphics on my old Dell. :D 
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2006 10:37:52 PM

Quote:
Has anybody here played games where they had 10 FPS? Am I the only one? Lol, I guess I was the only idiot who bought Intel integrated graphics on my old Dell. :D 


yes i play f.s.x. it will tax a gpu.
December 21, 2006 11:20:08 PM

ya. I think Oblivion got about 10fps on my previous card. annoying isnt it?
a c 259 U Graphics card
December 21, 2006 11:36:45 PM

A crt monitor at 60 refresh rate WILL bother your eyes. 75 will mostly fix it, and 85 is best. This is because a crt monitor needs to redraw everything each cycle. Most lcd monitors are at 60 cycles, and look fine. They only need to redraw changed pixels.
I play few motion based games, and am surprised that 30fps seems adequate. I learn something new every day here. It also seems to me that those VGA cards and systems able to deliver over 60fps on a CONSTANT basis might be a bit of overkill.
December 21, 2006 11:55:38 PM

I ignored him, and i dont even get email updates when he replies.
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2006 12:01:02 AM

i ignore him too. he is going to get banned if he doesnt chill out.
December 22, 2006 12:16:17 AM

i've been below 15fps before, after i experienced 30+ i can never do that again

as for personal opinion on fps, here are my standards

30fps: the bare minimum, should never run below 30

45fps-60fps: this is the standard, the ideal frames i like to run, i aim for this number in everything

61+ fps: always great to have but not really necessary unless you're one of the few people who can see the difference between 60 and 70 frames.

Human eye can't see past 60fps so whats the point in running any higher
December 22, 2006 12:19:54 AM

you may not be able to see more individual frames per second, but you can tell the game runs smoother. which helps with FPS games.
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2006 12:21:59 AM

how you like your g80 card? its an 88gts isnt it?
December 22, 2006 12:28:26 AM

ya its a GTS.

It is very very quiet, which bothers me (the manufacturer is BFG).
I really like it as an investment, though I dont know that I would spend ~$400+ for any video card. It plays oblivion (main reason for purchase) at 1680x1050 very very smoothly max settings.


I only got it cause they had it at COMPusa, and their warranty option allows me to exchange the card in one year for a full refund, or a new card of equal value at time of purchase.
December 22, 2006 12:40:46 AM

Exactly. If you turn vsync off and get tearing, any variable over you refresh rate helps that. A lot of people advise to set your max fps at your refresh rate, that only works with vsync on - otherwise 75hertz and 75fps slams the frame before and the frame after right in the middle of your screen, resulting in tearing.

A while ago someone did a thread about eye to frames per second relation. Apperently doctors say the eye is capable of about 45 - 50. Could be so. This leads you to believe the difference between 50 and 70 lays on the PC - as comptia said, it makes it seem smoother. Regarding it being the operating system demanding cycles from the CPU, or the amperage on the monitor where-as we can see the difference from 50 to 70.
Beer good, it make you think :)  [burp!]
December 22, 2006 1:08:47 AM

Ok!
I don’t see how some of you are playing with 25fps even 40fps I can’t deal with, as this relates to games that require precision, control, accuracy mainly FPS-First Person Shooters, and Racing Sims, in RTS, RPG etc then yeah 25fps would be bearable and the bare minimal. 8O

1st to answer your question for smooth game play 60fps is ideal, anything below that will be noticeable by the eye, personally I can’t tolerate anything under 50fps for long periods of time, my personal opinion is 30fps is doable for games that don’t require quick and fast responses, racing or FPS (first person shooters) because of aiming issue you would want bare minimal of 60fps, I play UT2k4 and I play with 85fps (as there is a online fps cap) with most things set to max, I will notices a diff in smoothness if it drops below 70fps and below that all I can take is no less than 50fps, anything over 80fps I can not see or notice a diff so my sweet spot is 75fps. :wink:

Is one of the main reasons I can’t stand FPS on counsel, as most run at 30fps, with the new generation of counsels they are at 60fps but because of the HD craze I believe we wont see higher frame rates on counsel for a while, nice thing about counsel though is that it will run at that regardless of what’s going on in game, their may be some slow down here and their but for the most part they run that, I love Grand Trismo but even they have some slight slow down when in a group of cars. :) 

I here some talk about the limitations on fps because of the monitor, I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, that is a v-sync issue, with v-sync on the game will match your fps with your monitors refresh rate, which makes things appear smoother as the monitor is drawing at the rate of the vid card, with v-sync off your monitor may be at say 60 or 75hz refresh rate but in game you may get way higher frame rate as the card is not drawing with the monitor, down side to that is you will get some in game visual tearing as the monitor can’t draw that fast but I find that is not much a problem as this is limited by minimal of 60hz which is equal to 60fps with v-sync on with is pretty smooth. :wink:

I have an older View Sonic monitor A90 and I would like to run high rez but at 60hz my eyes can only take that for a while, I can do 1600x1200 at 60hz, but I run my desktop at 1280x1024 at 75hz and most games at 1024x768 at 85hz, the refresh rate for some of the LCD, TFT etc are not to my liking, there are some CTR’s that can do 85hz at rez higher than 1600x1200 but are a bit costly. :( 

Sorry for the rant!
:p 
December 22, 2006 1:24:22 AM

lol you guys complain way to much. before I got my new comp I was happy getting like 10-15 frames lol. it really didnt bother me. I guess different people have different expectations.
December 22, 2006 1:35:05 AM

I am SO, SO, Sorry.

Nobody should be used to 10 fps... thats computing poverty.

May Xmas be generous to your FPS pocket this year.
December 22, 2006 2:03:05 AM

Quote:
playing above 60fps?

Doom3, Prey, quake 4 are limited at 60. also playing games like HL2 there is no difference between 40-50-60 fps i mean come on .. even with a 7900gt it's hard to do it and it's not worth it anyway because you are limited by the refresh rate.


I could say im surprised but im not. Sucky games always seem to have pointless caps like this for absolutly no reason. Yeah i was saying those games blow my... well anyways.

Hell in hl2 i get up to 400frames in alot of places at 1920x1200 with everything cranked to max settings. which is nice when the dip makes it come down to somewhere near 80. if i was getting what you believe to be to high i would dip around 10 im sure.

Personaly i could care less what anyone thinks about 30fps being playable since its barly so and since you cant say it will always be at 30fps. 60+ is where i try to be idealy i try and get 100fps for games if possible in max settings.
December 22, 2006 2:33:38 AM

Quote:
I am SO, SO, Sorry.

Nobody should be used to 10 fps... thats computing poverty.

May Xmas be generous to your FPS pocket this year.


why thank you. My new comp is very nice and the difference is outstanding. but yeah lol I was used to like 10 frames per second. and I was happy with it lol. I had a Radeon 9600.
December 22, 2006 8:36:47 AM

Quote:
Has anybody here played games where they had 10 FPS? Am I the only one? Lol, I guess I was the only idiot who bought Intel integrated graphics on my old Dell. :D 


Yeah i played 10fps nfsu2 on my old pentium 3 450mhz ^^
December 22, 2006 12:43:19 PM

I think I had trouble running NFS 3 hot persuit on that rig. Granted I only had a 4mb agp card, and I dont remember what it was which is it too bad.

The best NFS game to date is NFS1, or maybe 2 for the multiplayer on the computer.
December 22, 2006 1:47:47 PM

nah, nfs3 was a piece of cake for that pc :D 

it had 384mb ram and a geforce 460mx, so the cpu was a big bottleneck, wich i noticed in almost every game (like nfsu2 :lol:  )

I liked nfs most wanted to, finally out of the dark again with high speed cop chases etc. it was fun ^^
a b U Graphics card
December 23, 2006 3:31:43 AM

You know how v-sync actually lowers performance, not just locking your maximum fps at the refresh rate, I wonder if locking the ingame fps to the monitors refresh rate would have the same effect.
December 23, 2006 4:26:30 AM

Quote:
Has anybody here played games where they had 10 FPS? Am I the only one? Lol, I guess I was the only idiot who bought Intel integrated graphics on my old Dell. :D 

You aren't alone on that. I measured a massive 12fps for most wanted on my comp (check sig!). Oddly enough on 640x480 :oops:  . Even odder, even with the detail maxed, the fps were the same. I'd say my computer is a bottleneck :D  .
December 23, 2006 4:38:48 AM

The max you can visually perceive is around 30 however test have show you mental reaction change up to 60, above that is just bragging rights.

Did your BFG card come with vista driver as I read elsewhere if so PM me.
December 23, 2006 4:57:26 AM

Wasn't quite sure where the reply fell under... so I chose enforcer to be my special someone this holiday season :wink:

Anyways....

I would have to agree with Cleeve with respect to RPG's, they are a very different animal. I constantly survive with 18FPS on my 7900 GTX, and it isn't as much a GPU speed problem as it is a game design issue and how I run the game. When I get into raids.... 8-10FPS is common, with lag spikes I get 0, loading zones 0, lag outs 0, cities are routinely 12-15FPS, so I am no stranger to low FPS'.

In BF2, I survive on 35FPS and I snipe pretty darn well. I have never felt it to be a problem. I have all the "eye candy" turned up and I also believe ping to be just as big a factor as FPS in an online FPS shooter. So while you may have 100FPS, for argument's sake, it would be useless if you are pinging the server at >120ms. Hell, I get pissed off when my ping is in excess of 60ms. I pick servers carefully so I can keep my ping in the double digits. If it starts averaging in the triple digits, I am gone.
December 23, 2006 5:05:10 AM

Cleeve, I (perchance many others) am confused about 'refresh rates' when it comes to LCD's, TFT's, Plasmas, etc...

Now I know that the refresh rate on a CRT is the time that it takes between full screen scans, so a CRT at a 60HZ rate under a 60HZ flourescent will yield poor results and eyestrain... And so to be avoided.

Most of the top end LCD's seem to have a fixed refresh rate of 60HZ, so I would have to assume that refresh rate means something different on digital displays than it did on analogues...

I know that you are busy, but could you please explain what 'refresh rate' actually means in the digital vs. analogue world?

Thanks....
December 23, 2006 5:05:10 AM

A ton of bullshit being spouted here. Clearly very few people know anything about Frames Per Second.

Take a good read of my dissertation on the topic. It is quite old now, but the principles have not changed. http://planetdescent.com/d3help/framerate.shtml

In general, games which have little or slow movement on screen, require far fewer FPS than action packed games like FPSs of all types. In a SIMs type game, you may be happy with 20 FPS or even less - but that same rate in a fast game will leave you dead.

Remember, when playing online too, that FPS adds lag in an inverse relationship: 100 FPS = 10ms extra lag, but 20ms adds 50ms of "Machine Ping".

More is ALWAYS better - with the proviso that your Vertical Sync is disengaged, and that you ahev a high Refresh Rate on your screen. LCD or CRT, it doesn't matter: 60Hz refresh means you can NEVER see more than 60 x A x B (where A and B are the screen resolution with and height) Bytes per second.

A high refresh rate is absolutely crucial for good quality gaming, and this is why LCDs with 60Hz refresh suck donkey testicles for serious FPS action.

Personally, with a decent refresh rate (of 85+ Hz) I find I notice a discernable differences in quality (not quantity!) until the frame rate exceeds 120 FPS. (People can discern objects at 1/200th of a second exposure, so it is bullshit to suggest 50FPS is "optimal".)

I find ANY game running at under 60 FPS to be very annoying indeed, and I can see a 60Hz CRT screen flickering from 50 metres away.

What is necessary, is to understand the way the eye and brain work, and how your hardware works, in order to optimiase your equipment to provide the best gaming experience possible.

Sadly, people spend stupid amounts of money on CPU and GPU and then run the whole lot through a 60Hz LCD and thereby they end up tossing 50% or more of their system's output straight in the trash.

It's an indictment against the entire industry, and a real shame for gamers.
December 23, 2006 5:21:38 AM

IMO it depends from game to game. For example, if u r playing a stealth action game, 30-40 fps is good, but if u r in a fast moving game like a fps or a racing one then u will need to keep framerates between 50 snd 60, see waht the type of game u r playing before jusdginf how many fps u need.
December 23, 2006 9:49:19 AM

Well, ATI will probably outperform G80, then Nvidia will update the card to outperform the original R600. Then, ATI will update R600 to either go neck and neck with Nvidia or outperform it again. The same thing happens over and over again with these two companies.

As far as architecture, the R600 seems like it should be pretty tough. By the way it is designed, the shader architecture should be stronger than the 128 of the G80. The R600 shader arch is like having 256 shaders. Anyway, we will soon find out, and then you clowns can go on arguing like girls and calling eachother names.

wes
!