Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why do people feel 60fps is so important?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 15, 2012 4:37:01 PM

I was just wondering If I'm the only PC gamer that can't even tell the difference between constant 40fps an constant 60fps. Even constant 30-35 fps seems playable to me. Certain games I have played are locked at 30fps, and they feel fine to me. I know that a card at max power only producing 30fps avg, would drop below 30 sometimes, and I feel that below 30 is when I feel the game is unplayable, but when you're getting 30 or above at all times same crap to me whether it's 40fps or 170fps.
November 15, 2012 4:49:44 PM

well, based on the game GTR Evolution and nfs prostreet (played with low end gpu). i always get around 25-40fps with respective setting (more to gtr and less to nfs). both games don't have motion blur effect. ok, heres the explanation based on this game

with fraps for calculating the fps, when i played, i notice some noticeable changes. when playing below 35fps, the game looks static, not smooth, both of the game. however, when going beyond 48fps, i start feeling so... good. so realistic. it feels like im in the game. the game speed is totally fast yet smooth, has motion blur effect (not by the game setting, by our eye trick self). try to play the nfs prostreet or nfs shift 2 or nfs shift with motion blur disabled. try with lower setting to archieve beyong 50fps with screen refresh about beyond 60Hz. you will sees the difference.

so hard by explanation. try yourself

[edit] if you prefer, see my video when i playing nfs prostreet (ignore everything except the gameplay) http://youtu.be/RPJi3jupQX8
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2012 5:01:16 PM

psychological effect..

you can't describe it..but you really feel it.. :D 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2012 5:02:50 PM

This web page gives an excellent example of what the difference is.

15fps, you notice looks a bit odd.
Compared to 30fps, it looks really smooth and nice. 30Fps looks great.

When you hit 60fps, when you compare them you again notice that there is a really smooth feeling to it.

30fps is decent, certainly playable, but when you've got '*** hits the fan' action going on, having twice the frame-rate is where it REALLY makes a difference in playability.

That being said, having FPS jumping between 30-60fps is in my opinion worse than a solid 30fps. Having 60fps is only important if it can be kept consistent.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

November 15, 2012 5:12:39 PM

2843935,4,921341 said:
This web page gives an excellent example of what the difference is.

15fps, you notice looks a bit odd.
Compared to 30fps, it looks really smooth and nice. 30Fps looks great.

When you hit 60fps, when you compare them you again notice that there is a really smooth feeling to it.

30fps is decent, certainly playable, but when you've got '*** hits the fan' action going on, having twice the frame-rate is where it REALLY makes a difference in playability.

That being said, having FPS jumping between 30-60fps is in my opinion worse than a solid 30fps. Having 60fps is only important if it can be kept consistent.

o yeah... i also feels that. especially gtr evolution. sometimes, the fps bump from 35 to ~55 fps, the games smoother. but when thats happens, the game lag for about 0.1~0.25 sec (freeze in blink of eye, but noticeable). even worse when going down from ~55 fps. kinda disturb me. well, only happens to this game lately. other games (like nfs prostreet) are not that appearing (especially when running below 25fps, called 'unplayable' like cod4, codmw3a, nfs shift 2)(shift 2.. trust me, like 10~15fps even at lowest setting...)
November 15, 2012 5:30:53 PM

Ok, I kind of understand what you mean. I was also referring to people stating that they play multiplayer shooters and the like better when they get 60fps, but I've tested this on BF3, I get about 50 on average on ultra and it never really drops below 40 and when I put it on high I get into the 70-80 range and I'm definitely the same skill. Just average player by the way people on the PC bf3 seem to have endless amounts of time to play and I can't compete. Nvidia says 40 fps is what you are looking for when tuning graphical settings.
November 15, 2012 5:41:25 PM

well, actually, 60fps does not that improtant. just somebody personal choice. i want quality or fast just like that. but for me, i want to balance it like reasonable framerate (20~35fps) adn average quality. for me, that great. but when comes to racing game, i want it as smooth as possible. i must obtain 30fps or above for racing.

as for shooting like codmw3, cod4, sniper elite v2, i want bit high on image quality yet reasonable fps like 20~30fps for me.

well, again, because of our personal choices.

more useful videos http://youtu.be/JBN5MNpYWlY
November 15, 2012 6:05:28 PM

Keep in mind that most monitors run at 60 Hz so theoretically, at 60 FPS all the electronics should play nice nice with each other! BTW it has been proven that humans can actually see way beyond 60 FPS, whether it will improve smoothness beyond say 50 FPS, that is debatable. However, as a general rule, 60 FPS is considered important because:
A: Then there is an absolute guarantee that EVERYONE will see it as smooth. At 40 FPS some people still stay its not smooth. (Personal friend of mine has protested many times.)
B: It is in anyway the limit of most monitors. So aiming for say 75 FPS would be irrelevant since most monitors can only display 60 FPS.
November 15, 2012 6:23:14 PM

I personally can really notice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS when panning left or right in a game.
60 FPS lends its self to a certain smoothness and its much more fluid to look at. Also, screen tear is like daggers to my eyes, so 60 FPS locked is beautiful to me. Anything over that is just overkill for me.
November 15, 2012 6:34:15 PM

This is why I bought a 680. Solid more or less 60/70FPS at 1200p is liquid, everything feels exceptional. Plus, in shooters especially FPS will drop down to 50 and even 40 for a few seconds before springing back up. You don't won't that with 30FPS.

Personally, I could never go back. Anything below 50FPS average, time to upgrade. Quickly.
November 15, 2012 6:34:59 PM

Personally I think it matters on the game. Some games I used to notice would show "high" dps 60+ (and never dip below 50) and it still wouldn't feel right. While others would be at around 30 and be smooth as butter at all times.

So I'm not really a big fps freak. So getting nice and smooth game play is all that matters to me.
November 15, 2012 6:43:55 PM

60 fps average isn't important to me.

It's the minimum fps of around 30 that matters to me. I like 60 fps because it allows for me to compensate against dips. For instance, I care more about making sure no time between frame is more than around 30 ms than what the fps is.
November 15, 2012 7:03:53 PM

bryjoered said:
I was just wondering If I'm the only PC gamer that can't even tell the difference between constant 40fps an constant 60fps. Even constant 30-35 fps seems playable to me. Certain games I have played are locked at 30fps, and they feel fine to me. I know that a card at max power only producing 30fps avg, would drop below 30 sometimes, and I feel that below 30 is when I feel the game is unplayable, but when you're getting 30 or above at all times same crap to me whether it's 40fps or 170fps.



I couldn't agree more. This whole overclocking thing has become nothing more than a giant pissing contest. Anyone who believes their game is more fun at 60FPS is subconsciously trying to justify the enormous price they paid to achieve it. Start looking at the ages of the OC participants and it will make more sense.
November 15, 2012 8:26:22 PM

ram1009 said:
I couldn't agree more. This whole overclocking thing has become nothing more than a giant pissing contest. Anyone who believes their game is more fun at 60FPS is subconsciously trying to justify the enormous price they paid to achieve it. Start looking at the ages of the OC participants and it will make more sense.


I've never been a fan of overclocking, even if you do get a light performance gain ( and it almost always is marginal) I just dont' think it's good for your card to be pushing maximum power at all times. Similar to having a car in the red section of RPMS? I am aware that people overlock their systems and still maintain "safe" temps on the card, but I just can't believe that it doesn't effect the potential lifespan of your card. The differences between high and ultra is just so subtle in the majority of games, I mean If I can get 40fps and push it to ultra I will, but I'm not gonna sacrifice 20fps just to see a smoother edge around my virtual character's pinky finger. Not worth paying an extra 200$ to push every single possible game to ultra either.
November 15, 2012 9:56:21 PM

bryjoered said:
I've never been a fan of overclocking, even if you do get a light performance gain ( and it almost always is marginal) I just dont' think it's good for your card to be pushing maximum power at all times. Similar to having a car in the red section of RPMS? I am aware that people overlock their systems and still maintain "safe" temps on the card, but I just can't believe that it doesn't effect the potential lifespan of your card. The differences between high and ultra is just so subtle in the majority of games, I mean If I can get 40fps and push it to ultra I will, but I'm not gonna sacrifice 20fps just to see a smoother edge around my virtual character's pinky finger. Not worth paying an extra 200$ to push every single possible game to ultra either.



You are absolutely right. The more you stress any piece of electronic equipment the shorter its lifespan. Your analogy to engine RPM is spot on. I make the same comparison to over stressing PSUs all the time but few want to hear it.
November 15, 2012 11:48:08 PM

I though about overclocking when I built my new system, then decided I couldn't be bothered. Went with an H77 board and an i5 3470, sunk the rest into a 680. Excellent decision. OC isn't really worth it anymore. Sure its fun and all that but stock speeds are fast enough for Sandy/Ivy so meh.
November 16, 2012 1:06:31 AM

Boys will be boys. In my day it was who had the fastest car.
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 16, 2012 2:56:07 AM

For myself there is something else I did not see mention. I get nauseous at FPS below 80, though 60 fps is not bad. 30 FPS causes me to get sick almost immediately. From the best I can tell, the latency caused by low FPS is the cause of me getting nauseous.

The reason I believe it is the latency, and not directly caused by low FPS, is because I do not get nauseous when watching cut scenes that are rendered in real time. It only happens when controlling the view in a near first person view, by the mouse.

That said, after you get used to having 80+ FPS, you notice that the scenes look a lot choppier at lower FPS, mostly because we notice something is different than you are used to.

For many years, until a couple years ago, playing first person games used to make me sick. I loved playing 1st person games, but I was always getting sick. It wasn't until I get a super powerful system that I learned that I did not have to feel sick when playing games.
November 16, 2012 3:48:00 AM

@bystander: Just a small question, I mean no offence. Have you tried playing games in 3D on your pc? Do you then get sick again?
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 16, 2012 4:12:43 AM

bigbasedrum said:
@bystander: Just a small question, I mean no offence. Have you tried playing games in 3D on your pc? Do you then get sick again?


I do, and often. Like I said, it's not bad at 60 FPS, but it is still present. It kind of goes like this:
At 30 FPS, I feel nausea within 1-5 mins.
at 40 fps, I feel it within 10-15 mins.
at 50 fps, it may take 30 mins.
at 60 fps, it takes about 45-60 mins to feel nausea.
when I reach near 80+ FPS, I can pretty much play all day.

When I game in 3D, I play in 30-60 min. sessions. If I play longer, I feel sick.
November 16, 2012 3:44:02 PM

Aaah okay makes sense. Since 3D is equivalent to say 50-60 FPS.
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 16, 2012 3:56:08 PM

bigbasedrum said:
Aaah okay makes sense. Since 3D is equivalent to say 50-60 FPS.


In 3D, my 120hz monitor becomes 60hz per eye. So the max I can achieve in 3D is 60 FPS, so it's very much like 60hz in 2D as far as my simulator sickness goes. At least it feels that way.
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 6:33:40 PM

Ikmalhidayat said:
well, actually, 60fps does not that improtant. just somebody personal choice. i want quality or fast just like that. but for me, i want to balance it like reasonable framerate (20~35fps) adn average quality. for me, that great. but when comes to racing game, i want it as smooth as possible. i must obtain 30fps or above for racing.

as for shooting like codmw3, cod4, sniper elite v2, i want bit high on image quality yet reasonable fps like 20~30fps for me.

well, again, because of our personal choices.

more useful videos http://youtu.be/JBN5MNpYWlY


25-35 frames in any game just doesn't look at that swell..Try it in skyrim and you will see why 60 fps is better..Need for speed at 30 frames runs but it still looks jumpy compared to 60 fps. Works like that with most games i would rather take 60=smooth gameplay over 30=smooth but jumpy/choppy frames.
January 7, 2013 7:43:15 PM

60 fps is I think is an extention of the 60 mhz monitor refresh rate reasoning.
You want your monitor to refresh at 60 mhz minimum because it reduces eye strain. It presents a smoother image to your eyes even if you can't really notice it consciously. I personally feel that 70 mhz is the minimum a monitor should run to minimize flickering and reduce eye strain.
Now, for the gaming aspect it is basically the same argument however it is far more important to have your monitor refreshing faster than having your game running faster. A 30 fps game on a 60 mhz monitor while still look fairly smooth and reduce eye strain versus a 60 FPS game on a say a 40 mhz monitor. Higher FPS in a game should still look smoother unconsiously and thus you think it looks better.

Part 2 of the higher FPS arguement is that the higher your max FPS is then the higher your mininum FPS will be. So essentially you put more distance between your lowest FPS and the 30 FPS recommended minimum.

Thus brings us to 120 mhz monitors for gaming which I hear presents a very smooth feel to the game play if you can get your FPS that high but even if you can't, as long as you are going over 60 FPS in the game then having the monitor display more of those frames should be an advantage. Even if it's more a subconsious feel than a visual one.
January 7, 2013 8:47:25 PM

I can game at 24+ fps and feel good about it
a c 132 U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 8:52:09 PM

I feel like people desire 60 frames per second because when you reach that point in a game you know that you can have a extremely stable environment in a game. But by any means you don't need it to enjoy yourself in a game.
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 8:55:26 PM

with 60fps+ ur gonna get smooth gameplay anything under is gonna feel jittery, well ull see this mostly in shooters, other games like rts and rpg maybe less important, but def in shooters u want a minimum of 60fps to have that fluid gameplay and performance.

January 7, 2013 9:04:59 PM

iceclock said:
with 60fps+ ur gonna get smooth gameplay anything under is gonna feel jittery, well ull see this mostly in shooters, other games like rts and rpg maybe less important, but def in shooters u want a minimum of 60fps to have that fluid gameplay and performance.



Complete B/S.
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 9:08:45 PM

ram1009 said:
Complete B/S.


I honestly dont think its bs. When i play even at 50 FPS its still smooth but you get that bit of semi jerky in between frames unless you really looking for it its hard to tell but with 60 its smooth as ice theres a difference. Some will argure on this but as for me i want games to run smooth as possible no matter if its a shooter,rpg,rts,sports,fighting etc.
a c 132 U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 9:10:00 PM

I mean I get what he is trying to say I don't think its complete. I feel hes just trying to say that the experience will be typically smoother due to the fact that the game won't be struggling as much as it would with a card that wasn't able to push a higher frame rate. However that being said it isn't limited to 60 fps different games have different points where you go from playable to smooth. Why don't we calm down and enjoy ourselves like this guy :p 

a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 9:13:18 PM

bigshootr8 said:
I mean I get what he is trying to say I don't think its complete. I feel hes just trying to say that the experience will be typically smoother due to the fact that the game won't be struggling as much as it would with a card that wasn't able to push a higher frame rate. However that being said it isn't limited to 60 fps different games have different points where you go from playable to smooth. Why don't we calm down and enjoy ourselves like this guy :p 



LOL this was crazy to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h29lOEoEi48
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2013 9:51:43 PM

thats not bs, i used to play competetive gaming, u need 60fps in shooters to be at ur best, also if u read what i said depends on the game, but for shooters 60fps is a must for fluidity and maximum performance.

February 4, 2013 3:43:13 AM

really didn't want to bring this back from the grave, but check this website out

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

can definitely notice a difference. even at 120fps on a 60hz monitor is noticeable.... cool right?
a b U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 4:03:30 AM

60 fps is just smooth,fluid and lifelike..I mean 30fps is cool to but its not the same
February 4, 2013 5:27:46 AM

The human eye can see past 120fps. I personally notice a huge difference between 60fps and 30fps. My minimum is 45 in heavy environments (ex planetside 2). It's not a placebo effect 60fps makes a huge difference as well as 120fps.
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 5:50:27 AM

Like I said before, another big part of what makes a game feel so much more fluid at 60 FPS and even 120 FPS, is the reduced latency. It takes 33ms of time between moving your mouse, have the GPU render and display it and add in the monitors input latency as well, and it starts to feel like molasses at 30 FPS. The time is cut in half at 60 FPS, and to 1/4 at 120 FPS (you need a 120hz monitor for this).

While I can see a difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, it is small, but I see a large difference in the response time of moving the mouse and it responding to those movements.
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 5:56:04 AM

I found something a bit interesting with this test: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
(it'll require a 120hz monitor for what I propose, but if you have one, try it).

Rather than adjusting the speeds of the ball that moves across the screen, I found I see a much more noticeable improvement from 60 FPS to 120 FPS when comparing the background side by side. To do it, you just have to open up two different versions of the page, remove the balls, shrink the pages so you can see both sides easily, side by side, then adjust the speeds on one to 60 FPS and the other to 120 FPS. Now adjust the speed to at least 200 px/s, otherwise there isn't enough movement to notice much.

It is very noticeably jerky with the 60 FPS version. This goes with the idea many people have mentioned about 1st person games, particularly FPS games, show a more noticeable improvement. While isometric games do not.
a b U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 8:45:26 AM

Well I play at ~60 fps but I used to play games in ~30 fps before my new rig and I can't say it's a REALLY noticable difference. Anything below 30 starts to feel like a slide show but I think we all can agree on that so it does make huge difference for me that there's no chance I will drop below 30 in big battles.

I keep hearing about people playing shooters insisting that they need >60 fps to be able to play at all and I call B/S on that.
February 4, 2013 1:13:21 PM

Mahisse said:
Well I play at ~60 fps but I used to play games in ~30 fps before my new rig and I can't say it's a REALLY noticable difference. Anything below 30 starts to feel like a slide show but I think we all can agree on that so it does make huge difference for me that there's no chance I will drop below 30 in big battles.

I keep hearing about people playing shooters insisting that they need >60 fps to be able to play at all and I call B/S on that.



It's total BS, getting a constant 60 fps will not make you a better player than someone who gets a constant 30. I even tried lowering the settings in BF3 to see if it makes a difference. I play on ultra with 2xmsaa on a gtx 560 and get 45-50fps, that never seems to dip below 30 and I play just fine. When I lose it's because I'm having a bad day, or someone is better than me, not my framerate, that is ridiculous.

The people who swear by 60 fps are the same people the make graphics card companies like nvidia so much money because they always by the absolute top of the line card.
a b U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 1:30:51 PM

bryjoered said:
It's total BS, getting a constant 60 fps will not make you a better player than someone who gets a constant 30. I even tried lowering the settings in BF3 to see if it makes a difference. I play on ultra with 2xmsaa on a gtx 560 and get 45-50fps, that never seems to dip below 30 and I play just fine. When I lose it's because I'm having a bad day, or someone is better than me, not my framerate, that is ridiculous.

The people who swear by 60 fps are the same people the make graphics card companies like nvidia so much money because they always by the absolute top of the line card.



Well there's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic and wanting the best rig and the highest fps but saying that it makes a huge difference in gaming experience and gameplay to have fps at >60 is just plain wrong. The most entertaining moment is when you meet some gamer claiming he has like constant 70-80 fps and that's his reason for playing well and then it turns out that his screen is only 60 hz when you ask him. lol.
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 4, 2013 2:26:45 PM

bryjoered said:
It's total BS, getting a constant 60 fps will not make you a better player than someone who gets a constant 30. I even tried lowering the settings in BF3 to see if it makes a difference. I play on ultra with 2xmsaa on a gtx 560 and get 45-50fps, that never seems to dip below 30 and I play just fine. When I lose it's because I'm having a bad day, or someone is better than me, not my framerate, that is ridiculous.

The people who swear by 60 fps are the same people the make graphics card companies like nvidia so much money because they always by the absolute top of the line card.


Assuming you use a mouse to turn and that mouse polls at 2ms or better, yes, 60 FPS can make you a better player than 30 FPS for many people. 30 FPS makes it harder to aim. There is a horrible delay between moving the mouse and having it actually move on the screen. You may not notice this with auto aim, or xbox controllers, but with a mouse, it changes a lot.

For myself, this is so big that I get sick and will vomit within minutes of playing at 30 FPS. I don't mean this figuratively, but literally. It takes 80 FPS before I no longer notice a difference and stop having nausea problems.

Just remember, while you may not be sensitive to this latency, many others are.
February 14, 2013 3:14:29 PM

bystander said:
Assuming you use a mouse to turn and that mouse polls at 2ms or better, yes, 60 FPS can make you a better player than 30 FPS for many people. 30 FPS makes it harder to aim. There is a horrible delay between moving the mouse and having it actually move on the screen. You may not notice this with auto aim, or xbox controllers, but with a mouse, it changes a lot.

For myself, this is so big that I get sick and will vomit within minutes of playing at 30 FPS. I don't mean this figuratively, but literally. It takes 80 FPS before I no longer notice a difference and stop having nausea problems.

Just remember, while you may not be sensitive to this latency, many others are.


You probably should not be playing games if they literally make you vomit, you might have some type of medical condition. No, they don't make you a better player, because I've personally tested it. I was playing bf3 at 50 fps, I turned the settings down to get over 60 and it made zero difference whatsover. Any latency that you notice is due to your INTERNET CONNECTION. No human being can notice a latency of 2ms for god sakes. That's kind of why ping is good at anything less than 100. These are just percentages of one second we are talking here. I'm not saying the game may not look a little smoother at 60/80/120 fps, I'm just saying the difference once you get past 40 fps are NEGLIGABLE. Not anything that's going to drastically effect you gaming experience. The difference is in your head, the mind is a very powerful thing.

So, I assume you vomit everywhere, when you are playing your friends console games then? Consoles play at 30 fps and you don't here them complaining about framerate in droves like the PC crowd. Using a mouse makes no difference at all, the game is vastly different once you go below 30 fps, but anything above is a smooth playable picture in 99% of games. You want to shoot for around 40 just so you can account for fps dips. It's in your head save your money guys, you don't need quad sli 680s...

Just one, yeah I said one, 680 is enough to max any game in existence and still be a perfectly playable good gaming experience. At 1080p at least, which is the gaming standard. The only reason to get 680 SLI is for a multi-monitor set up or those uber resolution monitors.

Haha I just reread how you called a 2ms delat "horrible" you are truly insane my friend. I mean think about it 0ms is essentially instantaneous. So, your saying that you notice a 2/1000th of a second mouse delay, do you have robot eyes? Ah, you were talking about the polling rate, mine is 1000 so 1ms. Still, it's in your head or you have some seriously funky nausea problems that I've never heard of before, maybe your epileptic?
February 14, 2013 3:41:45 PM

bystander said:
Like I said before, another big part of what makes a game feel so much more fluid at 60 FPS and even 120 FPS, is the reduced latency. It takes 33ms of time between moving your mouse, have the GPU render and display it and add in the monitors input latency as well, and it starts to feel like molasses at 30 FPS. The time is cut in half at 60 FPS, and to 1/4 at 120 FPS (you need a 120hz monitor for this).

While I can see a difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, it is small, but I see a large difference in the response time of moving the mouse and it responding to those movements.


Also with this point you are talking about 33ms here. 33 1000ths of a second, even added with internet latency of normally around 60ms, that's 93ms (93/1000Ths) It's just not noticeable man I don't care what you say. Think of how fast 1 second is, now divide that by ten, this is what you are talking about here! Human beings cannot detect differences like this, if you do notice it it is much much higher latency than that!

Added to this even if you do notice it (you don't) the other player would also have latency to deal with and even if he had a super advanced rig and was achieving better latency than you the difference would not make a difference as to the outcome of that fight. Enjoy spending your hard earned money on performance that you don't need, unless you run multiple/high resolution monitor set ups.
February 14, 2013 4:19:25 PM

Once you go 60 you never go back.
February 14, 2013 4:50:09 PM

That's the point I went 60, and couldn't tell the difference and neither can most (Console gamers). Enjoy wasting your money.
a b U Graphics card
February 14, 2013 8:29:38 PM

bryjoered said:
That's the point I went 60, and couldn't tell the difference and neither can most (Console gamers). Enjoy wasting your money.




You couldnt tell a difference between 30 and 60fps? Hell i saw a difference in skyrim on console 30fps then went to pc 60fps and the difference is there clearly
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 14, 2013 9:18:01 PM

bryjoered said:
You probably should not be playing games if they literally make you vomit, you might have some type of medical condition. No, they don't make you a better player, because I've personally tested it. I was playing bf3 at 50 fps, I turned the settings down to get over 60 and it made zero difference whatsover. Any latency that you notice is due to your INTERNET CONNECTION. No human being can notice a latency of 2ms for god sakes. That's kind of why ping is good at anything less than 100. These are just percentages of one second we are talking here. I'm not saying the game may not look a little smoother at 60/80/120 fps, I'm just saying the difference once you get past 40 fps are NEGLIGABLE. Not anything that's going to drastically effect you gaming experience. The difference is in your head, the mind is a very powerful thing.

So, I assume you vomit everywhere, when you are playing your friends console games then? Consoles play at 30 fps and you don't here them complaining about framerate in droves like the PC crowd. Using a mouse makes no difference at all, the game is vastly different once you go below 30 fps, but anything above is a smooth playable picture in 99% of games. You want to shoot for around 40 just so you can account for fps dips. It's in your head save your money guys, you don't need quad sli 680s...

Just one, yeah I said one, 680 is enough to max any game in existence and still be a perfectly playable good gaming experience. At 1080p at least, which is the gaming standard. The only reason to get 680 SLI is for a multi-monitor set up or those uber resolution monitors.

Haha I just reread how you called a 2ms delat "horrible" you are truly insane my friend. I mean think about it 0ms is essentially instantaneous. So, your saying that you notice a 2/1000th of a second mouse delay, do you have robot eyes? Ah, you were talking about the polling rate, mine is 1000 so 1ms. Still, it's in your head or you have some seriously funky nausea problems that I've never heard of before, maybe your epileptic?


The US Army did a study on simulator sickness, and found nearly half their participants suffer from it. It's not a medical condition, just a common problem. Some are more sensitive than others.

You also failed to see the point that not everyone is the same, and while you may not notice a difference, others do. You also failed on your test. The difference between 50 FPS and 60 FPS is small, but the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is huge. As your FPS go up, the less of a difference it makes for most people.

Playing a 1st person game using a mouse to aim at 30 FPS causes me to constantly over shoot my aim points, because it is constantly behind, and this has the same feeling on me as motion sickness does. Notice, I said me, and not you, obviously it doesn't bother you, but you are not everyone. I find at 50 FPS, games become responsive enough that I won't play any better beyond that point, however, I will still experience simulator sickness, but it takes about 30 minutes before I get nauseated. It takes a 120hz monitor and 80+ FPS to not get nausea at all. That is how sensitive my constitution is. I know that is not the norm, but it is not uncommon either.

NOTE: I used to play a lot of MMORPG's. I have run into several people in my guilds that refused to play first person shooters because they also got sick. You may not have heard much about the problem, because most people who have this issue just don't play those games with you. I used to rarely play them until I learned that high FPS fixed the problem. Now I can play them.

It is also interesting to note that most those people playing MMORPG's that got sick playing 1st person shooters were also keyboard turners. The problem we have does not show up unless you are turning with a mouse, where your view feels like an extension of your body. Console controls don't give you the same feeling.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2013 11:34:43 AM

bystander said:

NOTE: I used to play a lot of MMORPG's. I have run into several people in my guilds that refused to play first person shooters because they also got sick. You may not have heard much about the problem, because most people who have this issue just don't play those games with you. I used to rarely play them until I learned that high FPS fixed the problem. Now I can play them.

It is also interesting to note that most those people playing MMORPG's that got sick playing 1st person shooters were also keyboard turners. The problem we have does not show up unless you are turning with a mouse, where your view feels like an extension of your body. Console controls don't give you the same feeling.


Hmm very interesting claim. I also have that problem actually. i played lots of games with different play styles/genres. For years, i couldn't play action games (especially FPS) and always wondered if i have some kind of sickness. It is a relevant claim if frame per second has a role in this, and i find it logical
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 16, 2013 2:07:49 PM

technoholic said:
Hmm very interesting claim. I also have that problem actually. i played lots of games with different play styles/genres. For years, i couldn't play action games (especially FPS) and always wondered if i have some kind of sickness. It is a relevant claim if frame per second has a role in this, and i find it logical


For myself, the cause is the latency between moving your mouse and it updating on the screen. The longer it takes to render a frame, the longer it takes to update the image, causing more latency. You should try increasing your FPS, and see how you feel.
February 26, 2013 3:29:29 PM

I even tried it out guys across multiple genres and I still can't really tell the difference. Ok I do now agree that just 30 fps is too low for a smooth experience. I can achieve 30 fps in far cry 3 on ultra without AA and it noticeably lags at certain points and I just bump it down to very high preset to get that extra 10-15 frames and after that it always seems smooth to me. I bumped it down to low to achieve 60+ and the difference between very high at 40 fps and low at 60fps were not detectable. Both are equally smooth playing experiences to me. My final conclusion is you want 60, because then it really has no chance of dropping to 30, but 40 is usually pretty playable as it will only rarely drop into the 30 fps range. I still think that at 40 fps, I could own a guy playing at 120fps if i happened to be better than him, it's about the skill not the fps.

I mean even nvidia and ATI surmise that 40 fps is the sweet spot that you want to reach. Not to say that 60 fps isn't technically "better" because of course it is, but it terms of playing experience it's marginal at best and only in the the most crazy chaotic frame rate dipping situation would it be needed to have 60. We are talking like really rare occurrences here. So I guess in that case the PC elitists win, if you are in a situation in bf3 where there is like 50 players clustered up 100s of explosions tanks helicopters the 40fps might dips slightly below 30 and the 60fps player would have the edge, but for most situations it don't mean squat
!