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.
Why do people feel 60fps is so important?
- Thread starter bryjoered
- Start date
Ikmalhidayat
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 100
- 0
- 10,690
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
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
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
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
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.
Ikmalhidayat
Honorable
- Aug 30, 2012
- 100
- 0
- 10,690
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
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
bigbasedrum
Honorable
- Mar 23, 2012
- 247
- 0
- 10,690
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.
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.
deathengine
Distinguished
- Oct 31, 2010
- 182
- 0
- 18,710
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.
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.
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.
Personally, I could never go back. Anything below 50FPS average, time to upgrade. Quickly.
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.
So I'm not really a big fps freak. So getting nice and smooth game play is all that matters to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bigbasedrum
Honorable
- Mar 23, 2012
- 247
- 0
- 10,690
@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.
bigbasedrum
Honorable
- Mar 23, 2012
- 247
- 0
- 10,690
determinologyz
Honorable
- Sep 21, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 11,460
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.
ibjeepr
Distinguished
- Oct 11, 2012
- 632
- 0
- 19,010
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.
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.
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram