Why are people so obsessed with fps? I don't get it. They won't play certain games if it's not 60fps, and go crazy when their new card hits 63fps. Hell, I prefer to play some games at lower fps. Sometimes higher makes it seem more "video gamey" for lack of adequate articulation.
The difference is really noticeable between 30, 60 and 120 FPS.
I think 60 and above is really cool.
number go up mean game better. is why ps1 game better than genesis game better than nes game etc.
Most NES games probably run at a higher framerate than most PS1 games. NES typically ran slightly over 60, though some games ran at 30 for reduced lag.
Sega Genesis games play better than most ps1 games today imo
At what point does fps increase become unnoticable?
Diminishing returns really start hitting about 200 but its perceptible well beyond that. Our eyes can spot insanely quick flashes but have trouble discerning quick changes in low contrast situations. Theres no true "framerate" for our vision.
the human eye cant see above 24 fps, thats why movies target that
i played around 60 fps for years then got a 144 hz monitor and definitely noticed a difference between 60 and 144. cant say for anything higher though
after around 90 there's no real difference imo
The point of no benefit at all is still unreachable with current hardware, but the higher you go, the less returns you get for the same lump sum of FPS increase. For me, the diminishing returns start to slowly kick in around 90 fps, going up is still noticeable, but it becomes pretty subtle from 90 -> 120 and beyond that it’s very subtle feels.
after ~200, but 144hz is enough for 99% of people. when 240hz monitors are locked to 200hz, no one notices a difference.
For RTS and videos = Past 90
For casual games = Past 120
For racing games and FPSs = Past 180
Anon in the case of videos only youtubers go above 30.
Movies are 24, animation is something between 8 to 24 in a case to case basis
I've seen people animate higher than 24, but I hang out with animators.
He means anime, where on 1's is the highest you get which is 24.
Yeah but that's for like, passion projects and the like. Not commercial shit of any kind, it takes too much time and money
>3rd person controller
60
>3rd person kb/m
~140
>1st person kb/m
200
>3rd person controller
Complete moronic bullshit from the kind of idiot that plays third person melee action games with a mouse and keyboard and pretends it's better. 60 to 120+ is hugely noticeable in action games with a controller.
Personal experience is around 100FPS is when the visual difference is very hard to spot, but I can still feel a difference, depending on the game, until about 120FPS+ in FPS games especially.
It also seems to vary by game, I see the term "frame pacing" thrown around a lot but don't fully understand it, I'm sure there are technical details I don't get.
for example, when I play Hunt Showdown, 90FPS looks and feels perfectly smooth for some reason, but when I played OW2, I had to reduce graphics settings to get 300FPS to eliminate the feeling of input lag.
>for example, when I play Hunt Showdown, 90FPS looks and feels perfectly smooth for some reason, but when I played OW2,
Character movements velocities and therefore angular speeds needed for tracking if movement is several times different for these games.
arround 350fps if your screen is 240hz
It depends - human eyes doesn't work like a flat fps receptor. Your peripheral vision for example can detect flickers at less than 1/100s of a second, however central vision doesn't get close to that and maxes out between 30 to 60. It also obviously vary from person to person.
Do that mean you absolutely need 100+ fps though? If you use an ultra-wide monitor and play games where twitch reaction is good (i.e. most shooters then yes). But if you only use 4:3 aspect ratio on a 24'' screen then you don't even use peripheral vision.
Above 144 fps its difficult to perceive with proper blind test. So it cut off range for immersion (single player) games
But for shooters performance continue to grow past 144 too 240 and 360 fps range even if players can't consciously feel the difference. So for hardcore competition shooters gaming there is no practical limits.
At 30 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/30=33.33ms
At 60 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/60=16.67ms
At 75 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/75=13.33ms
At 100 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/100=10ms
At 120 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/120=8.33ms
At 144 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/144=6.95ms
At 240 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/240=4.17ms
At 400 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/400=2.5ms
At 520 fps you get one frame every 1000ms/520=1.92ms
As you can see the monitor refresh rates and fps start kinda giving diminishing returns at 120 and faster but still playing Fartnight at 520fps on a 520Hz refresh monitor will be mush snappier than at 144fps 144Hz.
The percentage differences is 360%
The percent diff of 60fps to 144fpts is 240%
Went from 30fps laptop to 60fps display, felt like a new world
60hz to 144hz was very noticeable, I couldn't believe displays could be this smooth
144 to 200 I didn't notice anything
For me, I can feel it's smoother but above 120 barely matters
t. bought a 240hz like a moron
around 180+ for me
I literally did not find any difference between 120 and 165
beyond 60 for most games, unless you play some really sweaty FPS shit then 144 is ok.
i cap everything at 60 cuz i'd rather had my gfx card last another 10 years than burn it out in 2 years running shit at 144.
I start noticing diminishing returns on monitor above 50-55 and in vr above 100
Anyone who says the see above 60 fps are genuinely moronic. It's like they think they're some wine sommelier but for videogames able to distinguish imaginary bullshit because they have some trained sense that makes them special. No you cant distinguish 60 from 120. You're full of shit and nobody is impressed
I can tell the difference.
>No you cant distinguish 60 from 120
You should test your eyes
How you perceive fps has nothing to do with your eyes but your brain, brainlet.
ITT: third worlders
A ladel is like what, a dollar?
a dollar, nothing
someone could have carved a fricking ladle
Well of course. That’s the main pc demographic
I unironically don't mind playing 30fps action games, but a smoother fps/refresh rate for menu navigation/browsing is very important to me. Can't frickin stand sluggish menus and cursors.
none of you have even seen higher than 60, why comment on something you're too poor to experience?
144hz monitors cost less than $200. that's less than 2 day's work at murican minimum wage.
guess what, Ganker is full of mexican teenagers who can barely afford a playstation
let alone a high refresh rate monitor and a PC to drive it
something something $25 bag of shit.jpeg
I'm fine with 30-60 as long as it's consistent. Fluctuating between 40-60 is worse than a constant 30.
Many people misunderstand the different sensitivity thresholds, such as "Humans can't see above 75Hz" -- but that is only a flicker threshold. The purpose of this post is to show that there are extremely different orders of magnitude that refresh rate upgrades do address.
Even in a non-gaming context, one thing many people forget is that there’s many thresholds of detectable frequencies.
These are approximate thresholds (varies by human), rounded off to nearest order of magnitude for reader simplicity of how display imperfection scale.
Threshold where slideshows become motion: 10
This is a really low threshold such as 10 frames per second. Several research papers indicate 7 to 13 frames per second. This doesn't mean stutter disappears (yet), it just means it now feel like motion rather than a slideshow playback.
Example order of magnitude: 10
Threshold where things stop flickering: 100
A common threshold is 85 Hz (for CRTs). Also known as the “flicker fusion threshold”. Variables such as duty cycle (pulse width) and whether there’s fade (e.g. phosphor fade) can shift this threshold. This also happens to be the rough threshold where stutter completely disappears on a perfect sample-and-hold display.
Example order of magnitude: 100
Thresholds where things stop motion blurring: 1000
Flicker free displays (sample and hold) means there is always a guaranteed minimum display motion blur, even for instant 0ms GtG displays, due to eye tracking blur (animation demo = https://testufo.com/eyetracking). The higher the resolution and the larger FOV the display, the easier it is to see display motion blur as a difference in sharpness between static imagery and moving imagery, blurry motion despite blur free frames (e.g. rendered frames or fast-shutter frames).
Example order of magnitude: 1000
Threshold for detectable stroboscopic effects: 10,000
Where mouse pointer becomes a continuous motion instead of gapped. This is where higher display Hz helps (reduce distance between gaps) and higher mouse Hz (reduce variance in the gaps). Mouse Hz needs to be massively oversample the display Hz to avoid mouse jitter (aliasing effects). If you move a mouse pointer 4000 pixels per second, you need 4000Hz to turn the mouse pointer into a smooth blur (without adding unwanted GPU blur effect).
Example order of magnitude 10,000
Response time
It might "feel" faster to you, but your brain can't actually process those picoseconds dude
FPS is not just visual it directly translates to how inputs are registered and you absolutely can feel a difference between 30 and 60 in that regard
Visually there is a clear difference between 30 and 60 too
i was totally on this "frick the difference" with my 60 hz monitor and then i saw my brother's new 144hz monitor playing mw2
lol, what did it for me of all things was using an iPad with the 120hz mode on for a few minutes. The smooth scrolling blew my mind
gaming = fun
more fps = more gaming
therefore
more fps = more fun
Thats not fun, thats enjoyment. There’s a difference, and the difference between using the right and the wrong word is bigger than the difference between 30fps and 60.
lol you can easily notice above 60 in standard desktop just by moving your cursor around and dragging windows about.
FPS directly affects gameplay responsiveness
Although anything above 60 is not a huge difference
The difference between 30 and 60 is significant though
It's a symptom of the diminishing returns in graphical improvements. Notice that nobody talked about framerates until the past few generations when the graphics haven't improved much. They just always need to have something to graphics prostitute about, and FPS is the current thing to pretend to care intensely about. There always has to be some numerical value for them to obsess over. That's all it is.
who gives a frick about graphics lmao
its a marketing gimmick while framerate actually improves the gameplay
low frame rates give me headaches, playing Drakengard 3 brings up feelings of nausea. I'm pretty good at 30 but higher is pretty much better
So you haven't been able to play video games up until relatively recently? All the sub-30 FPS games from past decades are unplayable for you?
3D games? yeah pretty much. I could only play Goldeneye as a kid for like 20 mins. Same with Zelda OOT.
Not everyone is playing on console
And yes, playing games at higher framerates makes it harder to go back. And especially on an OLED or even a fast LCD (which you're more likely to be playing games on nowadays), the inherent sort of judder you get with sample and hold especially at low framerates becomes apparent (since there is less transition smoothing) and is fairly headache inducing
That image makes no sense, one second is always one second, you can't squeeze more time in it
You are probably a Black person zoomer which plays with a controller. You wouldn't understand
Should I upgrade from 60 to 144 or go from 1080p to 1440?
both
you can find decent 1440/165 panels for a decent price
Both.
The former, if you don't mind getting a smaller size screen.
Framerate matters for actual games. Go back to your snoyslop snoygger
>why do people want more video in their video games
>4k 120hz
>1440p 240hz
What do you choose?
4k 120 Hz.
4K. 120hz. What kind of moron would want something that's not a multiple of 1080p?
I just want developers to stop coupling input polling with render frames. There's no excuse for input lag.
>smooth, rock solid 30 fps
>good, competently made motion blur that hides any image-processing imperfection
>high sensitivity to compensate for any perceived "delay" between input and output
>PS1-PS2-PS3 users didn't bat an eye 'til the eighth generation came into existence
>excluding the severely autistic tech nerds, 00's pcgaymen also didn't care that much, happily consooming their 30fps-locked ports
What happened to gayming, my fellow Gankerermins? Am i just out of touch?
Bad framerates were definitely noticeable during the PS3 days.
Hell, they were especially noticeable then since that's when people started switching from their CRTs to LCD displays which were complete dogshit back then.
>people fell for the early 00's LCD craze
Sucks for them, lol.
>>PS1-PS2-PS3 users didn't bat an eye 'til the eighth generation came into existence
Yeah, people didn't bat an eye at Bayonetta on PS3 running 15fps.
>PS2
>sub 60
Many PS2 games--including big ones like MGS2, DMC3, Gran Turismo 3 and 4, ZOE2, SSX, and Burnout 3 & Takedown--ran at near or locked 60.
>00's pcgaymen also didn't care that much, happily consooming their 30fps-locked ports
putting up with it =! happy
>Am i just out of touch?
You never were in touch to begin with zoomer. And PS1 games didn't use "motion blur" whatsoever to compensate for "image processing imperfection. Goddamn zoomers are shit liars
So when will we get a display that emulates natural motion blur with our sight?
Frame rate gays are the new graphics prostitutes. They care more about jerking off to their computer hardware than playing games.
High refresh monitors are hit and miss, but sub<60 FPS looks like fricking dogshit. Playing at lower texture or display resolution is infinitely preferable to a low or inconsistent frame rate
There's nothing wrong with 30, I don't even notice the difference between 30 and 60 unless it's a game with performance and resolution modes and I'm flipping between them.
Put a random game on and I couldn't tell you if it's 30 or 60, it just doesn't matter.
You're a moron or a blind and I do not care which.
>There's nothing wrong with 30
Spoken like a true controller-pleb.
>Why are people so obsessed with fps?
Because after playing a stable 60, you can't go back to sub-30, and after playing 120, you don't want to go back to 60. You'll understand when you build a PC instead of playing on your Switch.
60 is actually important in some games like an online competitive game but otherwise depending on the artstyle you can go lower. What i hate is people watching anything other than sports or news in 24+fps. Shit looks terrible in movies and tv shows. If they have to be artificially added you’re watching it wrong
>Why are people so obsessed with fps? I don't get it. They won't play certain games if it's not 60fps, and go crazy when their new card hits 63fps
Because it feels better dipshit
>Hell, I prefer to play some games at lower fps. Sometimes higher makes it seem more "video gamey" for lack of adequate articulation.
Because you lack the adequate intelligence to speak let alone play vidya. You don't critique a game for being "gamey" just like you wouldn't call a fiction book too "noveley" unless you wanted to sound moronic.
Also 60 used to be the standard zoomer.tard
>You don't critique a game for being "gamey" just like you wouldn't call a fiction book too "noveley" unless you wanted to sound moronic.
lit critics do that all the time though. obviously they don't use the word noveley because that sounds moronic, but the concept is the same. eg the count of monte cristo is often criticized for being "just a very good novel" as in, it's well written and entertaining but doesn't reach the heights of capital L literature because it doesn't go beyond that.
It looks too much like a video game and the illusion is broken when that immersion is broken. Cyberpunk does this for me, I like to play it at 40fps otherwise the vehicles and flying cars look too artificial and cartoony.
Is that better homosexual?
Anything higher than 24fps looks awkward. Modern games should have a frames limiter as a standard.
Because 30fps vs. 60fps is very noticeable for a motion-heavy game like platformers or 3D games.
If it's a 2D walking simulator RPG, 30fps is acceptable (but again, those games usually run very well on modern hardware anyway, so you don't gain much by reducing the framerate).
stable 30fps is perfectly fine for controller users
sar there is no seeing of frame above 60