minimum fps for gaming, what do you think?

I'd prefer having native resolution with dropped settings on my ol' lappy here.
Crysis sure was a pretty slideshow though.

It depends what game I'm playing, but for first person shooter games I like a minimum of 40fps, I can deal with 25 to 40 frames min on crysis.

Depending on game but in RPG or other slow stuff i'm fine if there are no drops below 20 fps, for fpses i'm happy with 30+.

15fps.

for me it depends on the games.. but anywhere from 40-60fps is fine with me in single player.. crysis for example im fine with 25-30fps but some games feel laggy as hell even at 50fps.. but in multiplier i try to keep all my games between 50-60fps..

as long as the game feels okay I dont care about the actual framerate. some games are choppy at 30 while others feel fine. also some games feel sluggish no matter what the framerate is.

According the the film industry, 24 fps is the minimum for fooling the eye into seeing fluid motion. With computer graphics, I would say nothing lower than 30 or so.

24 fps is not enough to fool the eye. During pans in a lot of movies I see:

Blurry image - HITCH - 2nd blurry image - HITCH - 3rd blurry image - HITCH

In theaters they flash each frame twice to try to overcome this.

As for games, I like it smoooooth. Tearing kills my willful suspension of disbelief so v-sync is always on. I use D3DOverridder to enable triple buffering.

It's not so much what the frame rate is, it's the swing between highs and lows. That's part of why I use triple buffering, you don't have the instant 60fps to 30fps peaks and valleys. But generally for a single player game I'm ok with the occasional dip into the mid twenties, for a competitive game - 60. I try to tweak the settings so that I can keep it from ever dipping below the refresh rate of my monitor.

I absolutely get bothered if I get below 60. I like to keep it high. I swear I can tell if it gets below 60.

I like to have minimum FPS close to 60, that way when I turn Vsync on everything looks smooth like gravy. Running RE5 with a 5870 OCed to 975/1300 was sweet. Running it on a 5970 was even better. And 480 SLI makes Just Cause 2 run rock solid even with all the goodies and vsync turned on.

I know that turning vsync off gives you a higher average FPS but I don't like the tearing effect, particularly with fast video cards. Much rather have triple buffer vsync with all settings cranked. ^_^

Minimum frames for fooling the eye into thinking images are fluid motion doesn't mean that it is optimal.

Our LCDs are different than movie projectors. Movie theater projectors need to eliminate the flicker. 24 unique frames isn't terrible. If 24 unique frames per second wasn't enough for movies there would be a lot more complaining and a push for a new standard.

Any one that says that they need 60fps to be happy really has is worried about frame rate, paying attention to it and looking for it. They are the type of people that would have a game pegged at 70+ fps and still need to re-check the frame rate because it doesn't SEEM smooth to them.

Crysis really isn't that bad at low fps. But faster spin around and shoot shooters are the ones were it would be 'nice' to have more. Competitive gamers at 40-50fps are not at a disadvantage except if they let it get to them. Most of our monitors really suck anyways even beyond blur and lag.

Funny how the film 24 fps standard always pops up in these discussion, that never dies out. The naturally captured motion blur during film exposure of fast action makes for less demand of fps. Games are discrete frames with no natural motion blur to link the images together. If film industry used extremely short exposure times you would need much higher fps to counteract the unnatural stuttering we'd perceive as a result.

Anyway, 40 fps minimum to feel comfortable in a FPS, in a slower game like an rpg 30 fps is ok.