Do people really need 60+ FPS?

B

BlackTigers91

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
2,620
To game? I've picked up BF2 on my Geforce 6150, and, well, yeah. I've never seen the light of 40FPS. But, one thing I did notice...


I can game perfectly fine at around 25FPS. Sure, I get dips into the single digits (smoke), but thats the only time i feels weird. So, I guess my question is, do people really need to have 60 FPS to play the game properly? Or is it just something nice? Can higher frames help you game?



I have no idea, this 6150 is the best card I've ever seen.

(Oh, and if this turns into flamefest, I'll just lock it. I want serious discussion.)
 
In a word, yes. Once you see it, you appreciate it. Hell, I remember 20-25 FPS original CounterStrike back on my K6/2-400 and Voodoo 3 3k.

Then I got my own computer and played. Oh. My. God.

Assuming you have a decent monitor with a decent refresh rate(CRT), you'll definitely see the light once you taste the rainbow.

I've got a 6600GT and I can still tell the occasional jerkiness with BF2. Then I saw it on a guy's 7800GTX.

*wipes drool away*

So yeah. Frame rates PAST 60 are purely performance since most human eyes can't detect the difference. However, up to and including 60 is the sweet spot.
 
I spent about two weeks with my CPU and video card not overclocked because of a power supply issue I was having. My frame rates in COD2 dropped from ~55 average to ~40 average.

There was a *big* difference playing the same levels against the same people.

I got my new power supply, went back to my original overclock, and now I'm back at ~55 average. The difference is night and day.
 
people say that better fps gives them better performance and scores. But I dont think so.

I still owned the same amount in BF2 with 30fps and a 6600gt as I do with 75+fps and a x1900xt. :)

As long as its not choppy I tend not to worry about my fps. I got into a bad habit of using fraps to measure my fps, and if it was low then I would get worried. I swear, at some times i would spend more time worrying about my fps than playing the actual game.

Now I just play and not worry about my fps unless i notice slow downs.
 
Wow, I honestly did not know it was that much of a difference :(. I guess that if I get used to low frames, I may be in for a treat if I can ever afford a GPU!
 
Low framerates are fine for playing RTS games and the such. But if you are playing a First Person Shooter or anything Multiplayer then you need the extra Frames Per Second just to be able to compete.

I always lower my in game settings so that I will never dip below 30fps no matter how intense the screen action. When I am forced to drop my resolution so much that it looks ugly then I upgrade.

60 FPS is not needed but I prefer to hover around that level to accomodate the big dips of heavy on screen action.
 
for me, I don't really need 60+ all the time, but I want steady frame rates, that's all I need :D
 
human eye can detect up to 75 fps.. so once you hit that mark, shoot for quality and you'll have the best experience you can gaming.
 
people say that better fps gives them better performance and scores. But I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can no, but some people can, for one to say their is no differnce, maybe for them, but they certainly do not speak for everyone else, so you dont think so, that is fine, but that doesnt mean other people cant.

i can notice a diff, i can tell when i drop to 40ish from a steady 60FPS (vm2025xm and an x1900 XT @ XTX) vsync on.
 
Its also nice to have a graphics card that can produce more than 60FPS so it will last longer for future games.
 
BlackTigers91 said:
Please you guys, serious in here.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the poster above me, but I was speaking in all seriousness. Perhaps this speaks of the culture of "excess" prevalent in the Western world, but in general people desire their products to have a healthy amount of leg room. Do people need limosuines? No, but it adds a certain sense of style and flair to have plenty of room. People don't need 65" television sets, but it's a helpful feature to be able to sit nearly as far back as you could ever want. People don't need pants that are overly baggy, but they often allow for more air circulation than tighter pants.

And in the same vein, people don't NEED their cards to run at 90FPS. However, it's a guarantee that their game will be smooth. If they run into a high-effect area that may give them a performance hit, they will have enough slack that the presentation will continue to be smooth. If nothing else, it's bragging rights. After all, are you [H]ard or...? ;)
 
I know in TFC that aiming at 30-40 fps is more difficult than aiming with a solid 60 fps.
 
chinesepiratefood said:
I guarantee you when i play cs i easily notice the difference from 60 to 85 fps, and 85-100
Click to expand...

yep especially in CS:S is when u need ALOT of frames becuz chances are that if ur getting 60 frames then in a firefight u drop down to a point where it u die from it.
 
It all depends on the game I'm playing. In fast games like Quake III, I can't stand playing it lower then 125 FPS. In games like BF2, 40 FPS is great. Aslong as it's consistent, and doesn't eraticate, the gameplay is fine.
 
I play twitch shooters (UT2k4, WarSow, etc) If I dont have 60+ FPS (Or 100+ with UT2k4) then I'm gonna die. :I
 
You don't need more than 60 fps, but having 60+ is nice for two reasons.

1. In FPS games there is a noticeable difference is how smooth the game plays when you have 60+ fps.

2. It helps for the worst case scenario. No I certainly can't tell the difference between 90 and 110 fps, but when the feces hits the rotating blade, your minimum fps are far more tolerable than going from 60 to 40 fps.
 
It helps in CSS a lot. Playing on my laptop with 25fps vs playing on my desktop with 100fps is night and day. It's a lot more difficult to aim when everything is slower and you have to make very quick movements.
 
60 fps for fast action games, 30 fps for slower paced games like Oblivion. Also, a consistent 60 fps is the key. A game averaging 60 fps but bouncing from 30-90 fps is a big disadvantage.
 
Long as the game don't dip below 25fps and hover around 40fps is good enough for me... And no jerkiness... It don't matter if you have 80fps when in some sections of the game your FPS is in the teens...
 
It's simply another bottleneck in the overall gaming experience. Saying that because 40fps is playable, you don't need to get a better card is like saying if someone can play and do a decent job in CS using a dialup connection, why should they go to broadband?

Sure, you might be able to get used to the connection speed and begin to anticipate movements a little....that's adaptation...but as soon as you experience something better, you'll realize that it could help you be a better player. 55fps in BF2 is great, and even if it dips to 40 in heated combat, so what? You can still play and do well.

But the same player who can do well with dips in framerates could probably do better if they had a minimum 55fps. Not only does it look smoother, but it will play smoother. That shot that just missed the guys head by a hair might've hit if the framerate had stayed higher, giving you better visual feedback as to where you're aiming.

Of course, if framerate isn't what's limiting you, 15fps won't make a difference. Short version is, try it on someone else's PC without buying new hardware. If it helps, if you like it, then decide whether or not it's worth it.
 
To be honest, I think FPS is 100% preference. I'm not that picky about FPS, I can play a game perfectly fine with 30FPS and have no problem, my friend moans and bitches if its not 100+ FPS in CS:S. (It is on this machine, but not on his :p). It's all how you view the game and adapt to it. You will adapt to playing games at low FPS if it's all you can get.
 
Does your television screen flicker? thats 30FPS. Do florescent lights flicker? thats (I think) 60Hz. How about regular light bulbs? 120Hz.

Lets estimate that you have a ping of about 100ms. Thats basicly 10Hz.
unless your framerate drops to 10FPS your internet connection is the bottleneck... if your ping is more like 50 (yeah, right...) then 20FPS would be the limiting number....

I personally think 30 FPS is good. 40 fps is better.... but its your worst fps drop that you should worry about.... so to get that around 20, you'd probubly need 60FPS most of the time...
 
Some people really can perceive more screen updates per second that others, in the same way some people can perceive quality differences with audio frequencies near 200KHz.

If as an average we all can percieve 75fps, under some circumstances you can be at a disadvantage if you cannot get 75fps and your opponents can.

Take for example playing twitch shooters like Quake or CS.
If you spin round 180 degrees really fast in 1/20th of a second, with 30fps you will get just over 1 screen update before the spin is complete.
If someone was parked to the side of you unseen (could be close or far away), you would be likely to miss them as you turned round because they might not even appear on screen.
At 75fps you will get at least 3 screen updates while turning, giving you enough information to see anyone hiding.

We need the high fps for the monitor to display the environment as you spin.
Higher refresh rates will allow you to turn faster and still see what is around you and will be of definite benefit to those lucky people who really can see higher refresh rates.
 
Depends on the game engine, some run smooth at 30fps and some well don't and you need a much higher framerate to ensure smooth gameplay..
 
Aelfgeft said:
In a word, yes. Once you see it, you appreciate it. Hell, I remember 20-25 FPS original CounterStrike back on my K6/2-400 and Voodoo 3 3k.

Then I got my own computer and played. Oh. My. God.

Assuming you have a decent monitor with a decent refresh rate(CRT), you'll definitely see the light once you taste the rainbow.

I've got a 6600GT and I can still tell the occasional jerkiness with BF2. Then I saw it on a guy's 7800GTX.

*wipes drool away*

So yeah. Frame rates PAST 60 are purely performance since most human eyes can't detect the difference. However, up to and including 60 is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...


False, it's subjective depending on person to person. A more realistic limit would be anything past 100fps. In css and ut I need at LEAST 60fps.
 
this is the [H] afterall

if someone could get 3500fps out of their computer and monitor, they would. end of story.

I'll happily stick with my 60fps and vsync ;)
 
i think its assurance to have over 60fps in games.
if i was getting 30fps in a game built today, i would worry that i'd probably have to upgrade my vid card very soon.
 
I prefer the extra FPS as a cushion, an indicator that DX10 aside, my system is good for a while longer. If I get 121FPS average in FEAR with 2xAA/16xAF (yes the FPS is better with 2xAA than 0xAA, but gets horrible with 4xAA and up) and 120FPS in Doom3/Quake4 with 8xSAA/16xAF, then I know that as far as DX9 games go I'm good
 
In FPS games there is a literal performance difference when it comes to FPS. It might be game engine dependant but I've tested how fps can effect your game. I had 100fps solid in cs and timed how long it took for me to unload a full clip. Then I locked my fps at 60 and there wasn't much of a difference(sub second difference). Then I locked it at 30. There was almost half a second's difference in the time it took to unload the clip. Just throwing that out there. I play with vsync in at 60 fps and I stay at it pretty solid unless there are millions of smoke bombs or something along those lines.
 
Here's a little link about the human eye and fps.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Do we really need 60fps? Obviously not for the OP. But then think about this, When you're playing BF2, it's all good when you're moving forward or changing aim a little. 25fps is enough. But when you have to turn 90 degrees or 180, those 25 fps...oh man does it seem choppy. And what do you think is happening with the other guy while your fps is chopping? That's right, he's aiming at your head while you're still chopping to see who shot at you. You also have to think about eye strain. Do we really need 60fps? Then do we really need 85hz+ refresh rates for CRT's? Hell yes. For me, even 85 wasn't enough. 100hz was better. I don't know about the rest of yall but if I had to game at 25fps, I'd rather not game cause it'd just hurt my eyes too much.

But we really don't NEED 60fps. Just like we really don't NEED optical mice..and wireless devices. But life sure is sweeter with them.
 
If my fps is below 60, i can notice a difference, and I really dont like playing games unless I have a higher fps because it messes up my accuracy when shooting or w/e.
 
Not only does it look better, I like speed. And lots of it. I don't aim for outrageously high fps, but rather to never drop below that line of 60 and what not. That's how I usually justify it, by getting great low numbers, and not sweating the high numbers, since a dip into the 20's will drive me crazier then a drop to 80 from 100.
 
Wow, this I did not know about the twitch shooters and such. Oh, and that 25 FPS doesn't seem choppy to me, but unfortunately I think that's just because I became accostomed to it. Ah well, maybe the x850xt I'll be ordering will provide better performance :-p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top