Do people really need 60+ FPS?

BlackTigers91 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I need 60FPS constant for my LCD.
 
factory81 said:
Well I dared to repeat what I learned in biology or somehing class.

I myself like to think I can notice the difference between 20 and 80fps....but I also will say that I notice it mainly in mouse movement and feedback between me and the game. Only thing visual you notice is that it runs smooth for me until it drops into the teens.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Just google in the term; human eye 24fps

And you get a plethora of results.
I won't say that it is cut and dry humans eye = 24fps. It is just what I was taught by a school system that was perfected by George W. Bush. God Bless no child left behind
:rolleyes:


That one wbesite 100fps says this though, which is very interesting....
If you could see your moving hand very clear and crisp, then your eye needed to make more snapshots of it to make it look fluid. If you had a movie with 50 very sharp and crisp images per second, your eye would make out lots of details from time to time and you had the feeling, that the movie is stuttering.



I think that the whole frames per second issue is a "technology by technology" basis. Because when you learn about authoring dvd's and etc you learn that each frame is actually 2 frames or something. So 30fps turns into 60fps and deinterlacing interlacing....blah blah blah.
I definitley will say the faster the FPS for games the better, and the more stable the fps for games the better.
It is turning in to an old wives tail the 24fps a second theory.
Too many factors....
Bottom line that I will fight for....
You play better if you have a smooth running game. Because your mouse has that many more frames per second to move to the target accurately.
30-40fps is sufficient in my opinion works well for me....anything more and I feel overkill.
Click to expand...

This website is not bad, if it was written by a high-school teenager.

I liked the pictures showing motion blur. Keeps our eyes from noticing the obvious choppiness. Another movie trick...

Anyway, I could write a much better article than this myself!
 
Er, we don't see in FPS. Our eyes are constantly relaying visual information to our brain (an alert *mind* notices more, as long as their eyes are capable), assuming we're awake.
FPS theories, and TV/Film standards based on them, relate to the general threshold at which we're able to assimilate a series of still images into constant motion, providing the motion does not vary too much from frame-to-frame (hence the effectiveness of interlacing and motion blur). You can't compare snapshots to fluid motion - it's fundamentally wrong to say 'humans can see X FPS'.
 
Ranari said:
Do we really need cars that can drive faster than 70mph?
Click to expand...

I usually hit 85-90+ when passing people on the highway, once its in 4th it has more room to go... But my old rig, it was straining to just maintain 60. 55 on its speedometer was in big red letters, as if it were the maximum reccomended speed. Would you push your engines luck when your on the freeway at 70 listening to it howl and beg for mercy, or would you rather have a car thats does 70 at 2000rpm?

Same with games, if you build a rig that can barely do 30 on average, Ill bet money that its going to spend too much time down in the single FPS rate. My rig is fairly low end, 1.8Ghz A64, 1 gig of ram, 6600GT. I can usually do mid 50s in most of my games I play, which came out about a year before I bought this rig (2-3 year old games). Sometimes I see 60Fps, sometimes I see 25... Just depends on what im doing, and how much AA I feel like using that day.
 
i need at least 30fps. I remember learning at somepoint that the human eye really doesn't notice anything past 30fps anyhow. I ONLY notice the decrease when it drops past 30. At the same time - I don't want to settle for 30fps "most" of the time. I don't want to walk into a smoky area and basically become dead meat because the screen gets so choppy...

Not only that, not sure what resolution the OP is gaming at but I like the image to be as big as possible with the best LOOKing graphics. Sure i can use a crappy video card and make a game "playable". But don't forget "enjoyable." Once you get a real card and supporting hardware, you won't want to go back. It all depends on how much you game. I probably game for an hour each day unless i'm outdoors, etc. If I gamed once in a blue moon, I would probably be fine with a lot less of a video card.
 
60 is fine for me. I never saw the need for more than 60fps myself. I'm fine with games at 30 but i can definitely tell the difference. 60 is more fluid. But everyone's eyes are different.
 
I can't say that I "see" any relevant different, however the feel of smoothness is very good to have, 30FPS is "chunky", 45 FPS "medium chunky", 60 FPS "smoothing out", 125 FPS "like silk". ;)

And high fps is a must in fast paced games, think about doing quick turns and looks around corners with 45 FPS and then compare with 125 FPS, there is more chance that your eye could have seen something if interest at the high FPS than at the lower.
 
Thank you Brent that is a load of crap and i have my XPS m1710 hooked up to a 22" crt and i definatly notice a diff between 60-80 and 100-120
 
Uberbob102000 said:
Thank you Brent that is a load of crap and i have my XPS m1710 hooked up to a 22" crt and i definatly notice a diff between 60-80 and 100-120
Click to expand...
I find this VERY hard to believe that you could tell the difference. give me a break...
 
I got used to 120~125fps from Quake3 games where you would move faster with the higher fps you got... something about how your client sync's up to the server and it was related to fps. So now I hate having lower than 60. Then again all I play is QuakeWorld or Quake3 CPM :p
 
I've said this thousands of times in the past, but I'll go ahead and say it for the 9000th time.

What we notice is the change in framerate. If the framerate goes from 80-120 FPS we can perceive this change. The higher it is the less we perceive this change, the lower or wider the difference the more we perceive this change. This is not only seen, but also felt in the game. Because games do not have natural motion blur we honestly need to maintain 60 FPS to perceive smooth real-life like motion. However, because of hardware limitations and pushing for the best visuals in games we can settle for 30 FPS as being the target. One day though, I see the move to 60 FPS as being the standard, already many people push for a consistent 60 FPS. Yes, our eyes can see it, in fact military tests have proven our visual range is able to pick up extremely fast movement.

Here is a demo I have that compare 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS, you will be able to see the difference, there is another one out there I can't find right now:

fps_compare_v0.2.rar
 
30 to 60 is definently a visible difference. Thanks for the demo Brent :)

When my monitor recently exploded, I had to switch to my parent's monitor that only liked to run 1024x768 at 60hz. I can safely say that there is a huge difference between 100fps and 60fps. I can't notice much of a difference when it comes to 80 and 100 though. But 60 = just plain "framey" :eek:
 
Yea, I used to get over 100fps in games, but since I felt like I didnt need all that extra fps, I made the highest FPS I can get 24. Now gaming at 24fps rocks!!!
 
I too notice a difference between a CRT monitor running at 85 and 100hz. Although I greatly prefer the resolutions that I can usually get at 85hz.

Although that is totally different from FPS, which I do prefer to be averaging close to 60 and not dipping below 30 for sure in games where there is no motion blur (like in 24 fps DVD's displayed on a 60 hz TV.)

LCD's are very different, in that the visual refresh rate *can* be perfect for still images by using LED backlighting instead of CCFL (CCFL which flickers like mad). Having a solid lightbulb or LED passing through a LCD panel should be completely flickerless - Which is completely different from the greyscale refresh rate response time of the LCD itself (usually from 2 to 200 milliseconds), which is completely different from the fps of any game you might be running on it.

Its too easy to lump FPS into one category or situation, I think it would be a lot easier if people would categorize FPS into three areas, the speed or flicker of the visual light source, the speed of the visual panel itself (aka response time of an LCD), and the speed of the media itself (Game or DVD)
 
Sadly enough I actually noticed a drop from my steady 76fps in Enemy Territory to ~70fps the other day during some particularly heavy server lag (with ~32 people playing). It really is the transition more than anything else. Back on my 1.4ghz P4 when I couldn't even hold 43fps steady every little dip made for errors in aim compensation and so on. Some people may be unable to notice I suppose but it certainly frustrated and killed me more than I'd like to remember.
 
I want 90 minimum all the time!!! It's the same as MPH (miles per hour) driving!
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Sadly enough I actually noticed a drop from my steady 76fps in Enemy Territory to ~70fps the other day during some particularly heavy server lag (with ~32 people playing).
Click to expand...
the only reason you would have noticed this is if you were actively watching the frames per second while you were playing. Period.
 
seanmcd said:
the only reason you would have noticed this is if you were actively watching the frames per second while you were playing. Period.
Click to expand...
I was not looking until after it started. Maybe I mispoke but what I was referring to wasn't solely from framerate drop, it's a combination of factors. Maybe you've never played that game but when servers get overloaded (some go up to 64 players) even while your framerate doesn't really drop much you get what feels like input lag. Find a server with 40+ out of 64 players on and you'll know what I mean. I can be cruising along with a high framerate and a steady 40-50ms ping and it still happens in intense enough action.
 
As a fellow ET'er, I can attest to that. I cap ET at 76 FPS, but factors that affect the framerate are dead-on noticeable. Dropping from 76 to the 40's or 50's in FPS creates choppiness....it's usually only for a couple seconds until it smooths out at the lower rate, but those couple seconds are usually enough to get killed by a guy running a better system.
 
blackacidevil said:
As a fellow ET'er, I can attest to that. I cap ET at 76 FPS, but factors that affect the framerate are dead-on noticeable. Dropping from 76 to the 40's or 50's in FPS creates choppiness....it's usually only for a couple seconds until it smooths out at the lower rate, but those couple seconds are usually enough to get killed by a guy running a better system.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. the frame rate is one of the most important aspects of PC gaming. "Frame rate is King", as quoted 3Dfx back then in the golden era of 3D gaming boom.

That's why triple buffering is so important especially with lower refresh rates and with video cards lacking the "redundant" power. I typed a guide on Triple Buffering here on the [H]ard Forums:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1103793
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top