minimum fps for gaming, what do you think?

A

Aumakua

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
333
I realize that type of game is big, especially if its FPS (wow this could get confusing, frames per second and first person shooter)

so what do you guys think, for both FPS and non FPS games what are the minimum FRAMES PER SECOND you could live with?

I am not asking about average, but minimum!

I also realize that opinions may vary widely and some people will list insanely high numbers like 50, for the average gamer I was thinking 20-25 minimum and hopefully 45 average... also considering if you have a 60hz monitor you won't really be able to tell the difference between 50 fps and 80 fps...

movies are 24 fps, TV is 30 fps which is why I am thinking 20-25 as a minimum is a good number. I am trying to decide on a GTX 470 vs a 480, if I had a 1900X1200 monitor I think it would be 470 hands down, but I have a 2560X1440 monitor! it does look like the GTX 470 can run most games at high res with a minimum of 20 fps though, and if I need more power I could always add another next year...
 
I'm bugged if it drops below 30. If it's a constant 30 I'm fine too. I don't like frame rate dips to be noticable at all.
 
Minimum FPS is misleading, especially when it comes to typical benchmark runs.

All of the emphasis is placed onto one single point of data and that point of data is often then used, without any context, to draw conclusions. Does the minimum FPS value mean it dipped that low once or 30 times during the benchmark run? That information is relevant yet absent.

But if you're just talking about practical minimum FPS in a game and are willing to set aside outliers that skew the data, I'd say ~45 FPS is a good minimum.
 
rUmX said:
60 min and I'm serious.
Click to expand...

I've started catching some of the HD coverage of sports events. I never understood why everything looked so smooth at 1080p/i(?) 'til I noticed it was at 60fps. I'm of the opinion the framerate boost is a bigger improvement than the extra resolution. Definitely looks more real.

vengence said:
I'm bugged if it drops below 30. If it's a constant 30 I'm fine too. I don't like frame rate dips to be noticable at all.
Click to expand...

After getting used to so many game at 60+fps, I couldn't help but notice on TDU just how noticeable it was when the framerate would drop for a second or so to ~45fps. 45 acceptable? I would have said yes 'til now. 60 vs. 45 is instantly noticeable.

I like gaming at 2560x1600, but I expect I'm going to drop Metro 2033 probably down to 1280x800, forgoing 1920 or 1680 just to get the best framerate/performance.
 
25fps is the minimum for me. I like the average to be above 30fps, but 25 is still ok if it's not the average, especially if you have motion blur enabled.
 
L4D 40 low 50 average

Fallout 3 30 low 45 average

crysis 20 low 30 average.

It all depends on the game.
 
For multiplayer FPSs, I need 60 minimum. Single player FPSs and other multiplayer games, I'm all right with between 30 and 60, but I start to get annoyed once the FPS gets around 30. Other single player games, I'll usually be all right with 30 fps.

This is minimum, not desired. I can live with framerates around 30 in single-player games, but usually that means it's time to start thinking about upgrading.
 
40fps is the minimum for me. 30 is absolutely horrible.
 
For competitive FPS, I have to have 60fps. I bought a 120hz (capable of displaying real 120fps over dual link dvi) to further eliminate lag, ghosting, etc. People need to understand there are many sources of lag. Mouse, keyboard, monitor, video card, router, modem, etc. Every little thing adds up.

20-30 fps in highly detailed games is a joke, but it is fine for casual games. There's too much information lost while moving at 20-30fps when you're pumping such beautifully rendered pixels. It is a sad compromise dictated by consoles.

Even more important, about the minimum frame rate, is that maintaining a fixed frame is more important that having a high frame rate. 60fps with dips is much worse than 40fps without them.
 
okay so yeah when I said minimum I was thinking minimum in benchmarks you see on some sites, but agree that that data could be 1 single point in a game...

Average can also be mileading though because what if during 75% of the game its just you running around (think Oblivion or Dragons Age) and 25% is fighting, if that 75% is at 80 fps and the 25% fighting is at 20 fps the average would be 65 fps, right? but that 20 fps for 25% of the game would suck! that is an extreme example but...

so here is a decent example

GTX 470 at 2500X1600 rated 41 fps average on AVP with minimum of 24 fps

this is probably a pretty smooth play though, right? what about DOA with 8AA that gets 53 fps average and 37 fps minimum?
 
IRSmurf said:
For competitive FPS, I have to have 60fps. I bought a 120hz (capable of displaying real 120fps over dual link dvi) to further eliminate lag, ghosting, etc. People need to understand there are many sources of lag. Mouse, keyboard, monitor, video card, router, modem, etc. Every little thing adds up.

20-30 fps in highly detailed games is a joke, but it is fine for casual games. There's too much information lost while moving at 20-30fps when you're pumping such beautifully rendered pixels. It is a sad compromise dictated by consoles.

Even more important, about the minimum frame rate, is that maintaining a fixed frame is more important that having a high frame rate. 60fps with dips is much worse than 40fps without them.
Click to expand...

So a game like Crysis will never have its full potential realized unless you crossfire 5970s or SLI future GTX490s? because even SLI GTX 480s can't handle Crysis at 2560X1600, max resolution max AA, it gets like 25-30 fps

amazing that that game came out so long ago and a current $1K gpu setup still can't max it out.
 
for the average minimum, I would have to say 60-ish

I like my actual average to be as close to 120 as possible and will turn settings down to get it there. I'm fairly sensitive to low framerates (they bug me) so I'll gladly sacrifice IQ for a nice smooth experience.
 
Above 30 with high settings on my 1920x1200 monitor...though I do have BC2 @ 1680x1050
 
GotNoRice said:
Minimum FPS is misleading, especially when it comes to typical benchmark runs.

All of the emphasis is placed onto one single point of data and that point of data is often then used, without any context, to draw conclusions. Does the minimum FPS value mean it dipped that low once or 30 times during the benchmark run? That information is relevant yet absent.

But if you're just talking about practical minimum FPS in a game and are willing to set aside outliers that skew the data, I'd say ~45 FPS is a good minimum.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wish more sites would only list median data and actual data points, vs. useless bar graphs (which are averages). Median is more useful than min/max/average, since it is REAL data. I don't think there are many that even release the actual FPS data in the first place, so it's an uphill battle.
 
As long as the FPS is somewhat stable above/around ~25, I can make do. I cant make do if it's 100FPS then 25 FPS then 100 again. But if it's 25 then 28 then 25, its fine.
 
stevedave said:
L4D 40 low 50 average

Fallout 3 30 low 45 average

crysis 20 low 30 average.

It all depends on the game.
Click to expand...

epic answer, and very true, you have to play the game and see how the game behaves at low fps. For instance crysis could look butter smooth at 25 fps and if you are in the 30's it feels like it is running in the 60's unless you have fraps on. It very much depends on the game you are playing.

I also do agree that dipping once here and there in the teens does not concern me, if the game is consistently dipping below 20 then I would change my card but then again if it is only one game I can't play I would just drop the resolution. It is not worth it for me to change a card for one game.
 
Aumakua said:
I realize that type of game is big, especially if its FPS (wow this could get confusing, frames per second and first person shooter)

so what do you guys think, for both FPS and non FPS games what are the minimum FRAMES PER SECOND you could live with?

I am not asking about average, but minimum!

I also realize that opinions may vary widely and some people will list insanely high numbers like 50, for the average gamer I was thinking 20-25 minimum and hopefully 45 average... also considering if you have a 60hz monitor you won't really be able to tell the difference between 50 fps and 80 fps...

movies are 24 fps, TV is 30 fps which is why I am thinking 20-25 as a minimum is a good number. I am trying to decide on a GTX 470 vs a 480, if I had a 1900X1200 monitor I think it would be 470 hands down, but I have a 2560X1440 monitor! it does look like the GTX 470 can run most games at high res with a minimum of 20 fps though, and if I need more power I could always add another next year...
Click to expand...

movies and tv have natural motion blur, games don't.

you need frames to take samples for the blur from in games, and low fps obviously affects other things like networking, input...
 
150fps or I punch my monitor. Can't STAND any PROBLEMS with ANY video GAMES. at ALLLLLLLLLLL



....25fps minimum (average, not a spike) is fine for me.
 
The answer for me is 42 fps. I suppose 35 or so is OK, too. I don't play "games" similar to Crysis so fps is usually not a problem for me.





 
30 FPS video game is not the same as 30 (25) FPS tv
The difference is that TV/Camera will include motion blur which acts as a "smoothing transition" between frames

Some video games are implementing that, most do not. You effectively have a bunch of still images from which your brain has to translate into movement.

Anyway it depends on the game and your video resolution and the slow down during complex scenes. You probably want ~50 FPS typical with an infrequent 25 FPS minimum.
 
30 FPS makes you feel like you're playing on a console, for the most part.

I like running 60 FPS on average if I can help it.
 
I try to keep my minimum above 60. Huge differences in multiplayer games if you have a high framerate.
 
Has to be a solid 60fps for me. 59fps is a fooking slideshow.

:p Nah only messing. I'm fine with 20fps+. I find that my trusty 8800GTS 640mb still works really well at 1920x1080. Bad Company 2 ran awesome at around 30-40fps. I went through the Crysis games at about 20fps and still enjoyed it.
 
Most SP FPS games I am fine with so long as the average minimums are in the 25 - 35 fps zone. Any dips below that need to very occasional or I start lowering settings.

MP games really vary for me. Minimums of 60 are OK for TF2 and L4D 1-2. But I am not satisfied with less than 90 - 100+ for Q3, UT99-2k4, or the CS/CS:S.

Driving games need to stay above 30-45 for me as well. But a steady frame rate is more important with those than high frame rates are so long as the minimums are met.
 
Aumakua said:
just curious how you can pull that off with only 1 5870 and eyefinity set up? I guess if its not Crysis or Metro 2033 or games like that it would be fine.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't always max game settings. I pretty much aim for the best IQ settings I can get while still maintaining at least or around 60 fps at native rez. I'm only playing two games these days; BFBC2 and SC2 Beta (even tho it ended recently). The former I can max it out at native rez, but only having to put 1xAA and HBAO off. And Starcraft 2 well, it maxes out no problem.

I do have an eyefinity setup (you can check it out at the "Show your LCD" thread) but I'm not using it atm. I have issues with the Bizlink connected DP monitor (flickering/signal loss) and I've done everything I can but it won't go away. At this point I'm waiting for Nvidia to release their surround drivers and at that point I'll just sell my 5870 + adapters and jump to whatever SLI setup I can afford (be it GTX465/470/480).
 
60 feels good. I can and do play with much less. Although I will turn off quite a lot of eye candy to preserve high rez and frame rates.

For first person shooter multiplayer, 100 has real benefits. yeah, i know, thats higher than lots of monitors refresh rates. But.. if you let the image tear, you get half of one screen and half of a newer one. And, yes, that *does* help.
 
I don't look at fps. I just put up as high as high as I think it will go and work either up and down from there.
 
For singleplayer and non-FPS on-line gaming, anything over 25 is fine for me. In on-line FPS games, no less than 50 for any amount of time.
 
20fps minimum is fine with me. Though I prefer a constant 30fps, than 60fps with dips.
 
50-60fps, except for Crysis, which min is about 30 fps :p

In games like Crysis, when indoors, the fps can shoot up to 50fps or higher, and there was a huge difference in gameplay, feels faster and smoother.

Which is why I always try to keep things at above 60fps on average, so it doesn;t drops to the 40s or lower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top