FPS - what is too low?
- Thread starter MadTommy
- Start date
50.
120 = The absolute highest I can see a difference in (and only during certain very special circumstances).
100 = I can see the difference but it is not obvious.
85 = The difference between 85 and 60 is easily seen. From a practical standpoint only slight degradation of gameplay (aim/response).
60 = The difference is noticeable visibly and in input lag but not a 'big deal'. This is the highest refresh rate of my LCD display (sadly).
50 = Blatantly obvious (a bit less so if coated with motion blur post processing). Aiming is impaired. At this level I begin to have problems fully focusing and being immersed because the stuttering is impossible to ignore.
40 = Like 50 but a lot worse. I will not tolerate 40 for more than rare instances. If firefights were at 40 I would rather play something else.
30 = Apart from looking like, well, terrible, even if I did want to play at this level my ability to aim would be SEVERELY impaired. Perhaps at 25% of what it is at 60fps.
I envy you guys who see and feel no difference above 20-40. For a short time at the beginning of my 3D gaming career (Duke Nukem 3D on the home PC) I cranked up the resolution to 800x600. The framerate dropped to maybe 10 but I thought "wow, this looks so much better, it runs!". A few times I tried 320x240 and while it looked blocky as hell, something felt.. very different. Immersive, satisfying, and much prettier in that way. But what was it? The whole idea of framerate was still foreign to me. Either something ran great or it ran slow. Many games on earlier systems would slow the whole game engine down instead of display a choppy low framerate.
At the time there was a myth repeated on TV and the Internet that "the human eye can only see 25fps, so we need to ask ourselves - why are we trying to develop systems that display more than that?". I didn't believe it because even then I knew I saw a huuuge difference between 25 and 60. This myth is sometimes still repeated but not much anymore. And I have many times had people say that anyone who tries to get more than 20-30 is paying money for e-penis stuff.
I don't pay any attention what so ever to people talking about "it runs smooth as butter, I play it all maxed out". In their eyes that may be an average fps of 20 and lows below 12. Only numbers are meaningful.
120 = The absolute highest I can see a difference in (and only during certain very special circumstances).
100 = I can see the difference but it is not obvious.
85 = The difference between 85 and 60 is easily seen. From a practical standpoint only slight degradation of gameplay (aim/response).
60 = The difference is noticeable visibly and in input lag but not a 'big deal'. This is the highest refresh rate of my LCD display (sadly).
50 = Blatantly obvious (a bit less so if coated with motion blur post processing). Aiming is impaired. At this level I begin to have problems fully focusing and being immersed because the stuttering is impossible to ignore.
40 = Like 50 but a lot worse. I will not tolerate 40 for more than rare instances. If firefights were at 40 I would rather play something else.
30 = Apart from looking like, well, terrible, even if I did want to play at this level my ability to aim would be SEVERELY impaired. Perhaps at 25% of what it is at 60fps.
I envy you guys who see and feel no difference above 20-40. For a short time at the beginning of my 3D gaming career (Duke Nukem 3D on the home PC) I cranked up the resolution to 800x600. The framerate dropped to maybe 10 but I thought "wow, this looks so much better, it runs!". A few times I tried 320x240 and while it looked blocky as hell, something felt.. very different. Immersive, satisfying, and much prettier in that way. But what was it? The whole idea of framerate was still foreign to me. Either something ran great or it ran slow. Many games on earlier systems would slow the whole game engine down instead of display a choppy low framerate.
At the time there was a myth repeated on TV and the Internet that "the human eye can only see 25fps, so we need to ask ourselves - why are we trying to develop systems that display more than that?". I didn't believe it because even then I knew I saw a huuuge difference between 25 and 60. This myth is sometimes still repeated but not much anymore. And I have many times had people say that anyone who tries to get more than 20-30 is paying money for e-penis stuff.
I don't pay any attention what so ever to people talking about "it runs smooth as butter, I play it all maxed out". In their eyes that may be an average fps of 20 and lows below 12. Only numbers are meaningful.
Upvote
0
It could be that I've been dealing with low-end rigs for years, but 30 fps is just fine for me. I don't have any trouble playing above 30.
20 is the bare minimum. Obvious performance issues and what not make it a headache to play.
I have never even seen 70+ fps, and I manage to be pretty competitive online. You guys either have some hyper-evolved eyes and reflexes that let you take advantage of such an FPS.
I mean, most console games are locked in at 30-60 fps, and there isn't any drop in quality or visual difference to me. Not to mention that most modern LCD monitors are locked in at 60fps.
Frankly, I think you guys are talking out of your bums.
20 is the bare minimum. Obvious performance issues and what not make it a headache to play.
I have never even seen 70+ fps, and I manage to be pretty competitive online. You guys either have some hyper-evolved eyes and reflexes that let you take advantage of such an FPS.
I mean, most console games are locked in at 30-60 fps, and there isn't any drop in quality or visual difference to me. Not to mention that most modern LCD monitors are locked in at 60fps.
Frankly, I think you guys are talking out of your bums.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
anything below 100 is too little. 120 would be best.
You are just a slowpoke man, no offense. But don't generalise, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean others can't.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd be happy with a steady 30-40 FPS but at the moment my FPS is all over the place. 50 FPS in some places, 25-30 in most places and at it's worst I my FPS ranges from 15-25 which is absolutely horrible.
I've been PC gaming for well over a decade and I know what its like to be on the back burner of the technology department so I've constantly been behind the curve and had current games not run well, but RO2 takes the biscuit.
I've been PC gaming for well over a decade and I know what its like to be on the back burner of the technology department so I've constantly been behind the curve and had current games not run well, but RO2 takes the biscuit.
Upvote
0
He did give room for the possibility that we did both see and feel what he did not, but he just thinks the most likely thing that we are a bit nutty somehow.
Ugh, games LOCKED to 30. Absolutely disgusting. I remember buying GTA3 for my PS2 long time ago and then the huge letdown from how it was limited in code to 25-30fps - always. Luckily there were awesome games that were able to go to 50 (PAL TVs run at 50, NTSC 60 but with lower resolution. Games were localized to each standard).All the more power and bitter envy towards Josef, I say. Lucky guy.
Upvote
0
Just put my grapichs from Ultra to High and got about 30+ FPS more and hardly any change in grapichs
ATI HD 5770
Intel I5 2300k Quad Core
8GB DDR3
I get about 50-80FPS with Vsync off but I get 50-66 with Vsync on (I play with having it On)
ATI HD 5770
Intel I5 2300k Quad Core
8GB DDR3
I get about 50-80FPS with Vsync off but I get 50-66 with Vsync on (I play with having it On)
Upvote
0
Im never below 66, when not in a fight my fps is usually 80-100 and I find this acceptable, all graphic settings are maxed out.
Upvote
0
I got like ~25 FPS on RO2, don't see it to be much of a problem, not much difference either with my brother's PC ~50 fps.
The human eye can capture an average 30 fps anyway.
Hey, I've seen you run from the battlefield and hour ago.
Shameful dispuray!
(Shogun 2 quote)
With an average 25FPS, I'm very frequently on the top of the scoreboard as a rifleman.
The human eye can capture an average 30 fps anyway.
Hey, I've seen you run from the battlefield and hour ago.
Shameful dispuray!
(Shogun 2 quote)
With an average 25FPS, I'm very frequently on the top of the scoreboard as a rifleman.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I never said you can't see the difference.
It's sure looks better above but you don't have any aiming or reacting advantage.
Upvote
0
60+ for me, always. Its not playable on -60 on PC, im just used to it. And with a GTX580, i was sure that this game would run at 100+ fps all the time, since it not AMAZING graphics, but no, i run around 45-55 outside and 60+ inside. I hope Tripwire will optimize it, and that nvidia will release drivers for this game.
I hope Tripwire will optimize it, and that nvidia will release drivers for this game.
Upvote
0
You can get on top of scoreboard without making a single shot during the whole round, so it is not an argument. And stop repeating wrong assumptions about human eye, do your research first. It does also give an advantage in aiming because your perceived input lag (which is actually output lag, here basically the delay between input and feedback) is increased with low fps.
Also, I think I've seen you play on some pubs and you were just an average camper with bad aim, which is generally doable even with low fps.
Upvote
0
More fps gives less input lag and also it decreases ping in some games (example Bc2)
Play some games 1 month with 60-120 fps and then try again with 30 fps, same mouse settings etc. it feels really laggy.
If you keep playing always with low fps like 30 (have done a lot), you cant see the difference.
Upvote
0
I'm happy with a constant 30+ fps.
I honestly don't care for anything higher. At 30 fps, assuming there's no fluctuation, I can do just as well if not better than someone running 60 fps. I feel no impairment. Anyone that does is just too used to high fps.
I honestly don't care for anything higher. At 30 fps, assuming there's no fluctuation, I can do just as well if not better than someone running 60 fps. I feel no impairment. Anyone that does is just too used to high fps.
Upvote
0