1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Optimal FPS

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Sviatoslav, 12 Oct 2012.

  1. erratum1

    erratum1 New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    68
    On my 60hz monitor a minimum of 60fps with vsync is the perfect experience.

    If i'm watching a replay say in Grid I can see the difference if it's running at 30fps or 45fps.

    But it is the sudden drop in fps that is perceived as lag, when the fps suddenly drops from 60 to 40...very annoying.
     
  2. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    That's because the fps aren't constant. Also remember that software that display fps, doesn't measure LIVE. That would be too intensive to do, and make the fps counter itself significantly drop gaming performance.

    If the game goes 30, 5, 30, in lets say half a second. You see it, you saw that it chop, but the fps counter contentiously say 30fps, as it didn't refresh at the right moment.

    Also when the FPS drops, if its your CPU that is slow, then this is where you can see input lag. But if your CPU has no trouble, and the game is set to skip frames, and not forced to draw every frame, you should not see any input lag.
     
  3. SeñorTasty

    SeñorTasty New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on the type of game for me really. Online MP first person shooters 60 fps is a must, ex. Cod series, CS (only original MW and CS:GO these days).

    Now I've never used a 120hz monitor but I know on my LG IPS231b while playing MW, the regular occurrence of black ghosting(?) whilst moving quick is very obstructing. (Edit: This is probably more to do with the response time of my monitor then refresh rate, pretty uniformed in this area though, as long as it plays nice and I do alright, don't mind)

    Anyway, back on topic, for most games(exception above) I find 45 frames is the bare minimum for a enjoyable gaming experience.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2012
  4. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    This has nothing to do with Hz, it has to do with the response time of the monitor.

    45pfs is not enjoyable, you'll have tearing like CRAZY. 15fps, 30fps, 60fps, or 120fps are the only fps gaming experience that will be smooth (assuming its steady at these rates, and int the case of 120fps that you have a 120Hz monitor), and no tearing.
     
  5. SeñorTasty

    SeñorTasty New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edit above. (Just in time)


    It only usually happens for a few brief seconds and in games other than twitch based shooters, I have no problem with a few seconds dip to 45 frames. Personal preference :thumb:
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2012
  6. fdbh96

    fdbh96 New Member

    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    Posts:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    33
    Most of the COD series run at 60fps on console btw.

    Generally I like to have enough framerates so v sync comes on at 45 fps, not 30.
     
  7. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    248
    And if console can't keep up, they sometime go as low as 30FPS@480p.
     
  8. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    48
    Films at 24 fps look smooth because the individual frames are blurry. Fast motion is captured as a sequence of blurred shapes which make it look smooth despite the low frame rate. If you take a video capable DSLR and shoot action at 1/500 and 24 fps you'll see the stutter you get with the sharp frames in video games.

    In my experience the eye can see harsh transitions up to about 150hz, just try it with a strobe light.

    For gaming in most cases though, 60fps is fine, we should instead focus on higher resolution imo!

    Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
     
  9. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Counter strike source for reference on a 680 can reach above 250 fps not that it benifits you lol.

    depending on your eye sight and age to some extent you will not be able to tell the dif between 60 fps and 200 fps. Or even 30fps to 60fps depending on the game type for example starcraft 2 the difference between it on my system and on a laptop i own is next to nothing despite the fact that the laptop is averaging 20fps whilst the system is doing 120+. Due to the genre of game ( RTS ) most users do not need super high fps to be able to play it ( Chinese players might )

    RTS games dont need 30fps to be playable most dont even run that high.

    Racing games require 60fps to be completely playable due to the reactions required from the user. ( most console driving games are 60fps limited )

    FPS games dont require 60fps ( most console fps are limited to 30fps )

    want higher resolutions sony just released a 4k tv costs £25k so if your a billionaire why not.
     
  10. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,169
    Likes Received:
    146
    I've been thinking about this recently. When I see reviews some times it talks about graphics cards giving playable frame rates in the 30's and 40's. I then think that you need to have vsync turned off when you are gaming at these fps rates. Gaming without vsync although playable, can give inconsistent frame rates and tearing. Both of which I prefer not to experience.

    I recently played through one of the assassins creed games. I had vsync in the game turned on but it wasn't working for whatever reason. I didn't bother giving it much thought. I played a decent fraction of the game after which I turned vsync off in game and on in the control panel which got it working. The difference in smoothness of animation was actually very stark. I was taken aback by the difference. This really sold me on vsync.

    As was said previously when it comes to gaming the main thing about frames per second is consistency. Vsync gives consistency. Of course the problem is that when the frame rates drop to a low level with vsync on you get a bit of a stutter on screen. This in turn makes me appreciate nvidias adaptive vysnc. If you can for the most part keep the frame rate above 60 fps to allow vsync to do its job the occasional blip under the 60 fps is handled well by adaptive vysnc giving a good compromise.

    For me the best reason to have the capability to play a game at high frame rate is that you have head room to consistently get vsync working at 60fps with no drops below thus giving the smoothest experience.

    I don't believe that vsync works as well at 30 fps or 45 fps. Or perhaps its the switching between the different rates that causes problems. I think on pc that vsync is optimised for 60hz monitors and a 60 fps rate. If it was optimised for 30hz monitor and a 30 fps rate its unlikely I would notice the difference between the two. I think that consoles games and hardware are optimised for 30hz vsync.

    I would also add that on gta iv tried forcing a 30 fps rate with evga precision but it gave a weird stuttery effect. I don't believe this was a sign of 30fps not giving a smooth experience rather an indication of the method of controlling the frame rate in the precision software being inconsistent.

    Edit: I've just enjoyed a couple of games of battlefield 3. First one I turned on nvidias adaptive half vysnc. This gave me a solid 30fps per second. I definitely noticed initially the difference but I sort of adjusted to it. Even though my eyes adjusted it didn't feel as smooth as when I turned adaptive vsync back on giving me a solid 60 fps.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2012

Share This Page