Max Settings Vs. Framerate

[omnilobster]

I'm sure this has been done to death, but its always great to hear everyone's personal opinions. Of course best of both worlds would be the optimal situation, but sometimes that just doesn't happen.

I was chatting with my friend about this and we're on separate sides of the debate.

Due to my current job and living arrangement, I move around quite a bit and can be gone for days or weeks at a time. I game on a laptop (gtx680m) because moving a desktop around would be terribly painstaking. Its not a low end desktop, but it there are instances where I find myself needing to lessen the eye candy to be playable. I find this perfectly acceptable. I usually like my games to be 40+fps and as consistent as possible.

My friend on the otherhand has a desktop (660 ti) and plays on a 2560x1600 monitor. He'd rather have everything set to max and play at ~25fps. I can understand why, some games look absolutely stunning, but that framerate just gives me a headache.

What say you on the subject?
Basically, I like consistent fps as long as it doesn't look like I'm playing a ps2.


P.S. Really interested in the thunderbolt tech. Having a desktop card on my laptop would be the bees knees. I just have the feeling it will be finicky and unreliable until well into its lifespan.

 

[hammereditor]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

 

[ashharun]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

Not entirely true. I will notice if my framerate drop to 45. It feels like the movement choppy and not fluid. And i feel very uncomfortable if the fps drop to 35 or below.

 

[omnilobster]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

I beg to differ on your first statement. I can most definitely see a difference between 40 and 60fps.
I think most will agree with me. I've hard this a lot, and most seem to disagree with it.
I'm not one to argue though. I may be imagining it and I'd gladly agree with you. Have any (gaming oriented) links?

 

[Mousemonkey]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

There has been research that suggests the human eye can see 30 megapixels @70fps.

 

[iceclock]

anything under 55-60 fps gets jittery for me, and considered unplayable, i will tone down the graphics anyday to have smooth framerate versus highquality and slowness.

 

[omnilobster]

The worst is when you can't have either. I used to have a laptop with a Mobility 5650 and it could barely play any new titles on low. It was fine for classics like NWN and WoW, but trying to play skyrim or bf3 on that was a nightmare.

 

[iceclock]

i have a 5650 but only played old games cuz of it, lol.

i could run bf3 tho in tweaked cheezo mode.

 

[determinologyz]

If i can get 60 fps on high setting im cool but yes you can tell theres bit of choppyness at 30-40-50 frames its just not as fluid at 60 imo. Some people say they cant tell a difference but its there

 

[bystander]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

While I disagree with the 1st thought there, and there are many articles written on the subject, there are other reasons high FPS are an advantage. High FPS also reduces latency. For myself, and at least one person above, low FPS leads to high latency, which causes simulator sickness. This means I become nauseated and if I continue to play, I will also get a headache.

I do recommend you Google "how many fps can the human eye see". You'll find some enlightening articles.

 

[iceclock]

also playing fps or racing games on a competition level u need that smoothness.

 

[MatildaPersson]

After about 35 FPS, the human vision system can't determine if something is 45 FPS or 150 FPS.
So I like to increase the settings until it's 25-35 FPS. Games are sometimes not playable <10 FPS.
And going above 60/75 FPS will make your monitor a bottleneck. 120/240 Hz displays are more rare.

That is a total lie. There is no broad cap on what the human eye can see. Don't be absurd. Some people can see more than others. Some less.

Even very basic research would have shown you this error.

 

[iceclock]

its true, some people dont notice jerkyness and some do at a certain point, each person perceives it differently.

 

[omnilobster]

its true, some people dont notice jerkyness and some do at a certain point, each person perceives it differently.

Exactly. For me consistency is the most important. When the fps fluctuates greatly, it is really jarring. I'd rather have a constant 40fps game than having one fluctuating between 60 and 35fps all the time.

 

[DarkSable]

Why does he not just vary it based on the game?
Some games (crysis) look fluid at lower framerates, some don't.

I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion, since I tend to max out games at 120fps.

 

[wiggbot]

You need a third option: highest visuals able to sustain vsync. Since I've only got a 1080p monitor and a pretty powerful computer, this for the most part isn't an issue attaining. I just hate screen tearing with a passion.

 

[iceclock]

well it depends shooting games u can see the difference more than any other type of game. i beleive. other games can be less noticable such as flight sim or racing game or rpg.

 

[determinologyz]

You need a third option: highest visuals able to sustain vsync. Since I've only got a 1080p monitor and a pretty powerful computer, this for the most part isn't an issue attaining. I just hate screen tearing with a passion.

Ill take screen tearing over drop frames.. I see it here and there in some of the games i play but it doesnt bother me as much. Trust me coming from a console pc gaming alone feels like butter

 

[wiggbot]

Two words: Adaptive v-sync. 😀

 

[ashharun]

Ill take screen tearing over drop frames.. I see it here and there in some of the games i play but it doesnt bother me as much. Trust me coming from a console pc gaming alone feels like butter

same to me. Tearing is not so bad. I'll take tearing over drop frame rate. Tearing start bother me when my 60hz monitor playing 100fps+.

 

[iceclock]

adaptive vsync is only on nvidia cards tho, ati vsync is alright but nothing as good as nvidias sync.

 

[robthatguyx]

I prefer the best settings that still give me a solid 50fps or higher.

 

[iceclock]

ill always take 60fps+ before settings.

 

[bystander]

I can tolerate 60 FPS, but I need 80+ FPS to remove the occurrence of nausea.

 

[iceclock]

lol