[SOLVED] Optimal FPS for Games?

[Gintama69]

Hi, what is the optimal(absolute best) FPS for (fast paced)games?

I think it's pretty simple question with easy answer, but I can't seem to get the straight answer..
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/fps-for-144hz-monitor.3554883/
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/240hz-monitor-worth-it.3554855/

In my knowledge:
60Hz monitor: minimum fps & average fps = 60+fps
144Hz monitor: minimum fps & average fps = 144+fps
240Hz monitor: minimum fps & average fps = 240+fps

But since minimm fps ≠ average fps
60Hz monitor: minimum fps = 60+fps & average fps = ~80+fps
144Hz monitor: minimum fps = 144+fps & average fps = ~170+fps
240Hz monitor: minimum fps = 240+fps & average fps = ~280+fps

Am I right?

__

Also is it better to cap maximum fps to around your monitor's refresh rate IF your minimum fps & average fps exceeds your monitor's refresh rate? (if the maximum fps cap is supported by the game)

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Well average and minimums are not always tied. So even if you get well over your monitors refresh rate worth of FPS, your lows could be below 60.

The optimal FPS for your monitor is always as much as you can achieve. Even if you only have a 60hz monitor, there will be more recent info on screen if you run 200fps than if you ran 60fps.

 

[boju]

Anything above 60fps is great, 100+ even better but there are factors involved.

Fps minimums is the result of hardware limitations be it CPU, GPU, RAM and possibly drive in-out operations (IOPS) and whats happening in the operating system and game to reach these limits.

That said, maintaining a level of fps is going to require a few things. Firstly, a lean OS with no junk running in the background. Secondly, a balanced system with the right hardware (no thermal throttling) and thirdly the game needs to be optimised enough.

Just a run down on the components mentioned and how i think they react.

CPU: Does the whole show. Needs to run background services, run games and prepare frames for the GPU to render.

GPU: Colours in the frames prepared by the CPU. If CPU can't keep up then fps decreases.

RAM: Needs to be enough to accommodate 2~3GB of Windows data, Vram circulation + game data or else pagefile gets used too much. Since the days when GPU's entered 4GB Vram territory, 8GB system ram hasn't been quite enough in some games since GTA5. 16GB ram has been the recommendation for awhile now and 32GB is slowly becoming the new recommended.

Drive: SSD's are great at hiding memory shortages and since games are becoming ever so large and open, loading on the fly at certain points is common practice to fit it all in. This wont impact fps directly albeit there'd be a performance trade off somewhere causing a slight hiccup and much worse for mechanical drives. Pagefile performance isn't too bad on SSDs but mechanical drives, it gets pretty bad.

--

Your question whether you should limit fps to the refresh rate, that is yes if you don't like screen tear. These days, monitors have Freesync/Gsync to take care of that nonsense and also input lag. Monitor's with these sync technologies have a range, usually between rougly 30Hz ~ to maximum refresh. In this range, frame rates can bounce, tearing shouldn't happen and neither should input lag. Vsync or manual fps cap is still required though because Freesync/Gsync alone won't cap frame rates and can still get tearing if fps exceeds refresh rate.

 

[sizzling]

I’d say a lot is personal choice and/or level of gaming. A professional e-sports gamer is often running 500fps+ in some games. I doubt your average player could tell the difference to 200+.

 

[tennis2]

I think you're asking a couple questions rolled up in one.

The one you provided the most wording on (what FPS should you target for a given monitor refresh rate) is not as simple as you put it when you consider variable refresh rate monitors (which is highly recommended). Since they just match the FPS that is getting pumped to them (up to their max limit). 65FPS on a 144Hz VRR monitor? Yup, you can do that!