Why do people feel 60fps is so important?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bryjoered

Honorable
Jul 26, 2012
207
0
10,710
I was just wondering If I'm the only PC gamer that can't even tell the difference between constant 40fps an constant 60fps. Even constant 30-35 fps seems playable to me. Certain games I have played are locked at 30fps, and they feel fine to me. I know that a card at max power only producing 30fps avg, would drop below 30 sometimes, and I feel that below 30 is when I feel the game is unplayable, but when you're getting 30 or above at all times same crap to me whether it's 40fps or 170fps.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
with 60fps+ ur gonna get smooth gameplay anything under is gonna feel jittery, well ull see this mostly in shooters, other games like rts and rpg maybe less important, but def in shooters u want a minimum of 60fps to have that fluid gameplay and performance.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Complete B/S.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I honestly dont think its bs. When i play even at 50 FPS its still smooth but you get that bit of semi jerky in between frames unless you really looking for it its hard to tell but with 60 its smooth as ice theres a difference. Some will argure on this but as for me i want games to run smooth as possible no matter if its a shooter,rpg,rts,sports,fighting etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I mean I get what he is trying to say I don't think its complete. I feel hes just trying to say that the experience will be typically smoother due to the fact that the game won't be struggling as much as it would with a card that wasn't able to push a higher frame rate. However that being said it isn't limited to 60 fps different games have different points where you go from playable to smooth. Why don't we calm down and enjoy ourselves like this guy 😛

[flash=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/v/2dQEbiS1-ok?hl=en_US&version=3[/flash]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


LOL this was crazy to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h29lOEoEi48
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
really didn't want to bring this back from the grave, but check this website out

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

can definitely notice a difference. even at 120fps on a 60hz monitor is noticeable.... cool right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The human eye can see past 120fps. I personally notice a huge difference between 60fps and 30fps. My minimum is 45 in heavy environments (ex planetside 2). It's not a placebo effect 60fps makes a huge difference as well as 120fps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Like I said before, another big part of what makes a game feel so much more fluid at 60 FPS and even 120 FPS, is the reduced latency. It takes 33ms of time between moving your mouse, have the GPU render and display it and add in the monitors input latency as well, and it starts to feel like molasses at 30 FPS. The time is cut in half at 60 FPS, and to 1/4 at 120 FPS (you need a 120hz monitor for this).

While I can see a difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, it is small, but I see a large difference in the response time of moving the mouse and it responding to those movements.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I found something a bit interesting with this test: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
(it'll require a 120hz monitor for what I propose, but if you have one, try it).

Rather than adjusting the speeds of the ball that moves across the screen, I found I see a much more noticeable improvement from 60 FPS to 120 FPS when comparing the background side by side. To do it, you just have to open up two different versions of the page, remove the balls, shrink the pages so you can see both sides easily, side by side, then adjust the speeds on one to 60 FPS and the other to 120 FPS. Now adjust the speed to at least 200 px/s, otherwise there isn't enough movement to notice much.

It is very noticeably jerky with the 60 FPS version. This goes with the idea many people have mentioned about 1st person games, particularly FPS games, show a more noticeable improvement. While isometric games do not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I play at ~60 fps but I used to play games in ~30 fps before my new rig and I can't say it's a REALLY noticable difference. Anything below 30 starts to feel like a slide show but I think we all can agree on that so it does make huge difference for me that there's no chance I will drop below 30 in big battles.

I keep hearing about people playing shooters insisting that they need >60 fps to be able to play at all and I call B/S on that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



It's total BS, getting a constant 60 fps will not make you a better player than someone who gets a constant 30. I even tried lowering the settings in BF3 to see if it makes a difference. I play on ultra with 2xmsaa on a gtx 560 and get 45-50fps, that never seems to dip below 30 and I play just fine. When I lose it's because I'm having a bad day, or someone is better than me, not my framerate, that is ridiculous.

The people who swear by 60 fps are the same people the make graphics card companies like nvidia so much money because they always by the absolute top of the line card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Well there's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic and wanting the best rig and the highest fps but saying that it makes a huge difference in gaming experience and gameplay to have fps at >60 is just plain wrong. The most entertaining moment is when you meet some gamer claiming he has like constant 70-80 fps and that's his reason for playing well and then it turns out that his screen is only 60 hz when you ask him. lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Assuming you use a mouse to turn and that mouse polls at 2ms or better, yes, 60 FPS can make you a better player than 30 FPS for many people. 30 FPS makes it harder to aim. There is a horrible delay between moving the mouse and having it actually move on the screen. You may not notice this with auto aim, or xbox controllers, but with a mouse, it changes a lot.

For myself, this is so big that I get sick and will vomit within minutes of playing at 30 FPS. I don't mean this figuratively, but literally. It takes 80 FPS before I no longer notice a difference and stop having nausea problems.

Just remember, while you may not be sensitive to this latency, many others are.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You probably should not be playing games if they literally make you vomit, you might have some type of medical condition. No, they don't make you a better player, because I've personally tested it. I was playing bf3 at 50 fps, I turned the settings down to get over 60 and it made zero difference whatsover. Any latency that you notice is due to your INTERNET CONNECTION. No human being can notice a latency of 2ms for god sakes. That's kind of why ping is good at anything less than 100. These are just percentages of one second we are talking here. I'm not saying the game may not look a little smoother at 60/80/120 fps, I'm just saying the difference once you get past 40 fps are NEGLIGABLE. Not anything that's going to drastically effect you gaming experience. The difference is in your head, the mind is a very powerful thing.

So, I assume you vomit everywhere, when you are playing your friends console games then? Consoles play at 30 fps and you don't here them complaining about framerate in droves like the PC crowd. Using a mouse makes no difference at all, the game is vastly different once you go below 30 fps, but anything above is a smooth playable picture in 99% of games. You want to shoot for around 40 just so you can account for fps dips. It's in your head save your money guys, you don't need quad sli 680s...

Just one, yeah I said one, 680 is enough to max any game in existence and still be a perfectly playable good gaming experience. At 1080p at least, which is the gaming standard. The only reason to get 680 SLI is for a multi-monitor set up or those uber resolution monitors.

Haha I just reread how you called a 2ms delat "horrible" you are truly insane my friend. I mean think about it 0ms is essentially instantaneous. So, your saying that you notice a 2/1000th of a second mouse delay, do you have robot eyes? Ah, you were talking about the polling rate, mine is 1000 so 1ms. Still, it's in your head or you have some seriously funky nausea problems that I've never heard of before, maybe your epileptic?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Also with this point you are talking about 33ms here. 33 1000ths of a second, even added with internet latency of normally around 60ms, that's 93ms (93/1000Ths) It's just not noticeable man I don't care what you say. Think of how fast 1 second is, now divide that by ten, this is what you are talking about here! Human beings cannot detect differences like this, if you do notice it it is much much higher latency than that!

Added to this even if you do notice it (you don't) the other player would also have latency to deal with and even if he had a super advanced rig and was achieving better latency than you the difference would not make a difference as to the outcome of that fight. Enjoy spending your hard earned money on performance that you don't need, unless you run multiple/high resolution monitor set ups.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




You couldnt tell a difference between 30 and 60fps? Hell i saw a difference in skyrim on console 30fps then went to pc 60fps and the difference is there clearly
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The US Army did a study on simulator sickness, and found nearly half their participants suffer from it. It's not a medical condition, just a common problem. Some are more sensitive than others.

You also failed to see the point that not everyone is the same, and while you may not notice a difference, others do. You also failed on your test. The difference between 50 FPS and 60 FPS is small, but the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is huge. As your FPS go up, the less of a difference it makes for most people.

Playing a 1st person game using a mouse to aim at 30 FPS causes me to constantly over shoot my aim points, because it is constantly behind, and this has the same feeling on me as motion sickness does. Notice, I said me, and not you, obviously it doesn't bother you, but you are not everyone. I find at 50 FPS, games become responsive enough that I won't play any better beyond that point, however, I will still experience simulator sickness, but it takes about 30 minutes before I get nauseated. It takes a 120hz monitor and 80+ FPS to not get nausea at all. That is how sensitive my constitution is. I know that is not the norm, but it is not uncommon either.

NOTE: I used to play a lot of MMORPG's. I have run into several people in my guilds that refused to play first person shooters because they also got sick. You may not have heard much about the problem, because most people who have this issue just don't play those games with you. I used to rarely play them until I learned that high FPS fixed the problem. Now I can play them.

It is also interesting to note that most those people playing MMORPG's that got sick playing 1st person shooters were also keyboard turners. The problem we have does not show up unless you are turning with a mouse, where your view feels like an extension of your body. Console controls don't give you the same feeling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Hmm very interesting claim. I also have that problem actually. i played lots of games with different play styles/genres. For years, i couldn't play action games (especially FPS) and always wondered if i have some kind of sickness. It is a relevant claim if frame per second has a role in this, and i find it logical
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


For myself, the cause is the latency between moving your mouse and it updating on the screen. The longer it takes to render a frame, the longer it takes to update the image, causing more latency. You should try increasing your FPS, and see how you feel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I even tried it out guys across multiple genres and I still can't really tell the difference. Ok I do now agree that just 30 fps is too low for a smooth experience. I can achieve 30 fps in far cry 3 on ultra without AA and it noticeably lags at certain points and I just bump it down to very high preset to get that extra 10-15 frames and after that it always seems smooth to me. I bumped it down to low to achieve 60+ and the difference between very high at 40 fps and low at 60fps were not detectable. Both are equally smooth playing experiences to me. My final conclusion is you want 60, because then it really has no chance of dropping to 30, but 40 is usually pretty playable as it will only rarely drop into the 30 fps range. I still think that at 40 fps, I could own a guy playing at 120fps if i happened to be better than him, it's about the skill not the fps.

I mean even nvidia and ATI surmise that 40 fps is the sweet spot that you want to reach. Not to say that 60 fps isn't technically "better" because of course it is, but it terms of playing experience it's marginal at best and only in the the most crazy chaotic frame rate dipping situation would it be needed to have 60. We are talking like really rare occurrences here. So I guess in that case the PC elitists win, if you are in a situation in bf3 where there is like 50 players clustered up 100s of explosions tanks helicopters the 40fps might dips slightly below 30 and the 60fps player would have the edge, but for most situations it don't mean squat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom