FPS - how many is to many ?

anthony566 · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:54

I'm sure this must have been covered but I can't fint it ..

So my question is :-

At what point when running at 1920 x 1080 do you not notice the change in FPS ?

30 ?
40 ?
50 ?
60 ?
70 ?

More ?

Daze · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:56

I only really notice it when it starts dropping below 30. But in an ideal world I'd always like to be above 50 fps.

Orcvader · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:03

60. Because my screen only runs at 60hz

. I usually limit it to 60 anyway since I don't notice a good difference after 60, instead I notice more screen tearing...

Rroff · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:25

For single player I aim for a minimum of about 40-45 below that I start to really notice it, for multiplayer and/or some faster paced games I can go all the way upto about 80fps before I see no real benefits from further increases.

For the best experience in single player games tho I reccomend a fairly stable 60fps.

garnhamr · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:26

as much as your monitor can support is best 60, 120 or 144 but anything above 50 and aslong as it is consistant works well enough

~>Dg<~ · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:28

depends on game . but if you play regular its easy to notice very small drops.

setter · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:45

I mainly play bf3 theese days, running a gtx 670 on a pretty high oc. Can average 70 fps on the maximum settings at 1920x1200,(well motion blur off as it hurts my eyes). Game runs fine, but ive recently started running it on low, but mesh at ultra. Looks ok, you can see people a bit easier, but the fps is crazy high. Tried limiting to 70fps via afterburner, but got too many driver crashes. Removed the limiter, game ran fine?

Uncle Petey · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:48

~>Dg<~ said:
depends on game

flinco · 30 Mar 2013 at 01:54

arc@css · 30 Mar 2013 at 03:57

Depends on the game.

EVH5150 · 30 Mar 2013 at 07:29

arc@css said:
Depends on the game.

+1 Skyrim springs to mind.

almoststew1990 · 30 Mar 2013 at 09:21

When I had a 4890 I'd set my monitor's refreshrate at 50Hz and aim for 50fps for vync insteaad of 60 cos my 4890 was definitely struggling to hit 60. I couldn't tell the difference between 50 and 60fps. I've also lowered my res and played at 75fps at 75Hz and I couldn't tell the difference really then either.

On the other end of the scale I am happy to game on my laptop at 25fps as long as it is fairly consistent. For me, a lower consistent frame rate is better than a higher erratic one. That's why reviews mention graphics cards minimum fps in reviews.

andybird123 · 30 Mar 2013 at 09:41

Depends, if you use crossfire then as long as an fps counter tells you you are getting 60+ then that's ok, even if you're actually getting half of that

Davanius · 30 Mar 2013 at 09:59

Depends on what your eyes are used to.

If some of you with only 60hz monitors used a 120+ hz monitor for a good week or so and then went back to your original monitor, you would notice it and would want the higher refresh rate due to your eyes getting used to it.

Problem is that most 120hz monitors are tn and are of lower quality than ips or va. Tn is great for gaming though.

For me, 50 fps is the lowest I will accept.

BaDBoY_uK · 30 Mar 2013 at 10:42

My EVGA precision setting is fixed to cap at 120... but most games at 2560x1440 never achieve that. Far Cry3, Crysis3, BF3 all drop below. ARMA3 is fixed at 55fps with vsync on or off.

Any FPS over 60 cannot be observed I think. But 120fps monitors do look amazing.

So it depends on the viewer... what do they say? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Martini1991 · 30 Mar 2013 at 10:56

I want my 120 FPS since I run a 120HZ scren.
I can feel it at about 40.
AC3 for example seems to run rather poorly, bouncing around 30-50, I absolutely hate the experience.

spoffle · 30 Mar 2013 at 11:40

BaDBoY_uK said:
My EVGA precision setting is fixed to cap at 120... but most games at 2560x1440 never achieve that. Far Cry3, Crysis3, BF3 all drop below. ARMA3 is fixed at 55fps with vsync on or off.

Any FPS over 60 cannot be observed I think. But 120fps monitors do look amazing.

So it depends on the viewer... what do they say? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If people couldn't see beyond 60 FPS then you wouldn't think that a 120 Hz monitor looks "amazing" because it'd look identical to a 60 Hz monitor.

BaDBoY_uK · 30 Mar 2013 at 11:54

spoffle said:
If people couldn't see beyond 60 FPS then you wouldn't think that a 120 Hz monitor looks "amazing" because it'd look identical to a 60 Hz monitor.

I know. I guess I meant on my 60Hz screen. But I would argue that anyone can tell the real difference between 60 and 90. But obviously you can tell the difference between 40 and 60

Gregster · 30 Mar 2013 at 11:56

BaDBoY_uK said:
My EVGA precision setting is fixed to cap at 120... but most games at 2560x1440 never achieve that. Far Cry3, Crysis3, BF3 all drop below. ARMA3 is fixed at 55fps with vsync on or off.

Any FPS over 60 cannot be observed I think. But 120fps monitors do look amazing.

So it depends on the viewer... what do they say? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It was proven that certain pilots could see at over 220fps. A gamer would have no reason to be far off that (in a few cases). I will dig out the article.

That didn't take long

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

BaDBoY_uK · 30 Mar 2013 at 13:34

Gregster said:
It was proven that certain pilots could see at over 220fps. A gamer would have no reason to be far off that (in a few cases). I will dig out the article.

That didn't take long

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Very interesting article, thanks.

But I would argue that seeing a single image shown for 1/200th of a second is different than observing a general game with constant images at 200fps. I disagree with the comment conclusion

situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS

The question is whether you can tell the difference between say 60, 120 and 200fps. I would say - on a standard 60Hz monitor - that is unlikely. If you can, great. I don't think I could above 60-80fps

Just my tuppence