Can someone explain to me about FPS and monitors

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:50

Sorry, this is going to be a dumb question but I need to know.

Long story short how much FPS in a game is needed just for beautiful visuals and to be able to enjoy the game. For example, I have a 1080p 144hz monitor but when I play GTA my FPS seems to stay within the 40-100 FPS range.
I thought to be able to enjoy the game efficiently I need 144 FPS to match my 144hz monitor, the hz needs to match my FPS or not?

I'm really confused.

Gregster · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:55

It is game dependent and personal. For games like BF4, I like to sit at 60 minimum but would rather have more but for games like Tomb Raider/Batman, 45 as a minimum is fine. If it is smooth and you don't feel any input lag, happy days.

andybird123 · 2 Jun 2016 at 20:59

Yeah, it doesnt need to exactly match the monitors refresh, it will depend entirely on you as to what is "good" or not. If your monitor doesnt have any variable refresh tech the I would expect dips to 40 to be pretty noticeable personally, but if you dont then just keep on gaming

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:34

For example, when Battlefield 1 comes out realistically I'm going to want 144+ FPS right? It's impossible with my specs though. I don't understand what I need to do. Should I be lowering my graphics settings until I get that 144+ FPS? Would it look better? Or do I just max it out and keep an average 60 FPS?

So confusing. These are my specs.

D1craig · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:36

Most people think 60fps is the sweet spot.

A 144hz monitor can display 144 fps but only 8f the hardware is upto it.

Having fps stay close to a number is better than having it jump up and down. A drop from 100fps to 40 fps I imagine would be extremely noticeable. I limit my games fps to 60 as my monitor can only display that much. Try using an overclocking utility to limit your fps to a number. If your average fps in the game is 80 then limit it to that or even lower so the huge dips are not as noticeable.

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:44

D1craig said:
Most people think 60fps is the sweet spot.

A 144hz monitor can display 144 fps but only 8f the hardware is upto it.

Having fps stay close to a number is better than having it jump up and down. A drop from 100fps to 40 fps I imagine would be extremely noticeable. I limit my games fps to 60 as my monitor can only display that much. Try using an overclocking utility to limit your fps to a number. If your average fps in the game is 80 then limit it to that or even lower so the huge dips are not as noticeable.

Oh, so I should always cap my FPS to whatever number my FPS frequently stays on? Makes sense. Anything above 60 FPS is good though right?

NoobCannon · 2 Jun 2016 at 21:56

First time i seen a 2gb 980ti lol

Doogles · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:02

Samhfx said:
Oh, so I should always cap my FPS to whatever number my FPS frequently stays on? Makes sense. Anything above 60 FPS is good though right?

I like to make sure 60 is the average and never drops below it, the higher the frames and everything for me feels better. With the specs you have you'll have no issues with that.

Photolysis · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:10

Samhfx said:
For example, when Battlefield 1 comes out realistically I'm going to want 144+ FPS right? It's impossible with my specs though. I don't understand what I need to do. Should I be lowering my graphics settings until I get that 144+ FPS? Would it look better? Or do I just max it out and keep an average 60 FPS?

That's a subjective question only you can decide the answer for.

For example, I'm less sensitive to aliasing than a lot of people, and can happily set AA at a far lower setting. I can't stand screen tearing for the life of me and need some form of sync, and hate slowdowns/severe variance in the framerate. I greatly prefer 60+ FPS, but can tolerate games locked at 30 (which should still never be the case on PC!).

Another person might be fine with some tearing and frame time variance but can't stand a hint of a jaggie.

When compromising on graphics settings, you are the only person who can decide what the best compromises for you and your system are.

Gabbatek · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:13

You have a good rig and should really get a 1440p monitor

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:16

Gabbatek said:
You have a good rig and should really get a 1440p monitor

How much FPS do you think I would get roughly on Battlefield 1 maxed out on 1080p 144hz monitor?

I know I should have got a 1440p monitor but they are very pricy.

implosiveturnip · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:23

If you cant hit 100+ fps in most games on that spec, I'd be mighty surprised. You should be running away with frames really. Have you got scaling turned right up in GTA 5? I have a 980ti and get similar framerates at 1440p, usually between 50 and 90.

As for what's "good" - only you can answer that. Is there anything that annoys you about the experience you have with your setup? screen tearing, lag for example?

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:26

implosiveturnip said:
If you cant hit 100+ fps in most games on that spec, I'd be mighty surprised. You should be running away with frames really. Have you got scaling turned right up in GTA 5? I have a 980ti and get similar framerates at 1440p, usually between 50 and 90.

As for what's "good" - only you can answer that. Is there anything that annoys you about the experience you have with your setup? screen tearing, lag for example?

What do you mean. I get a 40-100 FPS on my current specs with GTA 5 maxed out. :c I can't even get above 144 FPS

implosiveturnip · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:37

there's a frame scaling option in gta v advanced options:

If you have it maxed out, I would turn that down to 1, and turn msaa to x4. maybe knock grass down to high as its unnecessarily expensive.

What frame scaling does is render the game at a higher resolution than your display, so if you have frame scaling set to 4, (if it goes that high in gta v), you'd be rendering the game at four times your display's resolution, (so "4k"), then it would be downsampled. It's can be known in some games as "supersampling" or "Dynamic Super Resolution" in the Nvidia control panel.

joeyjojo · 2 Jun 2016 at 22:40

Samhfx said:
What do you mean. I get a 40-100 FPS on my current specs with GTA 5 maxed out. :c I can't even get above 144 FPS

At 1080p you should be averaging about 80-100 FPS with normal textures. You probably want to keep the texture quality down if that 2 G graphics memory is true, unless you can monitor the usage yourself and spot it running out.

Not that 40-100 FPS is bad, if it plays fine for you and looks pretty then leave it.

Samhfx · 2 Jun 2016 at 23:15

joeyjojo said:
At 1080p you should be averaging about 80-100 FPS with normal textures. You probably want to keep the texture quality down if that 2 G graphics memory is true, unless you can monitor the usage yourself and spot it running out.

Not that 40-100 FPS is bad, if it plays fine for you and looks pretty then leave it.

Wow. What hardware do I need to get 144+ FPS then to match my monitor refresh rate nowadays? I thought my rig was top of the range.... :C

joeyjojo · 3 Jun 2016 at 09:00

Samhfx said:
Wow. What hardware do I need to get 144+ FPS then to match my monitor refresh rate nowadays? I thought my rig was top of the range.... :C

I got those numbers from

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page2.html

and forgot to mention the settings:

The game is still demanding when playing GTA V at 1080p with everything set to maximum except anti-aliasing and textures. Here we are using normal textures and FXAA with MSAA disabled.

So you could probably get a boost by reducing some of the other settings. Shadows, reflections, anti-aliasing, etc.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your system, here's a similar PC getting similar FPS:

wunkley · 3 Jun 2016 at 09:35

As someone who has gamed from everything over the years from sub 30fps to 144fps, the real sweet spot for me is about 80fps+. Of course more is always better, but this is where the noticeable difference of 'higher Hz' gaming kicks in for me.

I should also add that this should be combined with gsync, which for me has been a total revelation and revolution.

ExoMale · 3 Jun 2016 at 09:50

i dont own gta 5 on pc, but i do own the division and for my specs regardless of any bugs the game has the game looks really nice and detailed on high settings and i only get between 30-60 depending if uplay is recording so id say it hovers around the 40fps mark on an average and thats with a 60hz 1080p monitor, so regardless of your specs ypu should get really nice gaming at your fps level to have any worries.

WantoN · 3 Jun 2016 at 10:03

FPS doesn't effect visuals except in a subjective way. It's just the number of times your graphics card writes a new frame per second to your monitor. High FPS makes the gameplay smooth and consistent. Low FPS makes the game jerky, blurry and unpleasant.

High FPS monitors like yours allow the screen to show more of the frames your graphics card is writing. It will look smoother the more frames it gets, but it doesn't need 144 to look good.

Reducing the fancies and post processing effects will increase your frames but the game will look worse. I personally can live with anything above 50fps and I have a 60hz monitor, so 60fps is absolutely fine for me.

The question you need to ask yourself is, does the game feel like a slow, stuttery, blurry mess? If the answer is no and you enjoy the responsiveness of your screen as is, you don't need to worry.