how do you define 'exceptable' performance in games

[Scythe]

The fps is more than just a visual thing for me, I can 'Feel' a difference in fps even if the game is running a decent framerate. By that I mean that I can feel the difference between 60FPS and 120FPS. It's to do with how responsive the game feels.

Overall for me it depends on the game, racing and first person shooters I like >60 fps. For RPG, RTS and most other anything above 30 fps is fine for me.

I prefer all the eye candy on in my games though so If I have a favourite game that I can't play in full detail at 1280x1024 at a decent FPS I'll upgrade my card.

Yep, not really on sight, its more responsive for me.

 

[geiger]

Very good articles on the subject here: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html (be sure to read the follow-up article linked at the bottom too).

The bottomline is, nobody really knows what the limit is. But it's certainly well in excess of 200fps for some people. Part of there reason I want a large high end CRT is because they offer more than the 160hz my current monitor does.

I havent read that article yet but I think they found jet pilots can discern upto 400fps. I think anything above 100fps is not needed on a computer, maybe you can tell the difference but theres no gain in feeling imo. The limit there would be the feedback available from the server link, presuming its a multiplayer game I guess.


Acceptable or exceptable (sic ) performance in my opinion for a game is all the settings on medium and never anything less then 30fps.

Good would be medium at 60fps and and excellent is the top settings at 60fps or above.


I used to play CS on a Tnt2 card (30fps if lucky) though and it was playable enough (used it for years, 1:1 KD ratio and better), my scores went up when I upgraded though which is not an acceptable situation to most

 

[the_brainaic]

ACCeptable. Please.

 

[sedj]

Acceptable for me is a constant framerate throughout with no laggs or slowdowns at a tft refresh rate of 60hz and a native res of 1280x1024.

Its ok getting 75fps in areas but no good if it dips to -30 in others.

A constant framerate is what you require

 

[DaveyD]

A constant, stable synced framerate. I'm fine with 30, 40, 60, 90, 120 fps, as long as it's constant, it's fine for me.

Pity no game hardly does that, slowdown ruins some aspects of the overall performance, but as long as it's rare, I'm not too fussed really.

 

[HangTime]

Personally I find 30fps or 40fps pretty rubbish for FPS games, even if it is constant. Once you've tasted constant high framerates (e.g. 75 or more) in a specific game for a week or more, dropping down to 40fps is positively painful.

 

[Vegeta]

Didnt bother reading the thread however to save you the embarrassment of doing the same thing you just done now in a essay or just some kind of letters its ACCEPTABLE not EXCEPTABLE.

 

[Stellios]

35FPS and up is acceptable for me, although 45FPS and up is preferable.

 

[WatchTower]

I'll accept 25 fps but I like to see a lot higher. I hear high Fps helps you to PK others in Mmoprgs that have slower PCs as you move faster and stuff. I don't know how true that is.