So any game below 60fps isn't enjoyable?

nightrider1470 · 23 Jul 2015 at 00:36

I have 970 sli and have a 1440p monitor which seems great.

I do have a 4k projector though, so was wondering how a lower fps than 60 is seen by others.

Am I right in thinking fps is more important for games where there is a lot of movement?

I play a lot of games like Rome total war 2, age of empires HD to mention a few

shankly1985 · 23 Jul 2015 at 00:41

For them type games I would say no! But for anything that is fast paced 60+ is the sweet spot...

Frame rate depends mostly on the type of game..

nightrider1470 · 23 Jul 2015 at 00:48

OK cool thanks

kaku · 23 Jul 2015 at 01:06

Age of Empires would run at 4k on a toaster, to be fair.

Nutella33 · 23 Jul 2015 at 01:19

TW is fine below 60. 30's more its pain point

SquirrelMadness · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:38

I'm playing The Witcher 3 at 20FPS! I just like to admire the beauty of games therefore max out all the settings and happily compromise a little on smoothness... doesn't work on first-person shooters like GTAV though since you can't aim for ****.

**Please fully star out any swearing, do not just disguise it**

Kelt · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:45

I was quite happily playing TW3 at 30FPS locked before my recent card upgrade.

Nexus18 · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:46

I need at least 50FPS, preferably 60fps in games, as long as the frame latency stays between 15-20ms, I find that to be nice and smooth.

meandu229 · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:48

For me racing/(multiplayer)fps needs to be 60+ but everything else is fine under aslong as its a stable rate and the frametimes dont differ too much.

Freddie1980 · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:54

kaku said:
Age of Empires would run at 4k on a toaster, to be fair.

Lol wanna bet? You would be surprised at the effect of archaic coding can do to modern systems when you have 8 players with 300 pop each going at it tooth and nail.

VincentHanna · 23 Jul 2015 at 10:59

60fps is the sweet spot for most (some aren't happy unless they have 120fps+) but there are plenty of games that work fine with less.

Console gamers mostly get by ok at 30fps for instance.

I recently completed Arkham Knight, and the framerate varied wildly between 60 and 35fps. I just turned V-sync off to make the fluctuations less jarring.

Kelt · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:00

VincentHanna said:
60fps is the sweet spot for most (some aren't happy unless they have 120fps+) but there are plenty of games that work fine with less.

Console gamers mostly get by ok at 30fps for instance.

I recently completed Arkham Knight, and the framerate varied wildly between 60 and 35fps. I just turned V-sync off to make the fluctuations less jarring.

Don't you find screen tearing to be problem with no vsync?

It's one thing I can't abide, personally.

Nexus18 · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:02

That is one thing that I can't stand, screen tearing....

- vsync on

or

- borderless windowed mode

are a must have for every game

Kelt · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:04

Nexus18 said:
That is one thing that I can't stand, screen tearing....

- vsync on

or

- borderless windowed mode

are a must have for every game

Never use borderless window mode...what does it do?

Nexus18 · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:09

It uses windows built in vsync method and can generally be a lot better than the in game vsync i.e. for shadow of mordor, the witcher 3.

Other games though, it might not work at all i.e. wolfenstein

Another method you can try for some games is to lock the FPS to 59 and turn vsync on in game, this way you get less input lag, this works very well for BF 4.

Kelt · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:10

Nexus18 said:
It uses windows built in vsync method and can generally be a lot better than the in game vsync i.e. for shadow of mordor, the witcher 3.

Other games though, it might not work at all i.e. wolfenstein

Another method you can try for some games is to lock the FPS to 59 and turn vsync on in game, this way you get less input lag, this works very well for BF 4.

Cheers, I'll give that a go.

old gamer · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:13

i think anything above 30 fps is playable i would be happy to drop below 60 fps for the price of all the eye candy

VincentHanna · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:21

Kelt said:
Don't you find screen tearing to be problem with no vsync?

It's one thing I can't abide, personally.

Barely noticed any to be honest.

Some games are terrible with V-sync off. Wolfenstein: Old Blood springs to mind. I couldn't get a stable 60fps at 4k with all the graphics options turned up, and the adaptive V-sync caused so much tearing when the fps dropped below 60. In the end I ran it at 1440p.

nashathedog · 23 Jul 2015 at 11:22

Nexus18 said:
It uses windows built in vsync method and can generally be a lot better than the in game vsync i.e. for shadow of mordor, the witcher 3.

Other games though, it might not work at all i.e. wolfenstein

Another method you can try for some games is to lock the FPS to 59 and turn vsync on in game, this way you get less input lag, this works very well for BF 4.

Interesting, Thanks.

ALXAndy · 23 Jul 2015 at 13:45

When running games at 4k with two Titan Blacks I would mainly see 40s and 50s. And it was completely fine. Witcher 3 ran like a pile of turd, but wasn't unplayable... In the 40s though it was nowhere near as accomplished and smooth as GTAV, which also ran in the 40s to 50s.

I've just dropped from that to one card (Fury X) which arrives tomorrow. . Apparently I should expect about the same performance, only better in some games (Witcher 3 for example I should get 40s easy).

I don't recommend running two cards at 4k. It's a hard enough thing to do as it is and is fraught with issues, adding issues to those issues isn't very wise IMO.

So to answer the thread? maybe I am getting old and my reactions are getting crap (I know they are somewhat) but gaming above 27 or so FPS is fine with me.

The only thing I really want 4k power for is Fallout 4, and I am expecting 60 FPS out of that if I'm being a bit honest..

Love 4k though, wouldn't be without it now.