This really... it's the low spikes that make it janky rather than the average FPS.
Low spikes of say 50fps I can cope with, but if you are hiting lower FPS then you need to turn the graphics settings down a bit for a smoother experience.
What frame rate are you happy with?
- Thread starter smogsy
- Start date
This really... it's the low spikes that make it janky rather than the average FPS.
Low spikes of say 50fps I can cope with, but if you are hiting lower FPS then you need to turn the graphics settings down a bit for a smoother experience.
Soldato
I play mainly RPGs so 60 fps @ 4k ultra settings is good for me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,333
Why not 1440p, I'd have thought it more stanardised/likely to break an option than a 16:10 ratio.My main monitors are the moment are 16:10 1920x1200, so 60hz anyway.
I would love some 16x10 2560x1600 gaming screens, but nooooooo..... They reserve those for bloody laptops. 2560x1600 @ 120hz on a 14" screen... Great....
For me it's similar to a lot of you, 120 for fps, 60 for rts, although running starfield atm on pc and even at 1080p my 6900xt can't run it smoothly. It also seems to be maxing out my 3700x, it's ok though I just need to upgrade (according to the ceo
). I've not looked at the framerare buy there's definitely dips on a regular basis, even on medium/low.
Last edited:
Associate
I'm running a 1080/60hz screen
Depends on the game but for faster FPS games I like to aim for 120fps.
Depends on the game but for faster FPS games I like to aim for 120fps.
Associate
I've got a 4k monitor but my PC wouldn't be able to play games at 4k, so have to stick to a lower resolution. Happy with 60hz though. Recently inherited some money, so nearer Christmas, I'll be buying new gear suited towards gaming and editing Go Pro footage.
Couldn't really give two hoots about frame rate, the only time i'll delve into it is if my eye detects things aren't going smoothly, then i'll start tweaking settings until it feels smooth again. The obsession with fps numbers is a silly waste of time - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This pretty much.
There is a balance to get higher frames and reducing the graphical specs/features to get there.
Running older games 165fps at 165hz is sooooo smooth.
Why not 1440p, I'd have thought it more stanardised/likely to break an option than a 16:10 ratio.
For me it's similar to a lot of you, 120 for fps, 60 for rts, although running starfield atm on pc and even at 1080p my 6900xt can't run it smoothly. It also seems to be maxing out my 3700x, it's ok though I just need to upgrade (according to the ceo
16:10 is a far superior aspect ratio. That's why I've stuck with 1200p
Would consider a 3:2 monitor as well, and did. HUAWEI MateView 28.2, but it's 28" and 4k. Don't need that resolution at that size.
Have also got a very odd 1920x1920 27" monitor in a partially finished homebuilt arcade cabinet too. Very strange monitor, but perfect for that.
Soldato
30, literally can't tell the difference above that.
I play a lot of older titles as well as some modern ones, so it depends and varies quite significantly what frame rate I expect/desire.
So, with something like an old first person shooter, then I usually try to run just under my monitor refresh rate - 240hz. If there is an engine limitation, e.g. a specific Quake mod or sourceport might limit it to 72, then fair enough, though for me, there is a very noticeable difference.
So, with something like an old first person shooter, then I usually try to run just under my monitor refresh rate - 240hz. If there is an engine limitation, e.g. a specific Quake mod or sourceport might limit it to 72, then fair enough, though for me, there is a very noticeable difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,309
I have a 60hz monitor, so if I can achieve a solid 60 ( v-sync'd) then I'm good. That said I really should get with the times and get something with VRR support, and if I did so it would probably be 144hz or above.
Been getting in to ARK:Survival Ascended over the weekend and I'm hovering around 50-60fps, if I had VRR that would be plenty, but the tearing below 60 is noticeable. Any other game I've not had a problem.
Back when I first got in to PC, I was playing Crysis (online MP!) at around 15-20fps (1280x1024, 8500gt
) and still enjoying it...my standards may have raised slightly since then
For SP games, I'm sure 30-40+ (without tearing!) would be enough for me, for any sort of competitive MP, I would prefer at least 60 (and prefer not to v-sync as I notice the slight input lag)...I've never experienced more so not sure if I'd notice the difference, but kinda afraid that if I got a better monitor that it's become more noticeable
Been getting in to ARK:Survival Ascended over the weekend and I'm hovering around 50-60fps, if I had VRR that would be plenty, but the tearing below 60 is noticeable. Any other game I've not had a problem.
Back when I first got in to PC, I was playing Crysis (online MP!) at around 15-20fps (1280x1024, 8500gt
) and still enjoying it...my standards may have raised slightly since then For SP games, I'm sure 30-40+ (without tearing!) would be enough for me, for any sort of competitive MP, I would prefer at least 60 (and prefer not to v-sync as I notice the slight input lag)...I've never experienced more so not sure if I'd notice the difference, but kinda afraid that if I got a better monitor that it's become more noticeable
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,333
I expected an answer like that, just not sure why you prefer it. I assume you don't watch any streaming/blurays at that ratio? I made the jump to 1440p ultra wide and its great (use the oled for fps/tv watching).
Yeah it's a shame that 16:9 became the standard instead of 16:10 but I guess the upside is that it allowed for cheaper monitors and TVs with them using the same standard.
My old 4:3 monitor was 1200p but I never went for a 16:10 monitor when upgrading, I jumped to 1440p. Glad I did because everything is geared to 16:9 content these days.