What frame rate are you happy with?

Digit said:
100 fps is perfectly fine for me.
I have a 144Hz Gsync monitor and cap it through the Nvidia drivers to 100, as I feel anything more isn't needed. Plus it's putting hardware under extra strain for no reason.
To be honest I couldn't go back to a 60Hz monitor for gaming these days. Not a problem in the work place though.
Click to expand...
I have a Dell 144Hz Gsync monitor but still have it capped at 60fps as I can't see any difference at higher fps
 
willhub said:
The human eye can't see more than 24fps
Click to expand...

Nope, that's been debunked.


Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

However, we know from experimenting (as well as simple anecdotal experience) that there is a diminishing return in what frames per second people are able to identify. Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second.

The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'. 120 fps is not a 'waste' (provided you have a 120hz monitor capable of such display). There IS a very noticable difference between 15 fps and 60 fps. Many will say there IS a noticeable difference between 40 and 60 fps. Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It's just not.

The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.
Click to expand...
 
Usher said:
I have a Dell 144Hz Gsync monitor but still have it capped at 60fps as I can't see any difference at higher fps
Click to expand...
Really? When I upgraded from my old 60Hz monitor to my 144Hz Gsync one (And like I said, capped at 100Hz) It was night and day. It felt like cheating on FPS games. It was so much smoother.
But like everything. I got used to it and it just feels normal now.
 
Last edited:
Personally for me it's not about having a high refresh rate just for smoothness, but so the image is clear. I experienced this a lot in Star Citizen, back with my 1080ti I'd have lower, less stable FPS and it would feel like motion blur despite that being disabled.

Having a higher, more stable FPS makes everything smoother AND clearer. That's really the benefit of higher FPS that's largely forgotten, you can enjoy the additional detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom