60FPS? 80FPS? Who Cares!

[Viper96720]

Just run a Quake 3 bench you'll notice its over 60fps.

 

[Mingon]

Another 3 months goes by, questions about fps reappear

Be careful when using the fps compare that you have your refresh rate set to as high as possible as it defaults to 60hz. I can see the difference between 60 & 80, the key is to try both following the bricks and then try keeping fixated on a certain spot and use your peripheral vision (which is more sensitive)

 

[xes]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Just run a Quake 3 bench you'll notice its over 60fps.

Yeah, the type of game seems to make a big difference to perception of "smoothness". GPL runs at 36 fps max and feels slick enough, but fps type games do seem to need a lot more. It's all those 180 degree fast turns, I guess ( and the changes in framerate have an effect too).

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey

Huh? Couldn't u just run the film through faster? Why would it cost more to make 60fps film instead of 30fps? It doesn't make sense.

Run the film thru faster at what end? At the recording end, recording at 60fps rather than 30fps means double the film cost, as you're shooting double the frames, and thus using twice the film. Remember, a film frame is literally one negative, so 60fps means twice the negatives as 30fps, meaning you have to buy twice as much film. At the playback end, I've heard that theaters play back film at 48fps, basically doubling each frame, to avoid flicker. But that does nothing to make fast action appear more fluid--faster playback can't extract more info than there is recorded on the film.

 

[nemesismk2]

Well I can clearly see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, however it's unlikely I would be able to tell the difference between 60 and 80fps.

 

[rbV5]

The FACT is the maximum FPS discernable by the human eye/brain HAS NEVER BEEN DETERMINED. The maximum isn't of much concern for gamers (or most anybody for that matter) anyway. What matters is fluid motion and the numbers are different for virtually every application and every person.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

if you try that fps program, see what refresh rate your monitor goes into. it popped mine into 60hz so you wont see better than 60 if it does that.

JB

 

[BenSkywalker]

Thanks for the offer M4H, but xes found an active link for it(much appreciated ).

Now everyone download it, make sure you have you ReForce type app of choice forcing the maximum refresh rate on your monitor(you should try it @640x480) and have someone else set one side of the screen to 60 and the other to 80 and see if you can tell the difference. Then try it with 80 and 110, you will likely be surprised just how high up you'll notice it.

 

[VIAN]

This is my territory.

Although changing my mind many times about which target your framerate should be. I ultimately ended up with best framerate to the individual being the the the monitor refresh rate where no flickering is noticed w/vsync. 99 percent of the time it is 85Hz. Now this is more appealing to the eye. The brain as Pete mentioned is a totally different story. You would need higher fps. Just try it out on the desktop. At 120Hz, the mouse will move smoother. It does this because you notice more frames. And opposing BFG, I heavily support consistancy. At any framerate 30fps and up will be great if consistancy is maintained. When you notice choppiness when playing a game, unconsistancy is setting in and that just sucks. Bothers the crap out of me. Anyway, the links that Pete linked says it all.

Thanks Pete. Nice job.

Nice link xes.

The easiest proof that the eye can see more than 60 fps or 100, being without the after effects of light, is the stop watch. Look at those milliseconds. 0.000. There are 1000 milliseconds. My watch only shows the 2 closest to the decimal. Starting from the number closest to the decimal, this number flashes at 10fps; the next number flahes at 100fps. I can definitely see and count all those numbers. The third number which I don't have would flash at 1000fps, anyone that has it, just look and see.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

85 fps looks better to me but 120 fps is better than that even . It doesnt matter how many frames your brain can detect because with a monitor and with a movie you need to understand there is a point in time when the frames are switching where nothing is displayed on the screen at all or some blurbed image is. ANd some of the frames your eyes catch are these. The lower the rame rate the more of these blurbs your eye catches making it seem like the screen is flickering. I can definitely notice the difference between 85 and 120 fps.However 85 does look alot better than 60. I can even tell the difference between 85 AND 100.

 

[VIAN]

You may not be able to tell, visually the difference between 85 and 100, but try playing for a bit on 85 then 100 and then back to 85 in a fast paced deathmatch. You will feel the difference and that means that you can see the difference.

You will never be able to run a game at that framerate unless you have new hardware running at least a year old game will all details on, so the effort to get to the target frame rate of 85 if fruitless. Then Vsync makes it all the more difficult to get 85fps. Your best bet is to just try to get a constant framerate of 30 or above.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Just run a Quake 3 bench you'll notice its over 60fps.

absolutely.
Quake3 is textbook..... but its definitely not the same as most games, I find it's one of the few that requires higher FPS.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: VIAN
You may not be able to tell, visually the difference between 85 and 100, but try playing for a bit on 85 then 100 and then back to 85 in a fast paced deathmatch. You will feel the difference and that means that you can see the difference.

You will never be able to run a game at that framerate unless you have new hardware running at least a year old game will all details on, so the effort to get to the target frame rate of 85 if fruitless. Then Vsync makes it all the more difficult to get 85fps. Your best bet is to just try to get a constant framerate of 30 or above.

LOL you are silly VIAN.
I jave a geforce fx 5900 xt and a p 2.4c @ 3 ghz with 1 gig of ram.
I get 85 fps steady in Call of Duty even with eax 3 on.Thats with vsync. If too many player on the server eax slows it down a little so I disable eax and I wills till get 85 fps and it will not go lower no matter what.

 

[VIAN]

Yeah with my system.

2700
1gig
5900

not overclocked

with all settings at max except textures at high only.

an average of 42fps outside. 85fps inside.

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't believe there is a physical limit to what the human eye can detect.

To whoever said the human eye refreshes 30 times per second. That's probably the biggest load of BS I've seen in this thread so far since the human eye doesn't "refresh." Eyes don't have a "refresh rate" because no part of them is digital... they recieve "streams" of light and your brain puts it all together. If you train your brain to put together the information it recieves through the eyes faster, you'll become more sensative to motion and refresh rates of monitors. An example of that was in my speed reading class in high school... we did exercises where the teacher would darken the room, and use a device to flash a word on a white screen for a fraction of a second. At first he started at 1/10 of a second... by the end of the class, 50% of the students were reading complete senteces flashed on the screen for 1/100th of a second.

 

[Mingon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't believe there is a physical limit to what the human eye can detect.

To whoever said the human eye refreshes 30 times per second. That's probably the biggest load of BS I've seen in this thread so far since the human eye doesn't "refresh." Eyes don't have a "refresh rate" because no part of them is digital... they recieve "streams" of light and your brain puts it all together. If you train your brain to put together the information it recieves through the eyes faster, you'll become more sensative to motion and refresh rates of monitors. An example of that was in my speed reading class in high school... we did exercises where the teacher would darken the room, and use a device to flash a word on a white screen for a fraction of a second. At first he started at 1/10 of a second... by the end of the class, 50% of the students were reading complete senteces flashed on the screen for 1/100th of a second.

People seem to think that all the rods and cons get the same light at the same time and react synchronously with each other, .....then again perhaps they never think it through enough.

 

[Delorian]

link to explanation of different situations

I think the fps difference is always situational as this site explains. For the most part as long as my games are running somewhere above 30-40 fps and look pretty good, I don't really care. It takes too much effort aside from the game to constantly be messing w/ the resolution, AA or other details. Just find a setting that seems to work and is easy to play/watch and go with it. I don't think 120 fps is anywhere near a necessity. But if you are an overspending power hungry gaming-fiend it might be necessary to have the lastest Radeon 9 billion which costs a mere fortune. As far as refresh rates go, 60hz which has been standard for a long time now is simply outdated and an eyesore. 75hz or higher really is easier for your eyes and much more "realistic" as well as most recent monitors support up to 85hz (at least CRTS). Just MHO.

 

[Tango57]

i use FRAPS to monitor my fps when i play COD and BF1942. on my system i get fps at a range of 60-80 on COD and 80-100 on BF1942. honestly i really can't tell the difference when the fps changes but then again maybe i'm not paying much attention as i'm more engrossed in fragging my opponents and checking the scoreboard every 5 secs.

 

[Cawchy87]

80 fps looked choppier than 60 fps. I stared at it for mabye 5 minutes telling myslef that it wasn't right... But thats what i saw. This thread has really been an eye opener for me in the fact that the stability of the fps (provided it is at a decent number) is more important than the number. I tested this by changing details from highest to lowest etc. on Americas Army, even as the fps sky rocketed i had a terrible time with the frame lag. Thanks for all the responses and the links.

 

[BFG10K]

i set one side to 60 and the other to 80, the funny thing is with 60 fps , i noticed a lot less blur

Try something like 60 and 120.

The human eye can only take 20 or so, actually.

This just keeps getting better and better.

But common sense will give you the answer, if you watch a movie and then play a game.

A lot of people can see jerking and stuttering during camera panning/rotation on 24 FPS blurred film.

If i took it below 60 though the difference began to show.

Make sure you aren't running at 60 Hz.

 

[BFG10K]

And opposing BFG, I heavily support consistancy. At any framerate 30fps and up will be great if consistancy is maintained. When you notice choppiness when playing a game, unconsistancy is setting in and that just sucks.

Now's your chance to prove yourself wrong. Load the program up, put one side on 30 FPS and the other on 120 FPS.

According to your logic they should both be equally smooth because they are both constant.

Of course that's a load of rubbish as consistency has nothing to do with it.

 

[nRollo]

Wow. Ye olde "how fast is fast enough" argument.
For me, I never want my minimums below 60fps.

 

[VIAN]

You know, I actually have to say it - I really think that 18fps is all the eye can see. No, really all that stuff I said before was just me making educated guesses, but I know in my heart that 18 is the magic number.

 

[VIAN]

Now's your chance to prove yourself wrong. Load the program up, put one side on 30 FPS and the other on 120 FPS.

According to your logic they should both be equally smooth because they are both constant.

Of course that's a load of rubbish as consistency has nothing to do with it.

Ok, dude, you are not understanding. I know that 120fps is smoother than 30fps. My point is that - take COD for instance. I am indoors running at 80fps, then I get outdoors and the fps drops to 40 - there you notice some choppiness. If you move indoors and outdoors a lot, why not just make the minimum 40 so that your eyes don't have to adjust to another framerate each time and, therefore, take away from the experience.

 

[Tab]

I

Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed position in space time. If the plane that just flew by was only going say, 1 times faster than you, you probably would have been able to see it. Since your incredible auto focus eye had been concentrated on the ground before it flew below, your visual cortex made the decision that it was there, but well, moving really fast, and not as important. A really fast camera with a really fast shutter speed would have been able to capture the plane in full detail. Not to limit our eyes ability, since we did see the plane, but we didn't issolate the frame, we streamed it relative to the last object we were looking at, the ground, moving slowing below.

Huh? Anyone understand that?

You can also do the more technical and less imaginative tests above, including the star gazing, and this tv/monitor test. A TV running at only 30 FPS is picking up a Computer monitor in the background in its view, and with the 30 FPS TV Output you see the screen refreshes on the computer monitor running at 60 FPS. This actually leads to eyestrain with computer monitors but has everything to do with lower refresh rates, and not higher.

Huh? Compelelty lost...

How come we can have movies and our implement motion blur, but in games that doesnt happen? Is it because we interact with them?