How many FPS can you notice?

[Granseth]

One scenario where I notice a big difference is when I read text while scrolling, like reading this forum while constantly slowly scrolling.
I have a 60HZ screen next to a 144 Hz Gsync monitor and the last one is usable and the other clips and stutters to much to be able to read the text. But I think in this specific scenario 240 and 300 Hz also would be noticeably better.

In games I think Gsync did more for me than 144Hz, but I can't complain about having higher refresh rate even though I'm not sure I would notice going from 96 to 144Hz

 

[Black Octagon]

On Tapatalk so can't see the poll, but I'm going to go with "at least 1000fps @ 1000hz"

Because this: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=174

 

[ZGR]

I keep seeing people on the internet say that we cannot tell the difference above 24 fps.... This must be confused with the human flicker fusion threshold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold#Display_frame_rate

Heck even Thomas Edison was adamant that 46 fps should be a minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Background

I'm sure more research needs to be done to really see the limits of the human eye and brain. It is unfortunate that film has been on 24p for so long.

 

[happy medium]

The answer is about 50/60 fps, anything more in most games is just people wanting to justify their purchases.

It used to be well known that the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeable but now suddenly people can see the difference between 1080p and 2160p which is total Bullsh!t. I remember the arguments I was around for them. They use the excuse "it depends on the monitor size".
It does if your trying to play on a 70 in TV not the usual 28/32".

10 years from now people will be saying 240fps 244hz @ 4320p is the best.

 

[SirPauly]

When frame-rate is smooth, things are really tough for me to distinguish over 45+ and believe it is more the variable nature of frame-rate and the lack of smoothness over the years more-so than the actual frame-rate numbers -- G-sync and FreeSync seem to add fuel for this case.

 

[Zstream]

Not sure, I only notice it when things are stuttering. Typically around 10-20 fps or when my ssd stalls for a brief moment when watching YouTube or something on my other monitor. My and 6300 handled mulit-tasking better than my current 2400 and i noticed during the switch but those are the only situations which I can tell. I believe there was a scientific study and it stated 30fps all we can see if everything is smooth and no tearing/stuttering is shown.

 

[bystander36]

The answer is about 50/60 fps, anything more in most games is just people wanting to justify their purchases.

Why is it when someone either hasn't tried or not sensitive to something, they don't believe anyone else can be either.

If you are not sensitive to motion, that does not mean other are not.

I personally get nausea in 1st person games until I reach about 80 FPS. That means there is a difference, and it has nothing to do with not being an even divisible of my refresh rate, as I have a 120hz monitor. The divisible thing would only be an issue with V-sync anyway.

 

[Borealis7]

the "Refresh Rate" debate is the "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate of VGA forums.
i'll let you decide for yourselves which side is which.

 

[DigDog]

frames per second doesn't just affect what you see - it also affects placement of objects on the screen. you always see these objects 1 frame later than the server does, so the more frames you have, the better. if you play fast games, such as shooters, it makes a world of difference.

if you have a moving pixel, at 50fps, it would be smooth enough for you to see no tearing, no lag. but that pixel on your screen is 40ms late compared to its position on the server. its position is always a little behind; if it moves fast enough to move to the next pixel in 40ms or less, you would always be aiming at the wrong pixel.

 

[SantaAna12]

Play at 60fps.
Play at 100fps.
Compare your scores.
If you haven't, then your not much of a gamer.

 

[tential]

The answer is about 50/60 fps, anything more in most games is just people wanting to justify their purchases.

It used to be well known that the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeable but now suddenly people can see the difference between 1080p and 2160p which is total Bullsh!t. I remember the arguments I was around for them. They use the excuse "it depends on the monitor size".
It does if your trying to play on a 70 in TV not the usual 28/32".

10 years from now people will be saying 240fps 244hz @ 4320p is the best.

The irony is that you game at 1080p. If it's barely noticeable between 1080p and 720p then why do you game at 1080p? Game at 720p.

Good for you though, your graphics card purchases hold you far longer.

Otherwise, your post is riddled with factual errors. Don't know why you even post here if you believe there is little to no difference betweek 720p and 4K resolution. You can pretty much play the majority of games you want on a lowend graphics card at 720p so none of this stuff really applies to you.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

The answer is about 50/60 fps, anything more in most games is just people wanting to justify their purchases.

It used to be well known that the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeable but now suddenly people can see the difference between 1080p and 2160p which is total Bullsh!t. I remember the arguments I was around for them. They use the excuse "it depends on the monitor size".
It does if your trying to play on a 70 in TV not the usual 28/32".

10 years from now people will be saying 240fps 244hz @ 4320p is the best.

Oh come on, 720 and 1080 is night and day.

 

[SirPauly]

.
i'll let you decide for yourselves which side is which.

Well said! As long as there are compelling choices for one's subjective tastes and tolerances -- all is good. For me, the diminishing return ball really starts rolling, severely, after 60+ and consider this ideal but certainly respect others that desire more, especially for competitive gaming.

 

[monstercameron]

If say it just depends on how consistent the frame delivery is, smooth 30 or irregular 60...smooth 30 is probably better. As for the max I can notice id say somewhere is the smooth 40s...

 

[redzo]

FPS needs to get as high as possible with respect to the refresh rate, and the other way around. Objects moving fast are easier to spot at high FPS. Motion fluidity increases with higher FPS.

Movies get shot at low FPS due to the fact that it is the perfect environment where you can get easily tricked and a lot cheaper. The more detail and motion you put on screen, the more expensive will get to trick the viewers.

 

[BFG10K]

It used to be well known that the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeable but now suddenly people can see the difference between 1080p and 2160p which is total Bullsh!t.

No it isn't. I can spot the difference between 1080p native and 4K DSR in games on my 27" a meter away.

 

[redzo]

No it isn't. I can spot the difference between 1080p native and 4K DSR in games on my 27" a meter away.

You are talking about something else entirely.

 

[happy medium]

if you believe there is little to no difference betweek 720p and 4K resolution

No I never said that , I said 720 and 1080p on a 24/25/26/27 inch screen is hardly noticeable. If you wanna game on a 70 inch screen of coarse you will notice it.

 

[flopper]

You notice the difference with AMD Mantle as it allows better framesync than nvidia ever had. you want 120+fps which todays cards cant do at 1080p no 980ti, no titan x none of them and adding dual or tri cards your experience will sink to the baseline of crap.
anyone saying different is lying.

You need to lower settings to push those fps.
one reason my 290 was able to push 115fps in BF4 with Mantle at 5040x1050 115hz.
we are 10 generations or more to even consider a single card is powerful for 4k and then we have 8k so guess what? if you want more fps well kinda need to lower settings but that then invalidate your high end card buy along the way.

The difference is obvious of fps rate for anyone who actually compete with fps games.
most kids cant see the difference due to them have no idea whats going on on the screen anyhow.

 

[happy medium]

The irony is that you game at 1080p

Because my 40 inch TV is 1080p. BUt I also have a 40 inch 720/1080i CRT that looks just as nice.

 

[happy medium]

Oh come on, 720 and 1080 is night and day.

On a 24/25inch monitor? You have to take a photo and stare at it to notice the difference.
The only real difference is the price of your video card when you play games.
Now I admit 720p is not ideal but anything over 1080p with a monitor under say 32inches is just epeen but some don't admit it. If the other guy has it, I want it type stuff. Then your mind will tell you ,,,,. yea it does look better, look at that blade of grass, theres no jaggies......really? you just paid an extra 500$ to stop look and stare at a blade of grass to justify your purchase?

 

[happy medium]

Play at 60fps.
Play at 100fps.
Compare your scores.
If you haven't, then your not much of a gamer.

really? it depends on all types of other factors, amount of sleep, playing too much, your internet connection, and how about if a certain guy in the game is really good? You can never measure how good you game by fps alone, its impossible.

 

[bystander36]

Happy medium, you may want to check your eyes by a Ophthalmologists.

 

[happy medium]

Happy medium, you may want to check your eyes by a Ophthalmologists.

You could be right I do need better glasses.:hmm:

What effects me most in games is when a monitor is blurry in motion, but that's not fps. I do game better on a CRT still to this day. If I can find a way to hook up a hdmi connector to my 40" CRT with a high refresh rate, all would be dandy.

 

[deanx0r]

I started to play some games on consoles and wasn't really bothered by the 30 fps caps of most games. Obviously 60fps or up feels much smoother, but if my hardware cannot keep that framerate constant, I get much more bothered by the fps dips.

60fps with slight dips to 55 or 50 fps is very noticeable, something that gsync/freesync should hopefully address.