How many FPS is overkill?

[Planktune]

sudden drops in framerate is what is most noticeable in games. Get the minimum rate >60 fps you be OK. but the higher the better. current hardware cannot do optimum fps + resolution so find the happy medium on your machine

 

[UKtaxman]

It is obvious that the higher the frame rate the better. However it is more to do with a sustained frame rate rsther than a top frame rate. For example a sustained frame rate of 60fps is far, far better than a high frame rate of 100fps! The problems occur when you've got a lot happening on screen your frame rate can drop right down. Hence the fact that limiting your frame rate to 60, (even when its capable of 150) will give far better results.
Sorry, but degrees per frame mean BS, if your monitor isn't up to it!
Mouse refresh rate is something totally seperate in that you don't necessarily have to see what's happening to perceive it! The higher the mouse refresh the better, as the computer and your brain will calculate the dynamics even if it isn't shown on screen! The computer will calculate it exactly, and your brain will compensate for the lack of visual input with an aproximation(which happens to be spookily accurate). This is why a good sustained refresh rate is essential. I'm not saying that high fps aren't also desireable, but if that fps isn't sustained continuously it means jack, diddly squat.

 

[damac]

everybody should just use common sense.

if you play games you can probably pickup on jerkiness below 30 fps, and bump a game up to 60+ fps and you will again notice a difference.

get something crazy like 100fps and you will again notice another difference, try an older game on your pc. everything blazes, no jerks and it feels like everything is responsive and on turbo.

also their is a reason why arcade developers shoot for 60 fps, and not just 30 which is a level you wouldn't probably call choppy in a game even if constant.

So I think the need is for a constant 60fps in all games ideally, and soon we might be able to get to 85 on older games(no way geforce 3 and monster rig is gonna run new games at these framerates any time soon, its never happened and won't start to unless you turn the res and options down).

I have also read numerous interviews with 3dfx and nvidia and they would say 85 is what would be nice to shoot for(you need that refresh on your monitor).

I know I would be happy as hell with that kind of framerate all the time, and nobody has the horsepower to run many games at 100+ fps so I haven't experienced that to judge if it adds anything to the gaming experience for me.

 

[stultus]

Okay, dumb question:
(These comments deal with Counter-Strike)

How can you say that everything is smooth when you turn off v-sync? Sure, it increases FPS, but when you're turning around corners, you can see the "jaggedness" while waiting for your monitor to refresh.

I turned off v-synch and was getting something like 80-90 FPS @ 1280x1024 (on the system in my sig) but it looked totally awful. I turned V-synch back on to get a solid 60 FPS and everything looks liquid smooth again. Is counter-strike a bad example of this, or is my computer on crack? (And, why do I drop to 30-40 FPS in some instances playing CS while all you Q3'ers talk about 100+ FPSs? Does my hardware suck, or does Q3 have less demanding textures?)

 

[Rellik]

STULTUS:

1. What do you mean with "looks liquid smooth again" ? Do you mean that the performance is now better and the framerate doesn´t cave in,
OR do you mean that you are experienceing aliasing effects(jaggies) with V-sync enabled? V-Sync can account for certain quality drawbags
such as texture errors(clipping) but it is not able to "make a stair
without aliasing effects simply by activating V-sync.



<< And, why do I drop to 30-40 FPS in some instances playing CS while all you Q3'ers talk about 100+ FPSs? Does my hardware suck, or >>



2. Counter-Strike uses the modified Quake 2 engine that Valve developped for Half-Life. The textures as well as the polygon throughput requirements are substiancially LOWER then any Quake 3 engine based game. CS is (IMHO, don´t start flaming) just badly programmed. I really don´t want to get into it, but stability issues
and performance cave-ins are usally the best proof of this. CS should run smooth on any 500Mhz pc with a card like the TNT2Ultra or V3. A
GF or Radeon is wasted here because it just doesn´t get better.

Again, please no CS zealots posts.

Your machine seems fine to me, so just tweak the settings a bit..

 

[EMAN]

Long as my minimal fps is around 30fps than I'm satisfied. Anything above that is kind of overkill.

 

[SiliconVandal]

I can tell a difference between 60fps and 120fps..not visually but the feel of the game is greatly improved. Being a marksmen is much easier at 120FPS

 

[stultus]

When I say liquid smooth I mean that I see no jaggies. I play with low mouse sensitivity, and the game scrolls gorgeously. V-synch on makes it look like crap when I'm playing due to jaggies. Why would 100 FPS be any different from 80 FPS if your game sets the refresh at 60 Hz? You're always going to be limited by the refresh, right? (I must be wrong, but why?)