How many frames per second do you need? - General

[QUOTE=Zantze;50054586]But eye can't see over 21fps?[/QUOTE] You say that, but play Super Mario Bros. on a 3DS then transfer over to MGS3D and tell me you don't notice the drop to 20 in the [I]title screen.[/I]

I just need that silky smooth 13 FPS.

As an owner of a 144 G-Sync ASUS Swift, and as I'm usually extremely sensitive to these sort of frame latency/input lag/stuttering sort of things to a point I can tell the difference between 59 or 60 FPS by the eye, (which got me to spend a shitton of money to minimize these issues by getting a 144 FPS capable rig) I fully agree with the video. I usually play on 144/144 FPS on 2560x1440 (for example, GTA), and it feels fine, but when I crank down the settings so it runs at around 300/144 FPS, it's just ridiculous how much smoother and responsive everything feels. It's hard to describe and I don't get it technically. I also don't think a lot of people in NVIDIA get it fully.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50054746]it's actually 22 fps, considering each eye sees at 11 fps[/QUOTE] Its also far more complex than that, the human visual system, our eyes and brain can process 10 to 12 separate images per second and perceive them individually, while anything higher than the 10~12 is then perceived as motion, however even motion can be perceived individually and its possible to see and recognize a specific image in an unbroken series of different images, each of which lasts as little as 13 milliseconds. The eye and brain doesn't "see" in FPS so its really hard to actually specify a number for what rate we see at. Granted anything that flickers around 16 Hz, 48 Hz, 50 Hz, 60 Hz and higher will be seen as stable, solid motion to the eye. Higher refresh and FPS just makes the motion we perceive to be smoother as the light we process is more blended together so to say. Eitherway saying the eye can't see over x or only sees y is bullshit because the visual system doesn't work like that, plus other people can see motion better than others which effects how accurately they can see FPS differences anyway.

I agree, and I come with no proof in hand. Every game that I play where I am dealing with other humans, I ramp the graphics down and save EVERY SINGLE frame for the heated moments when every fraction counts. This video rings especially true for me because I began this practice back in my counter-strike days. I remember the day when I got a new graphics card and jacked the graphics up, and after like a day just lowered everything again to fill the gap my expectations had created for the frames I lost just to have better textures or whatever else. Who cares about that anyway, a wall is a wall.

To me, if the recording there isnt lag, is enough :v

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;50054781]Switching from Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin (60) to the Bloodborne DLC (30) nearly tore my retinas apart. The difference was so massive and jarring. I had to stop playing games over 30 for a few days just to stomach BB without getting nausea or a headache.[/QUOTE] It was the same thing for me. Going into Bloodborne right after DS2 you could definitely tell the massive difference. I didn't have nearly the same effects you got from it but it was still fairly jarring for me to jump from 60 to 30 (having played 60fps games almost exclusively for such a long time).

All of my games usually run at around 70-80+ fps at max settings so that's what I'm used to, as soon as it drops to 60 I instantly notice it and anything lower than that drives me up the damn wall. I mean it's not like I can't play lower than 60fps (Division for PS4 kills me cause I can play it at 80 at max settings in 1080p) but I can't say that I enjoy it.

[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50055286]All of my games usually run at around 70-80+ fps at max settings so that's what I'm used to, as soon as it drops to 60 I instantly notice it and anything lower than that drives me up the damn wall. I mean it's not like I can't play lower than 60fps (Division for PS4 kills me cause I can play it at 80 at max settings in 1080p) but I can't say that I enjoy it.[/QUOTE] I'm the same. When I'm playing GTA V and it's at 80 I'm happy. When it drops to 60 I feel like something's wrong. I made a big mistake in getting a 1440p monitor because it's harder to get 144hz on it.

I think players are just better at competitive FPS games when they lower all their settings not because it improves framerates but because all the sun shafts, lens flares, virtual dust, blood, grime, motion blur, bloom, color correction, chromatic aberration, and volumetric and dynamic lights are no longer causing "noise" in disrupting what you actually need to see. I can play BF4 on ultra and get 60+ FPS and I'm dogshit. When I turn all the bullshit off I improve a lot because I can actually see the things I need to shoot and everything isn't obscured by JJ Abrams levels of post processing visual effects and lens flares.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;50055564]I think players are just better at competitive FPS games when they lower all their settings not because it improves framerates but because all the sun shafts, lens flares, virtual dust, blood, grime, motion blur, bloom, color correction, chromatic aberration, and volumetric and dynamic lights are no longer causing "noise" in disrupting what you actually need to see. I can play BF4 on ultra and get 60+ FPS and I'm dogshit. When I turn all the bullshit off I improve a lot because I can actually see the things I need to shoot and everything isn't obscured by JJ Abrams levels of post processing visual effects and lens flares.[/QUOTE] I think this is probably the most likely theory. It seems silly to me that having exceedingly high framerates on 60HZ monitors is anything besides placebo otherwise. The idea about the latest frames being "newer" is interesting, but it doesn't really make that much sense when your 60HZ monitor is refreshing every ~16.7. With your average visual reaction time being around 200ms ~ 250ms, at least 10 ~ 15 frames before you actually recognize an enemy/teammate. The other thing that could be happening is that the input lag on high framerates is just lower, which could technically result in finer mouse movement (though you wouldn't be able to actually SEE it being smoother, and it would depend a lot on how the game handles it).

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;50055646]I think this is probably the most likely theory. It seems silly to me that having exceedingly high framerates on 60HZ monitors is anything besides placebo otherwise. The idea about the latest frames being "newer" is interesting, but it doesn't really make that much sense when your 60HZ monitor is refreshing every ~16.7. With your average visual reaction time being around 200ms ~ 250ms, at least 10 ~ 15 frames before you actually recognize an enemy/teammate. The other thing that could be happening is that the input lag on high framerates is just lower, which could technically result in finer mouse movement (though you wouldn't be able to actually SEE it being smoother, and it would depend a lot on how the game handles it).[/QUOTE] I think to a certain extent it depends on the game. Some games for example tie framerate and server ticks together so a lower framerate = missing someone because your framerate doesn't match the ticks. Like you can play on a 60HZ tick rate server but if you can only pull 30fps, you're essentially missing half of all the motion happening.

[QUOTE=haloguy234;50055564]I think players are just better at competitive FPS games when they lower all their settings not because it improves framerates but because all the sun shafts, lens flares, virtual dust, blood, grime, motion blur, bloom, color correction, chromatic aberration, and volumetric and dynamic lights are no longer causing "noise" in disrupting what you actually need to see. I can play BF4 on ultra and get 60+ FPS and I'm dogshit. When I turn all the bullshit off I improve a lot because I can actually see the things I need to shoot and everything isn't obscured by JJ Abrams levels of post processing visual effects and lens flares.[/QUOTE] Only partly true; it simply depends on the effects in the game. The effects you mentioned do cause distraction, but that doesn't mean running everything on lowest is the answer. Simply remove all the distracting effects and keep the ones that don't. For instance ambient occlusion can actually help with depth perception and different target's proximity. Better shadows also help if it allows you to see an enemy's shadow around a corner (which may be the case in CSGO). Reflective surfaces can also help with seeing enemies and orientation in a number of ways.

[QUOTE=01271;50055504]I'm the same. When I'm playing GTA V and it's at 80 I'm happy. When it drops to 60 I feel like something's wrong. I made a big mistake in getting a 1440p monitor because it's harder to get 144hz on it.[/QUOTE] I did the same, but even then I set the resolution to 1080 for more demanding games and it still never hits 144fps unless I'm not playing at max settings and it's not like my rig is cheap either.

I can't wait to see what a 120 or 144 Hz screen looks like.

Fun fact - Sixty frames per second + Need it Not necessary for everything But better for everything

[QUOTE=Cufflux;50054480]I was used to playing at sort of under 100 fps. At my birthday lan party, my friend brought over a fucking giant machine with tactical bags for cables and shit. We joined a TF2 MGE server, and playing on my computer against friend #2, I was doing okay. As soon as I had a go on friend #1's beast of a machine, everything felt so goddamn smooth and responsive I was able to hit airshots without much forethought. It felt so good, I had to ask how many FPS it was running at- around 250. Maybe not from 200 to 400 fps, but at least from 100 to 250, there is a difference. It's so much more intense.[/QUOTE] You can't tell the difference in FPS from 60 to 120, if they're absolutely solid at that point, and the monitor refresh rate is 60Hz. This may not be entirely accurate, but the point is that it's not the frames per second that's really limiting, but the refresh rate. If the monitor does not refresh often enough, then those additional frames being send are never refreshed and displayed by the monitor in the first place. It's not a constant stream of light, which is what our eyes perceive.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;50056013]You can't tell the difference in FPS from 60 to 120, if they're absolutely solid at that point, and the monitor refresh rate is 60Hz. This may not be entirely accurate, but the point is that it's not the frames per second that's really limiting, but the refresh rate. If the monitor does not refresh often enough, then those additional frames being send are never refreshed and displayed by the monitor in the first place. It's not a constant stream of light, which is what our eyes perceive.[/QUOTE] Exactly. A 60 hz monitor will never show more than 60 frames of information at a time. However, its not to say those extra frames didn't make it to the monitor in some way. While the game is running a 200 fps, the GPU framebuffer is still updating 200 times a second. However, the frame buffer is not sent to the monitor instantly. So if the framebuffer updates partially while the GPU is still sending the framebuffer to the monitor, that next part will instead reflect the next frame as the old frame was overwritten. And there's screen tearing as a result. Which is why V-Sync is a thing, so that framebuffer doesn't update until the frame is complete sent. However, it won't cause any improvement in smoothness, because you are still only viewing 60 frames, that have 200 corrupted frames in them.

[QUOTE=Demache;50056338]Exactly. A 60 hz monitor will never show more than 60 frames of information at a time. However, its not to say those extra frames didn't make it to the monitor in some way. While the game is running a 200 fps, the GPU framebuffer is still updating 200 times a second. However, the frame buffer is not sent to the monitor instantly. So if the framebuffer updates partially while the GPU is still sending the framebuffer to the monitor, that next part will instead reflect the next frame as the old frame was overwritten. And there's screen tearing as a result. Which is why V-Sync is a thing, so that framebuffer doesn't update until the frame is complete sent. However, it won't cause any improvement in smoothness, because you are still only viewing 60 frames, that have 200 corrupted frames in them.[/QUOTE] This gets pretty close to the reason it feels better. Only with VR coming online has there been a really solid in-depth explanation from this, and it has to do with when the screen refreshes vs when a new frame has actually been rendered. If your game is rendering at exactly 60 FPS, then you'll sometimes get a mismatch of when the GPU finishes rendering, and when the panel refreshes; this will give you a much older frame, making things 'feel slow'. If you're rendering at 2x the panel refresh rate (120 FPS) then the GPU is much more likely to finish a frame closer to the actual panel refresh, decreasing the actual 'motion to photon' latency (As it were), the effect improves at a diminishing rate as you increase the frame rate over the refresh rate. Enabling 'Vsync' is a medicore 'hack' that only prevents screen tearing, but will give you old frames; I can clearly feel the difference in update times with vsync vs no vsync. If you want some technical detail to it, check out page 15-23 here: [url]http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf[/url]

The transition from 60 to 144 was incredibly noticeable for me and I'm 100% used to 144 now

[QUOTE=glitchvid;50056401] If you want some technical detail to it, check out page 15-23 here: [url]http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] That's pretty cool actually. Thanks for the link. [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50056423]The transition from 60 to 144 was incredibly noticeable for me and I'm 100% used to 144 now[/QUOTE] I do miss having an 85 Hz CRT for that reason. It was definitely smoother than every 60 hz panel I've used since, obviously. That being said, I'm still going to prioritize resolution/IPS over refresh rate. I don't really play games that would objectively play better with a 60+ refresh rate like twitch shooters would.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50054660]I'd love a source on this.[/QUOTE] cant see above 255fps because our eyes are only 8 bit [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;50055928]I can't wait to see what a 120 or 144 Hz screen looks like.[/QUOTE] I have 120 and tbh I still notice the jutter. I think the more important thing here is low persistence, so a screen with blur reduction (which would be 120/144hz anyway) would be ideal for me, but Ive never seen one [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Demache;50056436]That being said, I'm still going to prioritize resolution/IPS over refresh rate. I don't really play games that would objectively play better with a 60+ refresh rate like twitch shooters would.[/QUOTE] Funnily enough, the games that benefit most from low persistence are 2d sidescrollers

[QUOTE=abcpea;50056735]I have 120 and tbh I still notice the jutter. I think the more important thing here is low persistence, so a screen with blur reduction (which would be 120/144hz anyway) would be ideal for me, but Ive never seen one[/QUOTE] You sure your 120 screen doesn't have a strobe mode for low persistence?

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;50055928]I can't wait to see what a 120 or 144 Hz screen looks like.[/QUOTE] I got to try a 144Hz screen playing CSGO/Smite recently, having never seen/used one and being someone used to 60fps. The difference is seriously crazy and you can notice it the second you see it. It's hard to explain it but things just look so much more smoother and easier on the eyes.

I showed my brother ufo test and he didn't understand. Then he played NS2 at 144 and he could see and track the aliens as they jumped past him at high speed. It's a big difference for everyone who tries.

Are there any videos showcasing a 144hz monitor showcasing 60 and 144 fps? I have a 144 hz monitor but my rig can't achieve that level of quality and speed on any games.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50057649]Are there any videos showcasing a 144hz monitor showcasing 60 and 144 fps? I have a 144 hz monitor but my rig can't achieve that level of quality and speed on any games.[/QUOTE] You could use a Source game since they are easy to run CPU wise and lower the graphics settings until it exceeds 144 fps.

I've been wondering what to upgrade to for a while. 1440p/144hz or just 1080p? Running a 980.

[QUOTE=Elstumpo;50057703]I've been wondering what to upgrade to for a while. 1440p/144hz or just 1080p? Running a 980.[/QUOTE] I don't think you can go wrong either way, but to me its dependent on what kind of gpu you buy. For 1440p/144 you have to go with the top-end, as its equivalent to 4k/60hz.

[QUOTE=Lamar;50057735]I don't think you can go wrong either way, but to me its dependent on what kind of gpu you buy. For 1440p/144 you have to go with the top-end, as its equivalent to 4k/60hz.[/QUOTE] Wasn't thinking of upgrading my GPU any time soon- only got this rig in October. Maybe I'll wait for Overwatch since most games I play currently aren't hugely dependent on high frame rates.