How many frames per second do you need? - General

[QUOTE=abcpea;50056735]cant see above 255fps because our eyes are only 8 bit [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] 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] Funnily enough, the games that benefit most from low persistence are 2d sidescrollers[/QUOTE] Lightboost is blur reduction reserved for Nvidia 3D, but you can force it on without 3D hardware - and yes the difference is huge. There's a list of compatible monitors at the top of the page: [url]http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/[/url] I have the ASUS VG248QE. I used the [url]http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-text[/url] test to compare lightboost on and off. I can just about read 960px/s with lightboost off, and 1440px/s comfortably with it on.

Honestly he's right about the desktop just feeling so precise. Going to 60 feels kinda weird now. It's uncanny in a way.

[QUOTE=butre;50054378]I can't tell the difference above 45 or so[/QUOTE] go to the doctor

[QUOTE=Elstumpo;50057759]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.[/QUOTE] I'm on 1440p 144hz with a 980 (which I'm getting rid of soon), you won't be able to run newer games on higher settings and reach more than 60. Even with a titan I don't think you will reach 144. I'd say it's worth it to get 144hz anyways for the games that do reach it, because it's so much better and smoother. I played overwatch back in one of the closed betas, and it ran fine maxed with a 980, but you won't get to 144 with that.

[QUOTE=eirexe;50058911]go to the doctor[/QUOTE] there isn't a cure for retardation

You guys talking about hundreds of fps and I'm here willing to kill a person to get at least 40

Most of my gaming is done at 60FPS. Truth be told, I've never seen a 144hz monitor in action, so I have no idea what gaming beyond that even looks like.

Anything under ~45 FPS starts feeling bad and 30 and under feels like molasses. I try to keep most things at 66 fps but I like pretty effects too much.

ever since I got my 1440p 144hz monitor 1.5 years ago. Ive been dying for more performance that doesn't exist except with SLI. Which I dont believe in beceuse of the microstutters it causes that and well heaps of problems that come with it. Ive went to a 780 to a 780ti to a 980 and eventeully now 980ti all in the course of 1.5 years. Things like division run like 60fps for me on max settings. Im fine with that its actaully not that bad with G-sync but oh man once you've tried 144hz 1440p you really want to hit that limit no matter the cost. To anyone with OCD's do not fucking buy a monitor you cant reach in performance you will try to make it your life plan to break into nvidia's super secret lab of expirimental gpu's to steal one. Just waiting for pascal titan now I think that will be the card that will be litterly perfect for every game if rumors are true that its a x2 performance of 980ti. In all honestly im actaully really close to being more than satisfied if you got G-sync then for most FPS games 90-120fps is more than perfect for me. Which I do hit in games like battlefront on frostbyte engine.

here I am being happy that I can run stuff above 30 :v:

And I still think 25fps is good lol.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;50054417]60 feels great to me, under 45 and the game feels super choppy.[/QUOTE] i noticed that 40-45 seems to be the magic number for a lot of people, it's weird

[QUOTE=Tobba;50054723]It doesn't have much to do with the actual video framerate, the issue has to do with that CS:GO only gets input from the mouse once for every frame. This is [I]very[/I] noticeable if you have mouse acceleration on for some godforsaken reason, as your sensitivity will become FPS dependent until you go over >125 FPS, which is Window's default sample rate.[/QUOTE] With this being the case, I'd like to see this dude (or other people, w/e) testing the same theory in different games.

I can barely tell the difference (or care enough to notice) the difference between 30 and 60, let alone anything higher. I'm quite happy with FPS as low as 30 lol

[QUOTE=Brancki427;50059370]ever since I got my 1440p 144hz monitor 1.5 years ago. Ive been dying for more performance that doesn't exist except with SLI. Which I dont believe in beceuse of the microstutters it causes that and well heaps of problems that come with it. Ive went to a 780 to a 780ti to a 980 and eventeully now 980ti all in the course of 1.5 years. Things like division run like 60fps for me on max settings. Im fine with that its actaully not that bad with G-sync but oh man once you've tried 144hz 1440p you really want to hit that limit no matter the cost. To anyone with OCD's do not fucking buy a monitor you cant reach in performance you will try to make it your life plan to break into nvidia's super secret lab of expirimental gpu's to steal one. Just waiting for pascal titan now I think that will be the card that will be litterly perfect for every game if rumors are true that its a x2 performance of 980ti. In all honestly im actaully really close to being more than satisfied if you got G-sync then for most FPS games 90-120fps is more than perfect for me. Which I do hit in games like battlefront on frostbyte engine.[/QUOTE] You're never gonna reach 144fps on newer games at Ultra settings, just be happy with the 90fps you get. I learned to live with it although the games that do run at 144fps throw me off completely cause I don't expect it. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50059940]I can barely tell the difference (or care enough to notice) the difference between 30 and 60, let alone anything higher. I'm quite happy with FPS as low as 30 lol[/QUOTE] If you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 you should see a doctor.

[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50059954] If you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 you should see a doctor.[/QUOTE] When the difference doesn't matter to you, it's harder to notice. Do you think your mom would notice the difference unless you instructed her to look for it? [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50059954]You're never gonna reach 144fps on newer games, just be happy with the 90fps you get.[/QUOTE] Not all newer games run badly / slowly. I run Rocket League at a rock solid 120fps on my older GTX 680.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50059977]When the difference doesn't matter to you, it's harder to notice. Do you think your mom would notice the difference unless you instructed her to look for it?[/QUOTE] mine did, actually. when i bought my 144hz monitor, mine wanted to know what i was so excited about, and i let her just browse the internet for a bit. she said it felt smoother, without knowing what to look for specifically.

[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50059954]You're never gonna reach 144fps on newer games, just be happy with the 90fps you get. I learned to live with it although the games that do run at 144fps throw me off completely cause I don't expect it.[/QUOTE] I can run Battlefield at 160-200 FPS with my GTX670 with everything on low except for model and terrain quality on high so I can properly see shit in the distance. You can reach those numbers you just need to sacrifice a bit of graphical fidelity.

I love when I tell my friends how I play games when I get <60 fps. They act like that is a physical impossibility and think they would experience literal nausea just trying to play it.

now that I've been spoiled by 144hz, even the mouse cursor movement and windows being dragged look super choppy at 60hz. Also I notice when T.V.s and games are at 144hz or 60hz. It's a hard life.

[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50059954]You're never gonna reach 144fps on newer games, just be happy with the 90fps you get. I learned to live with it although the games that do run at 144fps throw me off completely cause I don't expect it. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] If you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 you should see a doctor.[/QUOTE] The point is that I barely notice it. Like, I don't mind games at 30fps because they don't feel like they look worse (much) than 60fps. As for like 100+ fps I think it's honestly just people masturbating over trivial differences. 99% of the population probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between something in 100fps and something in 300fps.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50060636]The point is that I barely notice it. Like, I don't mind games at 30fps because they don't feel like they look worse (much) than 60fps. As for like 100+ fps I think it's honestly just people masturbating over trivial differences. 99% of the population probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between something in 100fps and something in 300fps.[/QUOTE] have you actually seen a >100Hz monitor in person? because its not a minor difference. 30->60 is a huge increase, and 60->144 is huge as well. after ~120 the diminishing returns are definitely greater, which is why you dont see many monitors beyond 144. but what you've just said demonstrates that youre either inexperienced, or willingly ignorant.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50060636]As for like 100+ fps I think it's honestly just people masturbating over trivial differences. 99% of the population probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between something in 100fps and something in 300fps.[/QUOTE] We can notice variances in input delay, and less is always preferrable. Going from 100 to 300fps (even if your screen doesn't support such a framerate) means your muscle actuation-to-screen delay is shorter, noticeably so.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50060807]have you actually seen a >100Hz monitor in person? because its not a minor difference. 30->60 is a huge increase, and 60->144 is huge as well. after ~120 the diminishing returns are definitely greater, which is why you dont see many monitors beyond 144. but what you've just said demonstrates that youre either inexperienced, or willingly ignorant.[/QUOTE] Well I'm not denying that an increase from 30 to 60 is big, or that 60 to 100 isn't noticable, but it just seems dumb to go on about how great 300fps is compared to 100fps when i just can't really see the difference between the two i've seen those monitors in person and i honestly can't understand what the big deal is.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50061175]Well I'm not denying that an increase from 30 to 60 is big, or that 60 to 100 isn't noticable, but it just seems dumb to go on about how great 300fps is compared to 100fps when i just can't really see the difference between the two i've seen those monitors in person and i honestly can't understand what the big deal is.[/QUOTE] It's less about the visual difference, but more about how the input lag is as little as possible.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50061175]Well I'm not denying that an increase from 30 to 60 is big, or that 60 to 100 isn't noticable, but it just seems dumb to go on about how great 300fps is compared to 100fps when i just can't really see the difference between the two i've seen those monitors in person and i honestly can't understand what the big deal is.[/QUOTE] 300hz monitors don't exist yet.

The video isn't about seeing the difference in anything anyway, it's about feeling the difference, mainly in frame latency/input lag.

[QUOTE=Brancki427;50059370]ever since I got my 1440p 144hz monitor 1.5 years ago. Ive been dying for more performance that doesn't exist except with SLI. Which I dont believe in beceuse of the microstutters it causes that and well heaps of problems that come with it. Ive went to a 780 to a 780ti to a 980 and eventeully now 980ti all in the course of 1.5 years. Things like division run like 60fps for me on max settings. Im fine with that its actaully not that bad with G-sync but oh man once you've tried 144hz 1440p you really want to hit that limit no matter the cost. To anyone with OCD's do not fucking buy a monitor you cant reach in performance you will try to make it your life plan to break into nvidia's super secret lab of expirimental gpu's to steal one. Just waiting for pascal titan now I think that will be the card that will be litterly perfect for every game if rumors are true that its a x2 performance of 980ti. In all honestly im actaully really close to being more than satisfied if you got G-sync then for most FPS games 90-120fps is more than perfect for me. Which I do hit in games like battlefront on frostbyte engine.[/QUOTE] Double the efficiency is not two times the performance, while you're looking at a huge leap, it's realistically going to be in the 60-70% range, which is still enormous and hasn't happened since the days of the 8800.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;50060124]I can run Battlefield at 160-200 FPS with my GTX670 with everything on low except for model and terrain quality on high so I can properly see shit in the distance. You can reach those numbers you just need to sacrifice a bit of graphical fidelity.[/QUOTE] I know that, I forgot to add "at maximum settings" to my post. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;50059977]Do you think your mom would notice the difference unless you instructed her to look for it? [/QUOTE] Uh, yes actually. My brother has a pseudo 120hz TV and all TV shows are noticeably smoother on it. She immediately noticed it when we went over to his house.

[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;50063578]I know that, I forgot to add "at maximum settings" to my post. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] Uh, yes actually. My brother has a pseudo 120hz TV and all TV shows are noticeably smoother on it. She immediately noticed it when we went over to his house.[/QUOTE] Aren't TV shows all 24 FPS though?