I was told by a guy that i play Americas Army with that the human mind cannot comprehend over 60fps. So haveing an amazing computer that runs 90fps or something like that is completely useless. Can anyone conferm this?
60FPS? 80FPS? Who Cares!
- Thread starter Cawchy87
- Start date
the eye cannot see more than 60 fps AT THE VERY MOST, but with some of the new games, even the most advanced hardware will not give you that with decent res and eyecandy
False. Many people can tell the difference between 60 and 80 FPS. Of course, you can't react faster than that.
Meh.
Wasn't there a discussion on this topic a while back? Something about the human eye only being able to comprehend 24fps, so why bother with 60+? I couldn't find it in the archives, and my memory is pretty shoddy, so if someone else remembers this, please, speak up.
Anyway, I'll say this much on the issue of what the human eye can see and what framerates do for your performance:
If you think you only need to run equal to your eye's capability, you can go run Halo at 24fps, and then tell me how much better it runs at 60. Trust me, there's a noticeable difference in game speed.
Anyway, I'll say this much on the issue of what the human eye can see and what framerates do for your performance:
If you think you only need to run equal to your eye's capability, you can go run Halo at 24fps, and then tell me how much better it runs at 60. Trust me, there's a noticeable difference in game speed.
interesting read here:
NVIDIA a computer video card maker who recently purchased 3dFx another computer video card maker just finished a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) for the XBOX from Microsoft. Increasing amounts of rendering capabilities and memory as well as more transistors and instructions per second equate to more frames per second in a Computer Video Game or on Computer Displays in general. There is no motion blur, so the transition from frame to frame is not as smooth as in movies, that is at 30 FPS. In example, NVIDIA/3dfx put out a demo that runs half the screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. The results? - there is a definite difference between the two scenes; 60 fps looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
personally, i cant tell the difference between 50 and 60 FPS but then again i have never seen them side by side
from another article:
So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don't get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps. What this does is saturate the pipeline from your eyes to your visual cortex, just as reality does. As visual quality increases, it really becomes more important to keep frame rates high so we can get the most immersive feel possible. While we still may be several years away from photographic quality in 3D accelerators, it is important to keep the speed up there.
Looks like 3dfx isn't so full of it.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
looks like 72 fps is ideal
NVIDIA a computer video card maker who recently purchased 3dFx another computer video card maker just finished a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) for the XBOX from Microsoft. Increasing amounts of rendering capabilities and memory as well as more transistors and instructions per second equate to more frames per second in a Computer Video Game or on Computer Displays in general. There is no motion blur, so the transition from frame to frame is not as smooth as in movies, that is at 30 FPS. In example, NVIDIA/3dfx put out a demo that runs half the screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. The results? - there is a definite difference between the two scenes; 60 fps looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
personally, i cant tell the difference between 50 and 60 FPS but then again i have never seen them side by side
from another article:
So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don't get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps. What this does is saturate the pipeline from your eyes to your visual cortex, just as reality does. As visual quality increases, it really becomes more important to keep frame rates high so we can get the most immersive feel possible. While we still may be several years away from photographic quality in 3D accelerators, it is important to keep the speed up there.
Looks like 3dfx isn't so full of it.
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
looks like 72 fps is ideal
Your eye refreshes 30 times a second. I don't know how it all works but with computer rendering, there's a difference in smoothness between 30 and 60 fps. Personally I can't tell a dif over 40 fps, but at 30 fps, games are definitely less smooth. I highly doubt anyone can tell a dif between 60 and 80 fps though.
The USAF conducted experiments showing the upper limits of human perception to be around 200FPS. With any hardware out now you use double buffering at least which means you need to double that rate to eliminate lag entirely in terms of the upper limits of human perception. Does anyone have any space where they can host FPS compare? Great app for showing people that you can easily see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS(splits you screen and has a block rotating at a constant rate allowing you to adjust the framerate for each side of the screen).
Sure you can tell a dif but could you pick out the higher fps without knowing which it was? I doubt it. I also think this sort of thing varies a lot with the 3d engine used.
I cannot stand to look at my computer screen if it is set to 60 hz it makes my brain feel disoriented. 85 hz is alot smoother and easier on the eyes. Seriously I will get a headache if it is lower.
I always found the more FPS the better... (Avid Q3 player here)
I liked it when the FPS was over 150... but below 250 or so it didn't really matter anymore
somewhere in there.
it just seems to FLOW better, as the FPS gets well into the triple digits.
try playing that game at 30fps, and then 150fps, and say you can't see a difference... i think even under 50fps is almost unplayable. (since it should be SILKY smooth)
I liked it when the FPS was over 150... but below 250 or so it didn't really matter anymore
somewhere in there.
it just seems to FLOW better, as the FPS gets well into the triple digits.
try playing that game at 30fps, and then 150fps, and say you can't see a difference... i think even under 50fps is almost unplayable. (since it should be SILKY smooth)
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
Yes, a blind person.
Completely false.
What a load of bull.
The difference between 72 FPS and 150 FPS in terms of something like mouse response is massive.
The short answer as to how many we need: the higher the better. Thinking about a magic number is flawed on multiple levels since the concept of a magic number does not apply to an average framerate, produced by constant fluctuation in a typical game.
Watching a movie, BFG probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Doing office work on a CRT, he certainly would (the headache he'll get at 60fps/Hz would be a big hint). Playing games, he most likely would. I'm fairly certain this would apply to most people that have experienced gameplay at both 60 and 80fps.
Remember, there's a big difference between watching a movie on film and playing a 3D game. Film isn't interactive, so you won't notive the "lag" between input and response of low framerates. Film also captures motion blur, somewhat alleviating the perception of jerky motion at the low framerate of 24-30fps. But I can certainly notice the limits of film's low 24fps rate in fast-panning scenes. I'm guessing the only thing stopping Hollywood from switching to 60fps film cameras (which Sony has developed) is the almost-tripled cost of film, probably no small amount in a large film with lots of takes per scene.
Also, the main point of a higher average framerate is to maintain a higher minimum framerate. The guy at 60fps avg. may dip to 30fps regularly, whereas the guy at 80fps avg. may only dip to 45fps in intense firefights--a potentially big difference.
This topic was exhaustively debated before, though, so there's really no point in some of us debunking this 60Hz myth for the fifth time. Three times in a month, in fact:
Theory of the framerate that is smooth to the eye.
Updated Theory of Smooth Frame Rate
Whats the highest framerate that the human eye can detect?
Note that VIAN's initial title is somewhat misleading, as 3D gaming framerates need to be smooth to your brain, not your eye. It's all about perception, and the smaller the delay between what happens and what you see, and then how you react and how your in-game persona reacts is key, and more easily noticed when playing than when watching. You probably won't notice jerkiness at above ~20fps just watching a game, but you'll certainly notice the delay between your mouse input and the on-screen response at lower fps while playing.
If you order now, I'll throw in these two more recent threads ... FOR FREE!
Advantages of high FPS.
Refresh rate and Frames per Second
Now, let's never speak of this again, or at least get an admin to post this linkfest to those gabfests as a signpost for future skeptics.
Remember, there's a big difference between watching a movie on film and playing a 3D game. Film isn't interactive, so you won't notive the "lag" between input and response of low framerates. Film also captures motion blur, somewhat alleviating the perception of jerky motion at the low framerate of 24-30fps. But I can certainly notice the limits of film's low 24fps rate in fast-panning scenes. I'm guessing the only thing stopping Hollywood from switching to 60fps film cameras (which Sony has developed) is the almost-tripled cost of film, probably no small amount in a large film with lots of takes per scene.
Also, the main point of a higher average framerate is to maintain a higher minimum framerate. The guy at 60fps avg. may dip to 30fps regularly, whereas the guy at 80fps avg. may only dip to 45fps in intense firefights--a potentially big difference.
This topic was exhaustively debated before, though, so there's really no point in some of us debunking this 60Hz myth for the fifth time. Three times in a month, in fact:
Theory of the framerate that is smooth to the eye.
Updated Theory of Smooth Frame Rate
Whats the highest framerate that the human eye can detect?
Note that VIAN's initial title is somewhat misleading, as 3D gaming framerates need to be smooth to your brain, not your eye. It's all about perception, and the smaller the delay between what happens and what you see, and then how you react and how your in-game persona reacts is key, and more easily noticed when playing than when watching. You probably won't notice jerkiness at above ~20fps just watching a game, but you'll certainly notice the delay between your mouse input and the on-screen response at lower fps while playing.
If you order now, I'll throw in these two more recent threads ... FOR FREE!
Advantages of high FPS.
Refresh rate and Frames per Second
Now, let's never speak of this again, or at least get an admin to post this linkfest to those gabfests as a signpost for future skeptics.
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.
thats a very interesting program. i just used it. i set one side to 60 and the other to 80, the funny thing is with 60 fps , i noticed a lot less blur
I just tried the 60-80 test and I felt that the 80 fps was a little rougher, too.However, I have pretty poor eyesight, with one eye worse than the other....... so I closed one eye, and just tried to relax and not stare at the screen,... under those conditions, *maybe* the 80 fps looked a tiny little bit smoother.
I then tried 60-90, gave it my magical one-eye-dont-stare test, and I was convinced 90fps looked better. Without having them side-by-side I very much doubt I could have seen a difference.
It would probably be better to get an assistant to set up the speeds, then cover the fps counters.It is easy to fool yourself into seeing what you expect to see ( at least, it is with me=) )
I then tried 60-90, gave it my magical one-eye-dont-stare test, and I was convinced 90fps looked better. Without having them side-by-side I very much doubt I could have seen a difference.
It would probably be better to get an assistant to set up the speeds, then cover the fps counters.It is easy to fool yourself into seeing what you expect to see ( at least, it is with me=) )
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
The human eye can only take 20 or so, actually.
But common sense will give you the answer, if you watch a movie and then play a game. Games lack motion blur (interlacing and subtelties of 'slow' CRTs like TVs help, too--you will eventually be able to tell the choppiness of some movies if you watch them a few times on a monitor. I don't recall the science behind this, though, sorry).
More frames = more images make up each of the images we get, so there is the ppearance of constant motion. So being able to tell the difference between higher framerates has little bearing on how many images we actually see, and a mind could probably be trained to see into the hundreds of frames per second.
But common sense will give you the answer, if you watch a movie and then play a game. Games lack motion blur (interlacing and subtelties of 'slow' CRTs like TVs help, too--you will eventually be able to tell the choppiness of some movies if you watch them a few times on a monitor. I don't recall the science behind this, though, sorry).
More frames = more images make up each of the images we get, so there is the ppearance of constant motion. So being able to tell the difference between higher framerates has little bearing on how many images we actually see, and a mind could probably be trained to see into the hundreds of frames per second.
I noticed very little difference between 60 and 200.
If i took it below 60 though the difference began to show.
If i took it below 60 though the difference began to show.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter