-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Frame rate
- Thread starter wolfy87
- Start date
Films run at 23.976 (~24fps).
And a NTSC TV runs at 29.97fps. (60 fields a second I think, 60hz), PAL runs at ~25fps (50 fields a second I think, 50hz)
I think anywhere over 45fps is great. And anything over 30 is good. Of course, this depends on the type of game you play. A fps may need more fps to feel smooth then say, an RTS or something.
But I wouldn't use 30 as an average. 30 would have to be the minimun the card ever put out. If your card only averaged 30 fps, then to me that isn't playable. During lots of fight scenes, etc, that's going to drop to a slideshow.
I thought the standard used to be "min 30 for playable, and the human eye can't detect anything above 60".
So to me, I want my stuff to be well over 60, because games start making me seasick or at least giving me a headache if I play one that sits there at 40-50 all the time.
Maybe my eyes are just better than most. ( I do have 20/10 vision)
theprodigalrebel
Lifer
It depends - different games have different requirements.
For instance, I had what I thought was smooth performance in NFS:MW - I turned on FRAPS and I noticed I was averaging around 35FPS with the occasional drop to the late twenties. When playing a multiplayer FPS (with a strong desire to deliver some major ownage), you want silky smooth performance when it all goes to hell and there are a dozen grenades and RPGs going off every ten seconds in a cramped corridor. Stuttering (when a game simply freezes for a half-second) is a far bigger mood-killer than the occasional frame-rate drop to the teens in my opinion.
30 minimum is what I aim for in FPS games (I don't really play MP games).
For instance, I had what I thought was smooth performance in NFS:MW - I turned on FRAPS and I noticed I was averaging around 35FPS with the occasional drop to the late twenties. When playing a multiplayer FPS (with a strong desire to deliver some major ownage), you want silky smooth performance when it all goes to hell and there are a dozen grenades and RPGs going off every ten seconds in a cramped corridor. Stuttering (when a game simply freezes for a half-second) is a far bigger mood-killer than the occasional frame-rate drop to the teens in my opinion.
30 minimum is what I aim for in FPS games (I don't really play MP games).
I tend to agree with the 30fps as minimum.
Although Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory max was about 25 on my old card, played very, very smooth because of the slow pace of the game.
So, it really depends on the individual and the particular game you're playing. Faster paced games require higher fps to remain smooth.
Bottom line:
Minimum 30fps should be good enough for 90-95% of gamers.
Although Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory max was about 25 on my old card, played very, very smooth because of the slow pace of the game.
So, it really depends on the individual and the particular game you're playing. Faster paced games require higher fps to remain smooth.
Bottom line:
Minimum 30fps should be good enough for 90-95% of gamers.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
LOL How can people just let shit like this spew from their mouth and act so confidant saying it?
hahahaha
MarcVenice
Moderator Emeritus <br>
Wait, if your such a smartguy, why not enlighten him ? And me while you're at it. If your screen can't refresh more then 60 times a second, how the hell are FPS of over 60 going to matter ?
Anyways, you'd prolly want to aim for a minimum of 25-30fps. I've found that sometimes an RTS can still be playable at 20-30fps, where as some racegames become to sluggish for steering input to be direct enough, like DiRT for example, where I really needed 30+ fps at all times. The same holds true for NFS: Pro Street, where I have been fine with roughly 30fps or so. FPS I want more FPS though, because otherwise aiming becomes a pain in the ass, and even in SP a smooth experience can make the difference between life or death 🙂
Just download Fraps, and see for yourself. You'll notice that when you dip below 25fps you'll often won't play as good as you would with 30fps and up.
Anyways, you'd prolly want to aim for a minimum of 25-30fps. I've found that sometimes an RTS can still be playable at 20-30fps, where as some racegames become to sluggish for steering input to be direct enough, like DiRT for example, where I really needed 30+ fps at all times. The same holds true for NFS: Pro Street, where I have been fine with roughly 30fps or so. FPS I want more FPS though, because otherwise aiming becomes a pain in the ass, and even in SP a smooth experience can make the difference between life or death 🙂
Just download Fraps, and see for yourself. You'll notice that when you dip below 25fps you'll often won't play as good as you would with 30fps and up.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
Its seems alot of you are working on logic from CRT monitors, and just assuming it works the same, even though its obvious when first looking at a LCD, that they are two very different technologies.
Basically, ignore the hz rating. It has no relevance to a LCD as there is no screen refresh, the refresh is per pixel, and still does not work off the HZ rating either. HZ is lagacy on LCD.
Basically, ignore the hz rating. It has no relevance to a LCD as there is no screen refresh, the refresh is per pixel, and still does not work off the HZ rating either. HZ is lagacy on LCD.
heyheybooboo
Diamond Member
Freudian slip?
I love it when the *expert* opinions roll in on a thread 😀
btw - I saw an eye test where fighter pilots recognized shapes of planes in a darkened room at some unbelievable rate - I can't find the link - but I found this on hand-eye coordination. . .
Best I did was 13 seconds!
taltamir
Lifer
To mr. wiseguy McRuden, even if an LCD doesn't work the same as a CRT it all really doesn't matter...
Because at the end the software and drivers are such that the LCD only receives it at 60Hz... Hz is shorts for Hertz which literally means CYCLES.
While in a CRT a cycle involves an electron ray going from top to bottom across the screen really fast;
in LCD it is actually how many times per second the monitor changes the currently displayed image.
The response time determines how long it physically takes each pixel to go from black to white to black, or often from grey to grey in order to produce artificially lower numbers. This is the actual information needed for LCD and determines things like ghosting and POTENTIAL refresh rate (but not actual)...
"refresh rate" set in advanced driver options in windows in Hz = the amounts of times per second the monitor changes the picture.
The "response time" described in the LCD monitor's specs in miliseconds is the amount of time it takes LCD pixels to change their color, with a lower amount resulting in reduced ghosting and allowing POTENTIALLY more frames to be displayed per second (over 200 fps on many newer LCDs according to wikipedia, which sounds like bullshit to me), but in PRACTICE it doesn't happen unless your monitor's circuitry supports it. Some LCD circuitry supports 75Hz, most support only 60Hz.
For an LCD having more FPS then it is allowed to display is actually bad, it results in tearing. extra frames are discarded, and sometimes it is in the process of changing the frame causing half of each frame to display resulting in tearing.
That is why you want to limit them to the refresh rate using v-sync.
Because at the end the software and drivers are such that the LCD only receives it at 60Hz... Hz is shorts for Hertz which literally means CYCLES.
While in a CRT a cycle involves an electron ray going from top to bottom across the screen really fast;
in LCD it is actually how many times per second the monitor changes the currently displayed image.
The response time determines how long it physically takes each pixel to go from black to white to black, or often from grey to grey in order to produce artificially lower numbers. This is the actual information needed for LCD and determines things like ghosting and POTENTIAL refresh rate (but not actual)...
"refresh rate" set in advanced driver options in windows in Hz = the amounts of times per second the monitor changes the picture.
The "response time" described in the LCD monitor's specs in miliseconds is the amount of time it takes LCD pixels to change their color, with a lower amount resulting in reduced ghosting and allowing POTENTIALLY more frames to be displayed per second (over 200 fps on many newer LCDs according to wikipedia, which sounds like bullshit to me), but in PRACTICE it doesn't happen unless your monitor's circuitry supports it. Some LCD circuitry supports 75Hz, most support only 60Hz.
For an LCD having more FPS then it is allowed to display is actually bad, it results in tearing. extra frames are discarded, and sometimes it is in the process of changing the frame causing half of each frame to display resulting in tearing.
That is why you want to limit them to the refresh rate using v-sync.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Of course LCDs have refresh rates. The video card sends frames at a fixed rate regardless of what type of monitor it's connected to. Even if the monitor refreshes each pixel individually, the 60hz refresh rate still acts as a cap for how fast it can receive frames and limits modern LCDs on many color transitions.
taltamir
Lifer
How do you think the tearing happens exactly? the extra frames are not displayed. Your screen refreshes 75 times a second. If you sent it more frames then that it will still only refresh 75 times a second, however it will display parts of different frames.
SIMPLIFIED NON TECHNICAL example:
Frame 1 is sent to the monitor.
Frame 1 is received
Screen refresh: frame 1 displayed.
Frame 2 is sent to monitor.
Frame 2 is received
Frame 3 is sent to monitor, overwriting the undisplayed frame 2.
Screen refresh: only half of frame 3 was received, thus the top part of the monitor displays what it already got of frame3, and the bottom part displays part of frame 2. Causing a tear. (and wasting two half frames, for one whole frame wasted total if added up)
Frame 3 is received.
Frame 4 is sent to monitor.
frame 4 is received.
Screen refresh: frame 4 displayed...
in this example you had 4 frames sent, but displayed only 3. However, you actually displayed 2 frames properly (1 and 4), while for 2 and 3 got spliced together, half of each was wasted and the other halfs got combined and displayed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
