How many FPS can you notice?

[Eric1987]

Upload a youtube video, show me the money. ARe they both quality IPS monitors? Its not a 200$ 24" Acer TN panel vs a 900$ 28" LG super IPS panel is it?

My 4k is a UD590 from samsung and my 24 inch that is sitting right next to my 4k monitor is a samsung Syncmaster SA550. My TV though is just a cheapie. How could i prove my 4k difference if your monitors can't output 8 million pixels? I do sit at a desk no more than 2 feet away if I had to guess.

 

[bystander36]

Anyways, both discussions seem to be the same issue. Some people can't understand that people are different with different levels of sensitivity and eye quality.

 

[happy medium]

My 4k is a UD590 from samsung and my 24 inch that is sitting right next to my 4k monitor is a samsung Syncmaster SA550. My TV though is just a cheapie. How could i prove my 4k difference if your monitors can't output 8 million pixels? I do sit at a desk no more than 2 feet away if I had to guess.

My friend, you really don't have to show me, I've seen it many times right in front of my own eyes. To me the difference is very very negligible until you go past 42 inches, especially in motion. Its a good way to sell monitors though, I admit that.

Good day guys, I don't want to derail this thread anymore.

I stand by my 50/60 fps.

 

[happy medium]

Anyways, both discussions seem to be the same issue. Some people can't understand that people are different with different levels of sensitivity and eye quality

You said it best.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Also, the assumption that the human brain is fixed at a specific resolution or refresh rate and can't be trained to utilize more is simply absurd. Just as a person develops the reflexes to hit a fast ball with practice and experience, one can adapt to 144Hz gameplay.

After 20 years of using monitors above 60Hz, the difference is instantly obvious when I am forced to use one.

 

[sm625]

30 fps is smooth if every single frame is < 34 mS and there is no tearing.

 

[tential]

Interesting how we're all "Suckers" for being able to notice high resolution and frame rates....

 

[Piroko]

I'm able to notice more than 60 Hz vs. 60 Hz, however I don't do competitive gaming and prefer higher resolution and better color reproduction over higher fps.
Would still buy a 120/144Hz screen over a 60Hz one if it ticked all other checkboxes.

 

[sxr7171]

People will keep arguing because everybody has an intended use and threshold for these factors.

I don't play fast paced FPS games so for me a smooth sync'd 45fps is just fine. For someone who plays those games it's easy to see why they like 120/144Hz.

For someone who sits 3 feet from a 1080p monitor an upgrade to 4k may not make sense, for someone who sits 18" from the screen it's easy to see the appeal of 4k.

 

[Ken g6]

Most TV drama shows on CBS are 24FPS telecined into 30FPS interlaced. It took me months to notice this even after I was looking at the frames carefully.

On the other hand, when gaming, I notice drops below 45FPS. Not much more.

 

[HeXen]

Consoles at 30fps almost always look very fluid to me.

 

[bystander36]

The question isn't what looks fluid, but at what point you stop seeing improvements.

 

[RussianSensation]

The original post/poll doesn't provide proper context to answer the question, so I have to go with the last option. I will explain my reasoning why it's a lot harder to answer the question than it seems.

1. Monitor technology used in the comparison.

Back in the days, I used a Viewsonic 19" CRT

1920 x 1440 @ 77Hz
1856 x 1392 @ 80Hz
1600 x 1200 @ 92Hz
1280 x 1024 @ 107Hz

If I were to use this monitor for 2D or 3D work at 60Hz, it was unbearable. Eye strain, nausea, headaches, etc. Even for 2D basic work, impossible to use for more than 30 min for me. However, if I switch to a 59-60Hz LCD/LED, I do not have these symptoms. I do not need 85Hz on the desktop or in gaming on an LCD to enjoy the experience. With the CRT, I did need it. In other words, the technology of the display matters a great deal based on how the image is actually produced in terms of constant flicker/how pixels are produced.

60Hz on a CRT <<<< 60 Hz on an LCD/LED, even though the FPS are identical and even though CRT is way faster in producing the FPS due to instant response, it's more fatiguing to game at 60 fps @ 60Hz on a CRT than on an LED/LCD (and Plasma although we shouldn't compare the refresh rate of Plasma as it's not directly comparable).

2. When high FPS isn't enough

Last year I had a chance to try out Oculus Rift. I tried out 2 separate demos which I believe were running at either 75Hz or 90Hz stable. I am not a person that easily gets motion sickness. I can go on roller-coasters, planes, boats and almost never get motion sickness. 4 minutes with Oculus Rift = almost passed out/lost consciousness, felt like vomiting all over the floor. That obviously tells me high FPS isn't sufficient to ensure a good 3D experience and other factors are in play such as latency.

3. The type of content being displayed impacts if more FPS is actually better and if you can notice it.

YouTube videos at 60 fps look significantly better than 30 fps. Does a movie look good at 48 fps or 60 fps? No, it feels unnatural. Therefore, even if we can notice say 48 fps over 24 fps, sometimes more FPS is worse.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Game wise, there is a way bigger difference to me between a 30 fps and a 60 fps racing game than playing Starcraft 1/2, Warcraft 2/3, etc. Also, some games feel smoother at lower fps than others (for example single player Crysis 1 feels decent at 45 fps constant but Unreal Tournament / Quake 3 style games are unbearable to play at that FPS).

So I think it really depends because some professional Starcraft 2 player might notice a difference between 144 fps and 60 fps but I certainly will not in that genre of gaming.

4. FreeSync/GSync vs. a regular monitor change the smoothness factor

This is pretty much a fact that adaptive frame rate technology ensures that a monitor with FreeSync and GSync feels smoother in transitions between lower FPS than a standard monitor. In that sense moving from 32->60->43->55->60, etc. on an adaptive Sync monitor looks and feels better. Even just watching any youtube video shows the same.

That means to someone with a regular monitor if frame drop from 60 to 53 fps, they might notice it immediately but with a GSync/FreeSync monitor, they might not without a FRAPS counter.

---

Then there is the point on the overall immersion of gaming. Everyone has an opinion here. To some people FPS/Hz is everything and to others it isn't. Even if I can notice the difference between 60 fps and 85 fps, it's A LOT less than the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps to me. Personally, I hate gaming on small screens. If I had to choose between a 40" 4K 60Hz and a 24" 8K 144Hz monitor, I would take the former all day. Similarly would I take a ViewSonic 19" 1600x1200 CRT @ 92 Hz = 92 FPS over a BenQ BL3200PT 2560x1440 60Hz today for gaming? Not a chance, even though I realize the CRT would smoke it in responsiveness and smoothness in a competitive FPS title. A lot of gamers are happy using 22-27" 1080P TN 120-144Hz monitors, but I wouldn't be. Others wouldn't be happy with a 60Hz monitor regardless of its IQ or screen size, black levels, colours, viewing angles, etc. And that's the whole point of the monitor market = options. I can't say that 144Hz is pointless to a person A if that's what they prefer and if they get motion sickness from 60 Hz, how can I argue against how they feel? Some people don't get motion sickness from Oculus Rift, but to me it was an unusable product when I tried it. Is it a deal breaker to me to use a 60Hz LED/LCD? Not for me as I value screen real estate and IQ more.

Therefore, I think the answer to the question is: "It depends."

 

[bystander36]

@RussianSensation:
1) There is no way to give enough options for every situation, which is why the last option was made and the fact that we as humans don't see in FPS anyways. I was more curious as to how many people believe in a myth about seeing up to a specific FPS.
2) Yeah, I'm sensitive to high latency when using a mouse to control your view. I think the problem is when things start to feel real enough for the body/mind thinks it is real, then latency causes motion sickness like symptoms.
3) The whole thing about movies looking unnatural is purely a symptom of what we've grown used to. It isn't any more unnatural than any other FPS, we've just been trained for years to watch at a specific frame rate.
4) Yeah, it does, but do you still stop seeing improvements at higher FPS? (this is not a rhetorical question).

 

[RussianSensation]

4) Yeah, it does, but do you still stop seeing improvements at higher FPS? (this is not a rhetorical question).

I'll answer it like this:

1. All things being equal, I'll take more Hz on a monitor if it doesn't hurt the monitor's IQ (for example, some 1440P Korean monitors can be overclocked but they start skipping frames and their IQ / colour reproduction degrades significantly).

2. The benefit of fps higher than 60Hz depends on the person. You will find people who don't care, in-between (me) and those like you (it's a deal breaker where you need at least 85Hz). All of these are perfectly valid answers.

3. Console gaming has thrived from the 80s and most console gamers are fine playing at 30 fps. Therefore, imagine how hard it is to argue that 60Hz/60 fps isn't enough, when just the last console generation had 270 million consoles sold.

4. Even professional game developers do not agree on 30 fps vs. 60 fps, nevermind 60 fps vs. 120-144 fps (120-144Hz monitors).

Look:

Driveclub (PS4) - 1080p/30FPS is, &#8220;absolutely the best thing&#8221; for game, says director

&#8220;As we&#8217;ve got more familiar with the hardware, and also, looking at what we wanted from the game, we decided that 1080p, 30 frames per second is absolutely the best thing, because what that allows us to do is to deliver the most detailed cars in-race that you will ever have seen.

&#8220;It&#8217;s allowed us to create some of the biggest tracks you will ever see in a racing game, with the most visually-dense environments, as well as a full global illumination system which allows us to make time of day, where shadows are cast, full-on reflections. It&#8217;s allowed us to push all those various areas.&#8221;
http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/30/dri...lutely-the-best-thing-for-game-says-director/

vs.

Forza 6 (XB1) to Feature Weather, 450+ Cars, 26 Locations, 1080p/60 FPS

This doesn't mean that XB1 is better than PS4 or if DriveClub will have better graphics than Forza 6. Some developers are just better at optimizing hardware and/or have different priorities. So clearly the developer who chooses to make a 1080P/30 fps game had choices like making a 720-900p / 60 fps game or make a 1080P/60 fps game with worse graphics.

That's why it's even harder to try to say that 60 FPS isn't good enough when so many gamers are even OK at 30 fps. I perfectly understand why 60 fps isn't good enough for you, even though I am not inside your head. But think about it another way -- at some point in the past LCDs were limited to 59-60Hz and we didn't have 120-144Hz monitors. Since 120-144Hz monitors are only becoming more popular with gaming today, it must be the case that some gamers found them beneficial or the monitor manufacturers would have focused on some other aspects of panel design.

Also, 60 fps cannot be the end-all-be-all answer since for VR 60 fps is horrendous. Might as well buy a barf bucket lol.
http://www.roadtovr.com/epic-games-...wn-90-fps-oculus-rift-crescent-bay-prototype/

 

[bystander36]

I think you kind of missunderstood my question. I wasn't asking what hz you prefer or what FPS you prefer. It was about at what point you stop seeing a noticeable difference. And I realize that it will vary depending on the situation.

And on the #4, I asked if G-sync/Freesync changes the point of noticing a difference.

This has nothing to do with preferences.

 

[IntelUser2000]

My friend, you really don't have to show me, I've seen it many times right in front of my own eyes. To me the difference is very very negligible until you go past 42 inches, especially in motion. Its a good way to sell monitors though, I admit that.

Good day guys, I don't want to derail this thread anymore.

I stand by my 50/60 fps.

I figure its similar to what I experienced with buying my first SSD.

When I got it - Faster, but not wildly as claimed in benchmarks
After I got it - Can't go back because every computer without SSD seems unbearable

I noticed it with Youtube as well.

First time using Youtube - Everything 360p, and lot of content at 240p. It looks pretty decent

Now - 720p looks ok, but 360p seems borderline and with 240p I can't notice what's going on

So those people that get used to ever higher resolutions and frame rates can't go back and will notice a huge difference. Those stuck at low quality and frame rates think its negligible. The trick is to use them every day.

 

[BFG10K]

You are talking about something else entirely.

No I'm not.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It depends on what you're looking at, if you're looking at a still scene with zero movement then all frame rates and refresh rates look the same. If something is changing only very slowly then they look similar, as the scene starts to change faster and faster then suddenly higher frame rates and refresh rates matter.

For the best example go here:

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Make sure to remove motion blur on all the objects, put side by side 30,60,90 and 120. If you're on a 120hz monitor or better then you'll see a huge improvement between all of the balls when viewed side by side, the 120hz is CLEARLY smoother. This is a super easy experiment to do for anyone with a 120hz monitor or who has a friend with a 120hz monitor.

Note that not all monitors are made equally, each make has different pixel response times (the time it takes for a pixel to change colour) which in some cases can make higher refresh rates like 120-144hz look bad and cause ghosting/blurring which will lower image quality, destroy colour accuracy and blur out motion making it appear smoother than it really is.

 

[bystander36]

This one is probably easier to use, but I have found with either of these, you need to enable hardware acceleration on your browser.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

 

[Eric1987]

Because 2d images are games. Yeah.

 

[bystander36]

Because 2d images are games. Yeah.

Games come in all flavors, including 2D. Not that has anything to do with the topic, which is simple: Up to how many FPS can you notice a difference?

It is not about what is good enough.

I might also add, you claim that the human eye couldn't see past 60 FPS. 2D, 3D, or 1D was not a specification. Gaming wasn't even a specification. If the human eye can only 60 FPS max, that goes for every condition, gaming or not.

 

[redzo]

This one is probably easier to use, but I have found with either of these, you need to enable hardware acceleration on your browser.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

Because 2d images are games. Yeah.

Come on, really? You get the same result across the board, 3d included. As a stated before, you need to add motion(speedy stuff) in order to truly benefit from high fps/hz.

 

[Eric1987]

Come on, really? You get the same result across the board, 3d included. As a stated before, you need to add motion(speedy stuff) in order to truly benefit from high fps/hz.

Not true about the first sentence.

 

[exar333]

The original post/poll doesn't provide proper context to answer the question, so I have to go with the last option. I will explain my reasoning why it's a lot harder to answer the question than it seems.

1. Monitor technology used in the comparison.

Back in the days, I used a Viewsonic 19" CRT

1920 x 1440 @ 77Hz
1856 x 1392 @ 80Hz
1600 x 1200 @ 92Hz
1280 x 1024 @ 107Hz

If I were to use this monitor for 2D or 3D work at 60Hz, it was unbearable. Eye strain, nausea, headaches, etc. Even for 2D basic work, impossible to use for more than 30 min for me. However, if I switch to a 59-60Hz LCD/LED, I do not have these symptoms. I do not need 85Hz on the desktop or in gaming on an LCD to enjoy the experience. With the CRT, I did need it. In other words, the technology of the display matters a great deal based on how the image is actually produced in terms of constant flicker/how pixels are produced.

60Hz on a CRT <<<< 60 Hz on an LCD/LED, even though the FPS are identical and even though CRT is way faster in producing the FPS due to instant response, it's more fatiguing to game at 60 fps @ 60Hz on a CRT than on an LED/LCD (and Plasma although we shouldn't compare the refresh rate of Plasma as it's not directly comparable).

2. When high FPS isn't enough

Last year I had a chance to try out Oculus Rift. I tried out 2 separate demos which I believe were running at either 75Hz or 90Hz stable. I am not a person that easily gets motion sickness. I can go on roller-coasters, planes, boats and almost never get motion sickness. 4 minutes with Oculus Rift = almost passed out/lost consciousness, felt like vomiting all over the floor. That obviously tells me high FPS isn't sufficient to ensure a good 3D experience and other factors are in play such as latency.

3. The type of content being displayed impacts if more FPS is actually better and if you can notice it.

YouTube videos at 60 fps look significantly better than 30 fps. Does a movie look good at 48 fps or 60 fps? No, it feels unnatural. Therefore, even if we can notice say 48 fps over 24 fps, sometimes more FPS is worse.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Game wise, there is a way bigger difference to me between a 30 fps and a 60 fps racing game than playing Starcraft 1/2, Warcraft 2/3, etc. Also, some games feel smoother at lower fps than others (for example single player Crysis 1 feels decent at 45 fps constant but Unreal Tournament / Quake 3 style games are unbearable to play at that FPS).

So I think it really depends because some professional Starcraft 2 player might notice a difference between 144 fps and 60 fps but I certainly will not in that genre of gaming.

4. FreeSync/GSync vs. a regular monitor change the smoothness factor

This is pretty much a fact that adaptive frame rate technology ensures that a monitor with FreeSync and GSync feels smoother in transitions between lower FPS than a standard monitor. In that sense moving from 32->60->43->55->60, etc. on an adaptive Sync monitor looks and feels better. Even just watching any youtube video shows the same.

That means to someone with a regular monitor if frame drop from 60 to 53 fps, they might notice it immediately but with a GSync/FreeSync monitor, they might not without a FRAPS counter.

---

Then there is the point on the overall immersion of gaming. Everyone has an opinion here. To some people FPS/Hz is everything and to others it isn't. Even if I can notice the difference between 60 fps and 85 fps, it's A LOT less than the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps to me. Personally, I hate gaming on small screens. If I had to choose between a 40" 4K 60Hz and a 24" 8K 144Hz monitor, I would take the former all day. Similarly would I take a ViewSonic 19" 1600x1200 CRT @ 92 Hz = 92 FPS over a BenQ BL3200PT 2560x1440 60Hz today for gaming? Not a chance, even though I realize the CRT would smoke it in responsiveness and smoothness in a competitive FPS title. A lot of gamers are happy using 22-27" 1080P TN 120-144Hz monitors, but I wouldn't be. Others wouldn't be happy with a 60Hz monitor regardless of its IQ or screen size, black levels, colours, viewing angles, etc. And that's the whole point of the monitor market = options. I can't say that 144Hz is pointless to a person A if that's what they prefer and if they get motion sickness from 60 Hz, how can I argue against how they feel? Some people don't get motion sickness from Oculus Rift, but to me it was an unusable product when I tried it. Is it a deal breaker to me to use a 60Hz LED/LCD? Not for me as I value screen real estate and IQ more.

Therefore, I think the answer to the question is: "It depends."

Good post.

For me, I don't notice when playing every game, but fire-up something fast-paced like UT2004 or Q3A and you will notice IMMEDIATELY. It is much easier to track and aim with targets at or above 85hz IMHO. I never really used much higher than 1000mhz previously, but it made the game much easier at 85mhz vs. 60hz, just as one example. As some of the others have posted, the differences above 85mhz get even more pronounced. This is especially true with tech like lightboost that keeps the image even more clear at high speeds.

Lastly, I remember gaming on an LCD for the first time and noticed a big change from my good-quality CRT. The LCD convenience was great, but it took a little bit of time to adapt to the blurrier, harder to track image. It was apparent immediately.

Its great we are finally getting back to a much better experience...I would be more than happy with anything at or above 90hz myself. I don't do professional gaming and would need some serious hardware to start pushing 1440P+ res consistently over 100fps.