How many FPS is overkill?

[RPatrick]

Hi!

To my knowledge, the refresh rate of a monitor is how many screens per second it can display (Usually around 85?). Does this mean that graphics running at 85 fps will look exactly like graphics running at 150 fps? What level of FPS is considered overkill?

Expert opinions appreciated...

 

[sygyzy]

I think there was a debate over this which said something like the human eye can only process X number of frames a second. And so anything past that is just lost information. But their counterargument is that having a higher fps makes the motion smoother. No specific numbers, sorry. I think the magic number in the industry has always been 60fps but I think the human eye processes less than that even. Sorry for not directly answering your question. I tried!

 

[randomlinh]

higher fps also good for those big battles when you got lots of info.

 

[GrimReefer]

Im not sure if thats entirely true about the human eye only being able to see 60fps... When I run Quake 3 in 60 and then switch to a lower resolution and run it in 120, I can see a major difference. Maybe its because of these damn bioports

 

[cocokrisp]

For me personally once the FPS get about 40 there really is no difference.

 

[Vrangel]

<< Expert opinions appreciated... >>


Its all about smoothness of movement.
When you do 180 degree turn in 1 sec at 60 fps your field of view rotates 3 degrees per frame.
At 90 fps its 2 degrees per frame and so on. Vsync disabled of course.
Another thing is that fps isnt stable in games. During intense action it will be cut in half.

Leet Q3A players do what it takes to get stable fps above 125 .

 

[DARRIN]

You can never have enough FPS!

 

[uCsDNerd]

Doesn't the human eye really only need around 32 fps to see fluid motion (like just looking around the room). That's about what most non-HDTVs show don't they? High FPS's in games are needed for rendering graphics that games produce.

 

[Sugadaddy]

I think the minimum is 23 or 24 frames/sec. I'm pretty sure that's what TV is anyways.

 

[RPatrick]

When you do 180 degree turn in 1 sec at 60 fps your field of view rotates 3 degrees per frame. At 90 fps its 2 degrees per frame and so on.

True, however if your monitor refresh rate is 85, you will only see 85 FPS and the corresponding 2 degrees turn per frame no matter how high the video cards frame rate is?

 

[JellyBaby]

Movies and most TV is stuck in 24fps la la land for artistic reasons only. Personally I'm for a bit more frames for onscreen stuff.

For fps games a minimum 50fps on the counter is ideal for me. If it never drops under that I'm a happy puppy.

 

[Mixxen]

A consistent 85 FPS will be ideal for anyone. That means the game cannot drop below 85 FPS at any given time.

I read an article specifying that at about 85 FPS, the brain will perceive the motion on the screen as real life motion or something like that. I know movies run at 24 FPS, but motion blur is incorporated into movies to trick our eyes.

The benchmark you usually see are a calculated average FPS for the whole demo. Look at the minimum FPS, when that reaches above 85FPS then it will be overkill.

 

[Mixxen]

I found it...

http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p2.htm

 

[Quickfingerz]

You have to know what your minimum framerate is. What's cool about the expendable timedemo is that you can see what your minimum framerate. If your minimum framerate doesn't go below 60, then you are probably in FPS paradise.

 

[glen]

175FPS
because:
about 80 FPS is good enough, so that means around 175FPS average inorder that it never drops below 80FPS.

 

[Mixxen]

Just because you are averaging 175 FPS, doesn't mean your frame rate will never dip below 80 FPS. Wait till the Geforce13 comes out, then you'll know what overkill is.

But then again, as better hardware comes out, more intense graphics will follow....so maybe there is no such thing as overkill...

 

[soulm4tter]

Q3 starts to feel choppy to me when the frame rate drops below 100. I can actually feel frame rate lag. I think every game is different of course. I also use 120Hz monitor and 200Hz mouse rate, which could have some bearing on how smooth a FPS game feels.

 

[Mixxen]

I will say, a 200Hz mouse rate is overkill Seriously though, doesn't a really high mouse rate eat a lot of CPU time? And when you say drop below 100, is that the current in game frame rate or an average frame rate? Cause if you are running a consistant 100 FPS then you should not feel any slowdown...unless you are playing online and your connection is causing the frame lag.

 

[gtd2000]

It's probably true that you can't &quot;see&quot; the difference between a moving 2D image at 32fps or 60fps
But you wil certainly &quot;feel&quot; the diffrence when turning around in a 3D environment

 

[BFG10K]

The human eye can only see 24/32/60 FPS: false.
You can't see a difference above your monitor refresh rate: false.
You only need x FPS, anything higher is a waste: false.
Turning on vsync makes things smoother: false.

I'm not going to argue why those statements are false because I tire of doing so.

Needless to say a lot of it comes down to personal preference. For example I won't touch a 3D FPS game running less than 60 FPS. I'm satisfied when it's running at 90 FPS and I'm really happy when the game is running at 120 FPS.

For multiplayer action I typically want very high framerates but for single player I'll often turn up the eye candy in exchange for a few FPS (ie high framerates aren't as critical in single player as they are in multi-player).

 

[KevinH]

Stop comparing TV to 3d games. They're different. I think I've seen that argument to justify an fps of 25-30 for ages. Several fps sites have already gone over the matter a million times. 24 fps on TV is NOTHING like 24 fps on games.

-- Listen to Vrangel, if you got the skillz, then boost u're fps. It's about degrees per frame. If you play a game like Q3 where flick shots are the norm, then trust me, you want a high fps count.

 

[soulm4tter]

Mixxen: I can feel the difference in 120Hz and 200Hz mouse rate. The higher the rate, the more accurately the crosshair is rendered. Quake 3 is the only game i really play, but the smoother the game feels, the better aim i have.

I'm not talking about an average of 100fps, but when the actual current frame rate falls below 100fps, the game feels slightly choppy or laggy, especially when turning quickly. You can display the current frame rate in Q3 so when i feel lag i can look at the rate and see what it is. When the frame rate drops under 80 the game feels considerably choppy IMO and 60fps is downright choppy as hell.

I play Q3 at 800x600x16 because anything higher feels choppy sometimes with my gaming box.

 

[RPatrick]

You can't see a difference above your monitor refresh rate: false.

Please, I am very curious to hear the explanation for this statement.

 

[gtd2000]

The most simple reason for higher FPS is smoother game play as already explained
whether on not you can &quot;see&quot; the difference is a different arguement

 

[fluxcapacitorMB]

I remember reading some article somewhere that the human sees real life at something like an average of 300fps. But its only an average because some have more astute vision than others, possibly jacking that number up even further.