How many frames per second must a game have in order to have 'good' graphics?
- Thread starter Lombardaga
- Start date
1 billion fps @ 6000x4000... est.. 2004 haha
no.. hmm.. at least 1280x1024 @ 60fps. double what your eyes can see ?
no.. hmm.. at least 1280x1024 @ 60fps. double what your eyes can see ?
I'd say somewhere around 45-60 at whatever resolution you like. 1024x768 is my preference (note that my video card does not perform this).
The thing is, the average human eye can see about 40-50 or so I think, so your miminum has to be that.
So if you have like 100fps top, but at the crunch scenes it bottoms out to 15fps, the card is useless (of course no card does this it's an example)
The thing is, the average human eye can see about 40-50 or so I think, so your miminum has to be that.
So if you have like 100fps top, but at the crunch scenes it bottoms out to 15fps, the card is useless (of course no card does this it's an example)
The human eye can't distinguish between 30 and 60fps during gameplay(Although, everyone is diffrent.. Just like, to some, a 60Hz refresh rate will give you a migrane, while to others, 75 is fine, and yet to others, 85Hz is minimum) If a video card could run all parts of a game at a steady 30fps, no lower, It would be completely smooth. Consoles are programmed to run games at a steady FPS.
That said, "good" is considered 50-60fps in whatever resolution you're running at.
I play Quake3 at 800x600x16, Texture detail at the 3rd notch, geometric detail high, 32bit textures, with an average FPS of 42, a high FPS of 55, and a low FPS of 29. Very playable. K6-3/450, Creative Labs RivaTNT1, 128mb PC100.
That said, "good" is considered 50-60fps in whatever resolution you're running at.
I play Quake3 at 800x600x16, Texture detail at the 3rd notch, geometric detail high, 32bit textures, with an average FPS of 42, a high FPS of 55, and a low FPS of 29. Very playable. K6-3/450, Creative Labs RivaTNT1, 128mb PC100.
Damn it... eyes can see up tp 85 FPS at maximum with objects in high motion.
30 FPS just sucks. have you tried to play with that ??? Its IMPOSSIBLE !
30 FPS just sucks. have you tried to play with that ??? Its IMPOSSIBLE !
it is difficult to set a number on this as every one is different. As long as it is smooth, then the graphics will be good.
Some say 30FPS others say you need 60FPS!
Some say 30FPS others say you need 60FPS!
I am used to 40fps capped because online, I HAVE to cap it at 40. Any higher and my connection to the server gets unstable.
Approximately 175 FPS.
Here is why:
In movies, objects in motion are slightly blurry, so 24 FPS, is ok.
With still images, the limits of the human eye are around 70 to 85 FPS.
Gaming benchmarks give you an average.
An average of 60 FPS might have LOW points of 15.
So, until you have no LOW points under 70 to 85, more FPS matter.
To get a game to where you have no LOW points under, say 70FPS, you have to average around 175FPS.
Here is why:
In movies, objects in motion are slightly blurry, so 24 FPS, is ok.
With still images, the limits of the human eye are around 70 to 85 FPS.
Gaming benchmarks give you an average.
An average of 60 FPS might have LOW points of 15.
So, until you have no LOW points under 70 to 85, more FPS matter.
To get a game to where you have no LOW points under, say 70FPS, you have to average around 175FPS.
Um, Glen, you need some re-edumucation in statistics - i.e. standard deviations and the like. You're taking averages and percentages to the EXTREME as well.
I agree somewhat with Glen.
An example is when playing a serious Quake Match, some guy dies, and his body is exploded in front of you. If you are playing with an average of 60 frames per second, the blood will slow your FPS down making it jerky.
You want to put a "Frame per second floor" of approx 60 frames per second, because that's when It's smooth to the eye.
When I play Multiplayer I downgrade my graphics so I get smooth play. Try setting the resolution down a bit, or just lowering certain game options.
An example is when playing a serious Quake Match, some guy dies, and his body is exploded in front of you. If you are playing with an average of 60 frames per second, the blood will slow your FPS down making it jerky.
You want to put a "Frame per second floor" of approx 60 frames per second, because that's when It's smooth to the eye.
When I play Multiplayer I downgrade my graphics so I get smooth play. Try setting the resolution down a bit, or just lowering certain game options.
The more the better ofcourse. The way you asked the question is kind of flawed though. "Good Graphics" could be bugs life level, but if it took 10 years to render a frame on your computer, it would be a little useless
60fps minimum is optimal.
60fps minimum is optimal.
>>Um, Glen, you need some re-edumucation in statistics - i.e. standard deviations and the like. You're taking averages and percentages to the EXTREME as well. <<
Where did I imply that the MIN FPS in a demo has anything to do with statistics?
I think my numbers are VERY reasonable. You would be surprised how LOW frame rates dip to sometimes. You may have a good point, but you don't say it. Give me an explaination, not just a comment on my mathematics ability. (I scored 760 on the MATH part of the SAT, and that was the old school version)
Where did I imply that the MIN FPS in a demo has anything to do with statistics?
I think my numbers are VERY reasonable. You would be surprised how LOW frame rates dip to sometimes. You may have a good point, but you don't say it. Give me an explaination, not just a comment on my mathematics ability. (I scored 760 on the MATH part of the SAT, and that was the old school version)
To go back to the original question: It depends what game u r playing.
In First Person shooters, "enough" is next to nonexistent. Because of
the extremly high refreshrate(in terms of new objects and background being rendered) it is important to have A LOT of FPS more then look necessary. So around 80 fps is not unrealistic.
In other games, like Actionadventures (Tomb Raider, Heretic II) the
gameplay speed is a bit lower. So around 50 fps should be "enough"
Other Games might only "need" 30 fps to be playable- it all depends
on your personal preference.
I remember the time when we were used to 25 fps and thought wow! how smooth! Then the game Forsaken appeared and showed us 60 fps. And we
all went wow!! There IS a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
About the human eye thing: While it may be true that the eye is only able to scale up to 30 fps, but glen said it, 30 fps means a max over 40, but also a low under 20........
In First Person shooters, "enough" is next to nonexistent. Because of
the extremly high refreshrate(in terms of new objects and background being rendered) it is important to have A LOT of FPS more then look necessary. So around 80 fps is not unrealistic.
In other games, like Actionadventures (Tomb Raider, Heretic II) the
gameplay speed is a bit lower. So around 50 fps should be "enough"
Other Games might only "need" 30 fps to be playable- it all depends
on your personal preference.
I remember the time when we were used to 25 fps and thought wow! how smooth! Then the game Forsaken appeared and showed us 60 fps. And we
all went wow!! There IS a difference between 30 and 60 fps.
About the human eye thing: While it may be true that the eye is only able to scale up to 30 fps, but glen said it, 30 fps means a max over 40, but also a low under 20........
i am really getting sick of hearing people saying that you cannot distinguish between 30fps and 60fps in a game since we can only see 30fps and sh!t like that
DO NOT COMPARE THIS 30fps crap with MOVIES and 3D as they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS
Frames in a MOVIE captures 1/30sec or 1/24 or 1/25sec of time and they have a blurred effect.
you try take a PHOTO with a shutter speed of 1/30sec and you will know what i mean One frame blurrs into the next frame and with that 'temporal/motion blur' therefore MOVIES looks smooth with only 24fps
3dgames frame are EXACT and does NOT have ANY blur effect therefore requires a LOT MORE FRAMES to achieve the same results. EVEN WITH 60fps a game does NOT LOOK AS SMOOTH AS A MOVIE EVEN IF THE frame rate is SUSTAINED
i am really sick of the 30/60fps argument
i personally prefer about 60-100fps for some decent gaming
DO NOT COMPARE THIS 30fps crap with MOVIES and 3D as they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS
Frames in a MOVIE captures 1/30sec or 1/24 or 1/25sec of time and they have a blurred effect.
you try take a PHOTO with a shutter speed of 1/30sec and you will know what i mean One frame blurrs into the next frame and with that 'temporal/motion blur' therefore MOVIES looks smooth with only 24fps
3dgames frame are EXACT and does NOT have ANY blur effect therefore requires a LOT MORE FRAMES to achieve the same results. EVEN WITH 60fps a game does NOT LOOK AS SMOOTH AS A MOVIE EVEN IF THE frame rate is SUSTAINED
i am really sick of the 30/60fps argument
i personally prefer about 60-100fps for some decent gaming
I agree.. I am sick of the 30/60fps myth. Try setting your favor game to max out at 30fps (I think Quake 2 allows you to do this, not sure about Quake 3).. then set it to 60fps.. the difference is big.. then set it to 120, you can STILL see quite a noticable improvement. Do this on a high end system that can sustain those FPS.
Same
Lombardaga, why do you never reply to any of your own posts?
Anyways, FPS and graphics aren't the same. FPS is how smooth, graphics is how nice-looking.
Lombardaga, why do you never reply to any of your own posts?
Anyways, FPS and graphics aren't the same. FPS is how smooth, graphics is how nice-looking.
First, my EYES DO tell me that 60fps looks better than 30fps.
However it's the increase in "playability" that is most important to me. Sure, I may get 60+ fps most of the time, but if my machine slows way down when the action gets hot and heavy (when I need the greatest amount of control & the highest fps the most)... and I get capped by an enemy that I can't even get my sights on, it pisses me off!
So, my vote is for the maximum fps you can afford to juice your system up to.
BTW, hooking your USB mouse back up to the PS2 port will help your fps. And if you are experiencing some mouse lag, cut your "render frames ahead" number down.
However it's the increase in "playability" that is most important to me. Sure, I may get 60+ fps most of the time, but if my machine slows way down when the action gets hot and heavy (when I need the greatest amount of control & the highest fps the most)... and I get capped by an enemy that I can't even get my sights on, it pisses me off!
So, my vote is for the maximum fps you can afford to juice your system up to.
BTW, hooking your USB mouse back up to the PS2 port will help your fps. And if you are experiencing some mouse lag, cut your "render frames ahead" number down.
FPS isn't the only factor though... don't forget resolution and color depth too.
I'd say 40 FPS, 1024x768 @ 32 bit color would be very fine indeed.
I'd say 40 FPS, 1024x768 @ 32 bit color would be very fine indeed.
Youcky, well, graphics cards is measured in FPS so i still think that the two are fairly close related. After all the smoother the more good-looking.
And , hey i replied to my own post.
Well thx for all your opinions guys. But when u recommend at least 60 FPS wehn playing in 1280*1024 u actually think that the geforce256 DDR is too bad for playing at this resolution?
And , hey i replied to my own post.
Well thx for all your opinions guys. But when u recommend at least 60 FPS wehn playing in 1280*1024 u actually think that the geforce256 DDR is too bad for playing at this resolution?
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: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter