• 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.

Is 30 FPS AVG playable?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It is absolutely unplayable, unless this is the lowest frame rate achieved. If this is the average, let alone the highest, then forget about it. Throw your computer in the river.

45 average is nice. 60 is much better.
 
To find out if a game is playable you need the minimum FPS, not average. If the minimum is >25 FPS it's fine.
 
WTF? Where were all you guys back in the days of the Voodoo 2 when being able to occasionally hit 60FPS gave you bragging rights? You guys have all changed...you've forgotten your roots! 😉
 
Originally posted by: ObiDon
WTF? Where were all you guys back in the days of the Voodoo 2 when being able to occasionally hit 60FPS gave you bragging rights? You guys have all changed...you've forgotten your roots! 😉
Click to expand...

Heck, I played with the old ATI Rage II+. Over 30fps was like climbing Everest. And we played the night away.
 
Originally posted by: kgraeme
Originally posted by: ObiDon
WTF? Where were all you guys back in the days of the Voodoo 2 when being able to occasionally hit 60FPS gave you bragging rights? You guys have all changed...you've forgotten your roots! 😉
Click to expand...

Heck, I played with the old ATI Rage II+. Over 30fps was like climbing Everest. And we played the night away.
Click to expand...

i guess thats the difference I never played FPS till i got my GF2

i was a starcraft man 😀

i tried playing doom II on my 386 but it was not playable or enjoyable
 
Originally posted by: mchammer187

i tried playing doom II on my 386 but it was not playable or enjoyable
Click to expand...

Whiny brat. 😛

You want gaming? I played FPS on a Mac before Voodoo was even a company. And we loved it!

You boy, are obviously not a real gamer.
 
Originally posted by: kgraeme
Originally posted by: mchammer187

i tried playing doom II on my 386 but it was not playable or enjoyable
Click to expand...

Whiny brat. 😛

You want gaming? I played FPS on a Mac before Voodoo was even a company. And we loved it!

You boy, are obviously not a real gamer.
Click to expand...

maybe not when Doom 2 was out I was about i dunno 12

consoles owned gaming back then

I had everything after genesis i paid for with my hard earned money:
commodore 64
atari
nintendo
genesis
saturn
n64
psx
ps2
gamecube

386 DX
Celeron 266
Athlon 800
pentium 4 2.4 Ghz
 
In the times I used to play computer games, 30FPS was heaven. I've played most of the pseudo-3D games (like DN3D and SW) through with ~25FPS average and never thought that they are "unplayable". I bet most people played Doom, Doom2 and Wolf3D with about 30FPS or less average and never whined about slide show or other BS.
 
Originally posted by: mchammer187

consoles owned gaming back then
Click to expand...

Rubbish I say!

I was doing LAN games on the Mac with games like Net Trek and Spectre before Id was a company. Back then, Doom was just a twinkle in Carmack's eye. Specter was a really cool pseudo-3d vector-based tank game that could even map quicktime movies onto flat surfaces. We used to use it to "test" our network connectivity. Hell, we invented LAN parties. And when Doom was stuck in a single-player, one-dimensional map and viewpoint at 320x480 we were playing Marathon with full 3-D range of play, player messaging, and voice over the network at 800x600. Framerates? Like butter. Frozen butter sometimes.

Of course, I can remember plunking down $50 for Pac-Man on the Atari 2600, and passing up on buying a coin-op BattleTank.
 
30 FPS



Can't play @ 30fps => sounds like a certain skill set is missing **cough** SKILL **cough**

anticipation, planning, traps, strategy.......... Ah now, that's where the best were shown. 😎



Too bad today's gaming allows n00bs to purchase "expertise".
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
30 FPS average is not playable and is an utter slideshow. In fact anything measured with the number "30" in it (constant, average, maximum, minimum) is a slideshow.
Click to expand...

I was just waiting for you BFG. 😉 You know, not everyone is a hardcore junkie like yourself... as you're shooting up with 300fps, screaming that even 100fps just isn't enough for you anymore, there's plenty of folks out there that would be GLAD for 30FPS avg.
😀
I would say that if it NEVER DIPS BELOW 30FPS it's prefectly playable and enjoyable. If it weren't, every single game console would be classified as "crappy". I would, however, aim for higher as 30FPS in today's games will equal 10-15FPS in next years' games.
 
If my games are running at 30fps or less, it's time to upgrade. If people are happy playing with 30fps that's nice, I refuse to lower myself to that state.
 
People can't see higher then 24fps. If you claim you can then you're super human or the game is dipping below that. T.V. Only operates at 30fps. Do you find it choppy?
 
Originally posted by: 7757524
People can't see higher then 24fps. If you claim you can then you're super human or the game is dipping below that. T.V. Only operates at 30fps. Do you find it choppy?
Click to expand...

I've heard this argument many times, and it is very flawed. Movies and TV are filmed at around 25 frames per second. However, camera's capture "motion" in the form of a blur, which gives movies and tv a realistic fluid look. Games on the other hand, are drawn frame by frame, with no motion blur.

I can notice the difference between 60hz and 75hz on my monitor.

If a missile flies past the screen in one 1/4 of a second, that would equal 24frames/4 which equals a crappy 6 frames. 6 frames for the flying of a missile is not nearly enough to properly depict the motion of a missile, and it will look unrealistic. In movies or TV, 6 frames is enough to depict a missle because the missile will be blurred, which gives it a realistic look of motion.

Also, I am superhuman, but normal people agree with my opinion. Either way, I can tell the difference, if some people cannot, that's quite unfortunate.
 
Originally posted by: Mingon
People can't see higher then 24fps. If you claim you can then you're super human or the game is dipping below that. T.V. Only operates at 30fps. Do you find it choppy?
Click to expand...

Are you sure
Click to expand...

Cool link, Mingon. After running that app, I have to say that I did notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, but still, while 30FPS is not optimum, its certainly playable, and I would even say enjoyable.
 
Originally posted by: Rectalfier

Also, I am superhuman, but normal people agree with my opinion. Either way, I can tell the difference, if some people cannot, that's quite unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm superhuman too! We should form a support group! I can see the flicker of flourescent lights. Drives me crazy. Monitors less than 85Hz make me physically nauseous.
 
hahaha....i tried to run that demo on my work computer. 3.6fps for both sides!! kinda defeats the purpose of the file...

i guess a pII 400MHZ w/ an ATI 3d Rage Pro isn't enough to render that demo....hehehe....

Shut up! At least it has 261MB of RAM...oh wait....that isn't DDR...never mind
 
No, because average framerates of 30fps mean there could be dips below 20fps and that could get ugly, could cost me quite a few frags. I prefer an average framerate of at least 70fps.

edit- I should note that I mainly play FPS games, but when I do venture off into other genres I could settle for an average of 40fps, though 30fps average is a little on the low side. I would play it at that level only if the eyecandy were worth it which in most cases are not true.
 
Maybe we should use different measurement for mega-high-FPS junkies: msPF (milliseconds per frame). 30FPS would equal 33.3 msPF, so they would need at least 4msPF (250FPS) system minimum not to feel like watching grass growing between frame rendering times. Of course, with frame rates over 1000FPS, the numbers would go too small, but we can always upgrade to nsPF...
 
I can tell the difference, if some people cannot, that's quite unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Unfortunate for us, maybe. Those that cannot tell the difference don't have to spend as much on computer hardware! 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top