Playable FPS for games

[meltdown75]

I read a lot about certain frame rates achieved with different video cards & setups.

My question is, at what point is a game playable? 20 fps? 30? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[iversonyin]

for most games, i would say 30 is "playable" but not really smooth enough to be "enjoyable"

anything fell below 20 fps is unbareable for gamers

 

[Lonyo]

It depends on the type of game.
Fast paced FPS woul dprobably be best with 40 or 50 minimum, but some games, like RTS would be OK with 25 or so.

 

[Matthias99]

It's hard to say based on just one number, since invariably what is reported is average framerate (not taking into account minimums and how much it varies over time). Anything below 20-30FPS starts to bother me (and for online FPS gaming with a low ping, you ideally want a higher framerate, like 50-60FPS).

Now, "30FPS" would be fine for me if the minimum was 20FPS or 25FPS, and 90% of the time it was between 25 and 35. But if "30FPS" means it's running at 50FPS half the time, and 10FPS the other half (which also gives an average of 30), then that's obviously not going to be a pleasant gaming experience. Big swings like this are often worse than they seem, since generally the lowest framerates are (at least for an FPS game) while you're in combat, which is a real bad time to have your UI go all choppy.

A better measurement of how well a game runs (IMO!) is *minimum* framerate, which is hardly reported by anyone (although HardOCP's much-maligned testing does generally include this figure). And I've never seen anyone attempt to statistically show FPS variance in a benchmark, although it would be useful if done right. Part of it is that some benchmarking tools (especially built-in benchmarks) don't report anything but average framerates.

 

[SonicIce]

I like HardOCP's line graphs where you can see the minimums

 

[SneakyStuff]

10-15 = Noticable slow, intolerable
16-25 = Playable, but noticable stuttering
26-35 = Acceptable for most people, anything above 30 is generally considered OK
36 < = Smooth, playable gaming experience

 

[Acanthus]

it varies from person to person, like soylent green.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

command and conquer generals .... good game but i cant bare it!

its a REAL TIME strategy and real time in Cn C world is 30-31fps.....(physics update speed?) its un bearable i thought there was something wrong...surely a 6800gt can play cnc above 30fps on a a64 3200 at 10x7 with no aa or af.

turns out that is the game speed much like dooms physics update at 60hz......i can only play cnc if its a skirmish with max game speed

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
It's hard to say based on just one number, since invariably what is reported is average framerate (not taking into account minimums and how much it varies over time). Anything below 20-30FPS starts to bother me (and for online FPS gaming with a low ping, you ideally want a higher framerate, like 50-60FPS).

Now, "30FPS" would be fine for me if the minimum was 20FPS or 25FPS, and 90% of the time it was between 25 and 35. But if "30FPS" means it's running at 50FPS half the time, and 10FPS the other half (which also gives an average of 30), then that's obviously not going to be a pleasant gaming experience. Big swings like this are often worse than they seem, since generally the lowest framerates are (at least for an FPS game) while you're in combat, which is a real bad time to have your UI go all choppy.

A better measurement of how well a game runs (IMO!) is *minimum* framerate, which is hardly reported by anyone (although HardOCP's much-maligned testing does generally include this figure). And I've never seen anyone attempt to statistically show FPS variance in a benchmark, although it would be useful if done right. Part of it is that some benchmarking tools (especially built-in benchmarks) don't report anything but average framerates.

HL2 timedemo reports variance

 

[meltdown75]

thanks a lot for the replies so far. i'm attempting to legitimize my purchase of a not-so-good-anymore vid card.

 

[Cawchy87]

Totally depends on the game you play.

Americas Army - 20fps and up

Call of Duty - 50 fps and up

CS:Source - 50 fps and up

 

[PrayForDeath]

Depends on the person AND the game, for example I finished KotOR on my previous GF4 MX440, averaging at around 15FPS (hovering between 5-20FPS!) but UT2K4 isn't playable (for me) below 40FPS. I also don't care much about FPS in RTS games such as Generals as long as it stays above 25, Otispunkmeyer, and if they let you choose the game speed in Campaing mode the game wouldn't be realistic, I mean, I hit 75FPS in Skrimish and my tanks move super-fast around the map, I can't even keep up with my PC opponents, I don't think that's acceptable for a Campaing game!
And there's also the minimum FPS factor that Matthias99 mentioned above which is really important when it comes to defining "Playable" fps.

 

[CraigRT]

In my findings, it seems to depend on the game... I found in Quake3 the more the merrier...it seemed like 50fps was just not quite the same against 100+

I am happy with 40 or more in most other games though.

 

[RussianSensation]

As long as the minimum frames dont dip below 20-25 it's fairly smooth for some slower paced games. If you play counterstrike or soldier of fortune 2 online, at least 60 frames is good because you dont' want any slowdown resulting in your becoming shot due to sudden stuttering. Also if a game plays at 30FPS consistently, it's better than a game that plays at 100 frames and then drops suddently to 30.

 

[naruto1988]

i say in any game, anything below 30 is unbearable. in fast-paced FPS games like counterstrike, anything below 40 gets annoying. it's actually better to get a constant FPS, like 40 steady instead of a 40-60. you get used to the FPS and don't notice it after a while. my range in counterstrike is 30-100 xD

 

[dklingen]

Since there is no such thing as a constant frame rate (at least anything greater then 1). All games, particularly FPS will have frame rate swings based upon the the activity on screen. If you can maintain about 40+ frames everything above that is just gravy (30 is probably acceptable but not optimal). Good luck!

 

[Azndude51]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
I like HardOCP's line graphs where you can see the minimums

I like those too, but I wish they would also include the graphs that anandtech has, which are easier to compare stuff with.

 

[Rhin0]

Anything under 40-50 in desert combat is so annyoing. You just can't play. I've been getting 25-35 a lot lately and it is simply not enjoyable