What are "acceptable frames"

[Okjoek]

Something I'm a bit confused on is there are people out there who tell me that if I'm not getting like 100, 200+ FPS in some games it's "unplayable", but I'm confused by these claims. Also where did the "60 FPS" notion come from and how is it better than the "console peasant's 30FPS"?

 

Linus seems to say more frames/Hz is better with this video, but it still doesn't answer why numbers like 30 and 60 are these sort of "magical numbers" in the gamer entertainment industry if we should be going for even higher.

[grimreeper132]

3 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Something I'm a bit confused on is there are people out there who tell me that if I'm not getting like 100, 200+ FPS in some games it's "unplayable", but I'm confused by these claims. Also where did the "60 FPS" notion come from and how is it better than the "console peasant's 30FPS"?

 

Linus seems to say more frames/Hz is better with this video, but it still doesn't answer why numbers like 30 and 60 are these sort of "magical numbers" in the gamer entertainment industry if we should be going for even higher.

because when you are playing at about 30 (can be 28,29.5,31) then it looks smooth enough play to slower games without too many issues, at about 60 (again could be 57.5,59,61,62.3) the frame rate starts to barely hold you back in fast games as well, at 120fps and 200fps similar again. it just makes the game run smoother, look better and stop hindering you as much in games. we use 30,60,120,200 as rough guides as they are nice round numbers which as humans we love as it's neat and clean rather than messy and horrible.

[AresKrieger]

Really old NTSC (US & Japan) TVs ran at 60Hz because it was easier to sync (AC power was also 60Hz, so you could use that to help keep sync). So, the transmission standard was based on that, and because that was the standard everything else followed suit.

 

As for why gamers like higher frame rates that has to do with how fluid controls feel, a simple solution to preventing lower fps from making controls feel inconsistent is lowering turning speed maximums thus preventing the player from moving fast enough to notice.

[Godlygamer23]

If you go below 30FPS, the game can become extremely choppy. I experienced this with NFS Rivals when the game dipped below 30FPS to 29. The game became unplayable. 

[Okjoek]

4 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

because when you are playing at about 30 (can be 28,29.5,31) then it looks smooth enough play to slower games without too many issues, at about 60 (again could be 57.5,59,61,62.3) the frame rate starts to barely hold you back in fast games as well, at 120fps and 200fps similar again. it just makes the game run smoother, look better and stop hindering you as much in games. we use 30,60,120,200 as rough guides as they are nice round numbers which as humans we love as it's neat and clean rather than messy and horrible.

Okay thanks, so how does resolution affect various games then? Let's say I were to move down to 720p or whatever so I could get even higher than 60FPS. Is there any con to a lower resolution gaming setup other than not looking as pretty?

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

If you go below 30FPS, the game can become extremely choppy. I experienced this with NFS Rivals when the game dipped below 30FPS to 29. The game became unplayable. 

24 is the min for people to see images as motion not 30 so I suspect that had to due with the fact the monitor wasn't synced to the output (ie the output was no longer greater than its lowest refresh standard of 30 making it so frames where desynced)

[Godlygamer23]

12 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Something I'm a bit confused on is there are people out there who tell me that if I'm not getting like 100, 200+ FPS in some games it's "unplayable",

This is actually something which makes little sense. First, it's subjective as to what's unplayable or not. Second, if you're rendering anything above the monitor's refresh rate, you are wasting energy and making the computer do unnecessary work - yes, I know people play video games without V-Sync enabled rendering 300+FPS or more, but really what they're experiencing is the lack of V-Sync. The same thing can likely be experienced by disabling V-Sync and setting a frame rate limiter to whatever the monitor can refresh itself at. 

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

24 is the min for people to see images as motion not 30 so I suspect that had to due with the fact the monitor wasn't synced to the output (ie the output was no longer greater than its lowest refresh standard of 30 making it so frames where desynced)

Most likely, but this is a given example in a video game. Movies and TV shows are different animals, and I was probably using V-Sync.

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

Okay thanks, so how does resolution affect various games then? Let's say I were to move down to 720p or whatever so I could get even higher than 60FPS. Is there any con to a lower resolution gaming setup other than not looking as pretty?

resolution is the pixels on the screen, e.g.

720p is 1280 pixels by 720 pixels

1080 is 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels

4k is 3840x2140

8k is 7680x4320

 

meaning iit just makes it look slightly worse (1080p is the lowest resolution you want to go with)

[Rohime]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

If you go below 30FPS, the game can become extremely choppy. I experienced this with NFS Rivals when the game dipped below 30FPS to 29. The game became unplayable. 

For console gaming ( 10 foot interface ) 30 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

For PC gaming ( 2 foot interface ) 60 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

For VR gaming ( 1 inch interface ) 90 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

in all cases higher FPS does a better job at keeping the brain fooled into thinking it is real live (analog) action.

 

This is the key - how many digital FPS does your brain need to fool you into thinking its real-live (analog)??

 

The 30 - 60 - 90 numbers (as minimum) come not from computer gaming but from medical and anthropological research.  they are approximations also referred to as "rules-of-thumb" - and as such provide guidance as to what is for most people an acceptable minimum frame rate for the use case.

[Godlygamer23]

3 minutes ago, Rohime said:

The 30 - 60 - 90 numbers (as minimum) come not from computer gaming but from medical and anthropological research.  they are approximations also referred to as "rules-of-thumb" - and as such provide guidance as to what is for most people an acceptable minimum frame rate for the use case.

It's simply easy to deal with as well. Decimals and fractions in everyday calculations can be a pain in the butt(hence why most things in engineering are nice easy divisible numbers). I'm not here to argue why it's one way or another - I'm stating my experience. That NFS Rivals was choppy when dipping below 30FPS.

[grimreeper132]

3 minutes ago, Rohime said:

For console gaming ( 10 foot interface ) 30 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

For PC gaming ( 2 foot interface ) 60 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

For VR gaming ( 1 inch interface ) 90 FPS is usually enough to have people comfortable with it.   ie: its acceptable.

 

in all cases higher FPS does a better job at keeping the brain fooled into thinking it is real live (analog) action.

 

This is the key - how many digital FPS does your brain need to fool you into thinking its real-live (analog)??

 

The 30 - 60 - 90 numbers (as minimum) come not from computer gaming but from medical and anthropological research.  they are approximations also referred to as "rules-of-thumb" - and as such provide guidance as to what is for most people an acceptable minimum frame rate for the use case.

aye but higher frame rates always look better, as it just seams to flow better and be more responsive (to a point, as at some point it won't)

[AresKrieger]

6 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Most likely, but this is a given example in a video game. Movies and TV shows are different animals, and I was probably using V-Sync.

Oh I'm aware gaming is much different from movies when it comes to perception while playing/watching I was just making the distinction as to the likely reason for clarity's sake as the op seems to be a bit confused on the subject

 

I always want 60+ fps while gaming as it is very jarring otherwise especially in first person games.

[Okjoek]

I know my monitor I use is 1920x1080p and the refresh rate is 75Hz. I've never had any problems gaming on it for a 130 dollar monitor, but is there something I'm missing out on? I'd really not want to have to pay much more just to get improvements that aren't really important. This is kind of taking me to where it all began with people saying 75 Hz (and thus frames) is "unplayable". 

[Godlygamer23]

3 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

I know my monitor I use is 1920x1080p and the refresh rate is 75Hz. I've never had any problems gaming on it for a 130 dollar monitor, but is there something I'm missing out on? I'd really not want to have to pay much more just to get improvements that aren't really important. This is kind of taking me to where it all began with people saying 75 Hz (and thus frames) is "unplayable". 

If you're fine with that refresh rate, then stick with it. I play and use a 144Hz monitor on a regular basis, and certainly everything is smoother that can display at that rate, but I also use a 60Hz monitor on a regular basis, and I certainly find it acceptable.

 

Do you think you should upgrade? As far as I'm concerned, 75Hz(and FPS) is by no means unplayable. Not even close.

[Praesi]

Depends on the Game. BF1 100 FPS in 1440p is fine for me. Slower RPGs ect. can run with less

 Gsync handle it. I rather have above 75 tho. Which is the case in most Games. I dont play CSGO but i think this 18quadtrillion FPS is BS. People who say 75fps are unplayable are just talkers who know nothing.

[LordAndSaviourGabeN]

I would say (at least in my views) it depends on the game. I'm fine with playing Minecraft at 25 FPS on an XP Machine. But I'm not fine with playing Fallout 4 or other shooters at such a horrible framerate. If its a sidescroller for me, the lowest I can go is 18 FPS. For 90's DOOM style games 25 FPS is fine. Anything modern and FPS should be at LEAST 30. If its a shooter (CSGO, COD, Battlefield etc.) I would prefer 60. But 30 still works... kinda :/. I hope that helped!

[Ryoku]

3 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

If you're fine with that refresh rate, then stick with it. I play and use a 144Hz monitor on a regular basis, and certainly everything is smoother that can display at that rate, but I also use a 60Hz monitor on a regular basis, and I certainly find it acceptable.

 

Do you think you should upgrade? As far as I'm concerned, 75Hz(and FPS) is by no means unplayable. Not even close.

I'm in a similar boat, I play games 100+ FPS on my 144hz monitor but sometimes Play games on my laptop (like when Im doing work on my watercooling loop and the desktop is a part) when using my laptop is get between 60-100 fps and don't notice a difference really. but as soon as it drops into the 50s (like a game that won't use both my laptops gpus) it feels really bad, I won't be able to play that game.

[sgtcool]

id say "acceptable framerate" is when you have stable ~70+ on a 60Hz screen

[jjohnthedon1]

75 is what I concider the minimum 

[Taja]

For me, stable 50 fps is playable. 60-70 fps is pretty good (i have 75Hz monitor and dont play competitive fps,which IMO is the only ganea that need high refresh rate)

[DragonTamer1]

This answer is very subjective.

 

If I'm getting over 30FPS in most games then I would consider it playable. Some games can go below that as long as they have a pretty consistent frame time to make it feel smooth. 30FPS is almost unanimously the minimum you should ever shoot for.

 

People that say a game is unplayable below 60FPS or something along those lines kind of have an elitist mindset. They most likely have the hardware to run it with those kinds of frame rates without issue but some people don't.

[ivan134]

As long as it not a game that requires quick reactions, without VRR, 45 fps. With VRR, bring it 15 fps. I can do this all day, son.

[PlayStation 2]

It's all about how you like it.

How I play TF2 goes to shit once I start dipping below 50FPS on a 60Hz monitor, but the only real difference a 144Hz monitor at 144FPS makes is that I play Soldier worse and Scout better.

Other games, like Grand Theft Auto V, I can tolerate the mid-high 20s dips I get.

[BluJay614]

I'm currently in the process of building my first build. I've seen gaming at 30+fps and I hate not being able to get it. Hell, I'm getting an average of 13fps at about 800p with an A6-5200 and 4GB of RAM. Granted, I did more of an impulse buy with having an extremely tight budget, but I'm also very unsatisfied. It's playable, but just barely. If it starts dropping to 8 or fewer fps, i have to stop. Higher FPS makes a huge difference. Granted, alot of people can't see the difference between 60 or 120. That's okay. Some people, especially the ones who can, enjoy the higher fps and want a monitor capable of displaying it.