30 FPS + Motion Blur vs 60 FPS?

[Pup Shepard]

I have been playing with ultra details at 1440 on my rig but due to my card not every game can hit a consistent 60 FPS.  Since constancy in FPS is more important than not, I have played with locking at 30 with motion blue and for my eyes it helps not want to throw up at the pleb tier gaming experience.  Since to me, I can deff feel each frame like a slide show the motion blue deff help prevent that, and since 30 FPS is easier to run at higher graphics settings I can maintain a consent FPS.

 

I am not playing online first person shooter games so the in-accuracy doesn't matter. 

 

My question is, how  many here have tried the same thing?  Please remember I am not running an adaptive sync monitor so anything other than a FPS divisible by 60 will cause tearing (aka, half 30, or full 60).

 

Also, in not competitive games, would you push the graphics and cap at half your hertz as well if your card was bouncing between 40 and 59fps or would you lower to medium details to hit 60?

 

If i had a 4K panel I could run at 1080p and keep high and ultra settings but since 1440 / 2 is 720 I feel i would be sacrificing a bit too much in the resolution department.

 

Anyway what are your thoughts comments, questions, and concerns?

[pizapower]

Some games are playable, but most games aren't. The Witcher 3 @ 30fps feels very laggy on PC.

[Crunchy Dragon]

6 minutes ago, pizapower said:

Some games are playable, but most games aren't. The Witcher 3 @ 30fps feels very laggy on PC.

It also depends on the person. My brother is perfectly content to play Minecraft at 30 FPS, but I cannot stand it for the life of me.

[minibois]

The main reason I dislike 30fps is the added latency in controlling your character, which would not be helped by adding motion blur (which I already don't like the look of).

 

That's not a setup I would be comfortable gaming with (and I have games a lot on 30fps), but whatever suits you.

 

I would probably try lowering some graphics settings before attempting this method.

[Daniel Z.]

Don't use motion blur. 30 FPS is alright as long as it's stable and not changing.

[Loote]

So there is someone that likes motion blur! I'd lower the settings until the perceived framerate is good. Some of them have heavy impact on FPS, but negligent on how the game looks, maybe with your nice resolution you could do with less AA?

[Vantage9]

You have it all backwards, in my opinion.  And I never use Motion Blur under any circumstance - defeats the whole purpose.

 

30fps is literal torture.  Doesn't matter what settings you use.  Why have a PC when this is how Consoles mostly run anyways?

60fps is bare minimum.  Sacrifice all else until you can keep it.

144fps+ is for being "competitive" or for visually picky people.  

 

Anything over 60 is a luxury, and that's great, but 60 really is the bare minimum for a PC in my eyes.  If you're not at 60, literally - why are you on a PC?

[shuri]

3 minutes ago, Vantage9 said:

If you're not at 60, literally - why are you on a PC?

Ask X-Plane/P3D/ARMA players

[Vantage9]

2 minutes ago, shuri said:

Ask X-Plane/P3D/ARMA players

 

I don't need to, because those games aren't on Consoles.  

 

Next.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 hours ago, rubberpuppy said:

Anyway what are your thoughts comments, questions, and concerns?

Whatever works for you is your thing. If anyone wants to say you're wrong, they're just delusional in thinking everyone should be like them.

 

But if you want to read what I think about the subject, I do have a minimum requirement. However I also demand consistency. If you were to give me a choice between solid 30 FPS or 60 FPS "'most' of the time," I'd take the solid 30 FPS. Most times when the game dips in performance, it's where I don't want it to.

[PlayStation 2]

Honestly, I'd rather play a game like Team Fortress 2 at 30fps without motion blur or 60+fps with motion blur rather than 30fps with motion blur or 60fps without motion blur.

That being said, whatever you like is whatever you like. No judging.