FPS, at what number does it not matter.

[hoplopkop]

I am out for the answer, at what point does the number for FPS reach a point where humans cannot really perceive a difference. Now, I'm not trying to say that FPS is completely obsolete, I am an enthusiast and I still want to reach for the stars, but this is just something I have been curious about. What  I am asking of you all is to help me decide, what number should I start at to move up from in blind tests. All responses are appreciated, Thanks.

[coen113]

i would say above 144 hz is not worth it

[79wjd]

On a 60hz monitor, 60fps.

On a 144hz monitor around 100fps, much more than that and its not nearly as noticeable. 

[nanowatt]

Many will argue here but it depends on the eye.For me is 60 for some is 120....as i said depends on the eye

[wtfxmitchell]

over 9000

[Rorgash]

in reality that would be at the speed of light, so there isnt really a number i can put on it but minimum of 60 is a good start

[kuzimins]

60 for me

[NeatSquidYT]

60. Anything higher is apparently barely noticeable, but try to be above 60 at all times.

[AcupunctureSoup]

The FPS will stop mattering the instant you surpass the FPS that your monitor is capable of. It's that simple, but if you have a super fancy monitor, I would say you don't have any reason to try and beat 100-120.

[KingDaddyDaniel]

I am out for the answer, at what point does the number for FPS reach a point where humans cannot really perceive a difference. Now, I'm not trying to say that FPS is completely obsolete, I am an enthusiast and I still want to reach for the stars, but this is just something I have been curious about. What  I am asking of you all is to help me decide, what number should I start at to move up from in blind tests. All responses are appreciated, Thanks.

anything above 24fps WITH G-SYNC is playable.

after that, just match the monitor's refresh rate

Keep in mind that FPS can actually change how the game works. Check out this explanation 

[christianled59]

At least above 60.

[smjpl]

I am out for the answer, at what point does the number for FPS reach a point where humans cannot really perceive a difference. Now, I'm not trying to say that FPS is completely obsolete, I am an enthusiast and I still want to reach for the stars, but this is just something I have been curious about. What  I am asking of you all is to help me decide, what number should I start at to move up from in blind tests. All responses are appreciated, Thanks.

 

Okay that question is loaded based upon the fact that framerate isn't constant. So having 90fps on a 60Hz monitor can be good as chances are you will never drop below 60fps. Its all about the average and consistent frame times. If your minimum is way off your average then your experience is probably pretty crappy.

[TheMcSame]

It's like beauty... It's in the eye of the beholder, some say 60, some say 120, ect...

[Briggsy]

a definite answer cannot exist because its subjective, and there is your answer. If someone tries to tell me what my personal fps limit is that I can see, I will tell them to go fly a kyte because everyone's limit is different.

[WarlockTheWise]

1/Planck Time

[Lotus]

It matters up until you hit your monitor's refresh rate. Usually that's 60 for IPS. And I don't mean average; you want your minimum to be above your monitor's refresh rate. Any more is a complete waste. I have a 144hz TN panel, but it's only 1080p, so I try to keep my minimum above that.

 

It's all about what monitor your use. No sense in getting 144 FPS if you're on a 60hz panel.

[JonU]

Okay that question is loaded based upon the fact that framerate isn't constant. So having 90fps on a 60Hz monitor can be good as chances are you will never drop below 60fps. Its all about the average and consistent frame times. If your minimum is way off your average then your experience is probably pretty crappy.

This is a good answer. IIRC back in the days of film, either 27 or 30 fps was considered smooth (i don't recall the exact number).with digital media it varies. From my understanding in an ideal world your frame rate would be exactly what your refresh rate is, no more, no less. Since that ideal will pretty much never happen since it is always jumping around due to various factors i would say you should at least aim to get your average frame rate equal if not higher than the refresh rate of the monitor. The less variance between your max frame rate and minimum frame rate will also help the video output feel smoother as well.

[AfroLedgend]

over 9000

Minecraft.

[jkraghify]

Whatever seems smooth to you. Usually more is better, but the human eye does not see in "frames per second."

For me, I have been playing at 60hz and its looking smooth. I'm sure 120 or 144 he looks smoother, but I don't think my gameplay would improve too much using a higher refresh rate. If you want the best experience and money is not a barrier, go for the highest refresh rate and use G-sync or Freesync. If money is a major factor, I'd say try both out someplace. If you think 120hz is worth the money, then aim your build there. If 60, then you can save some money.

[TacticlTwinkie]

To me 60 is the magic number. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120/144 fps, but the difference isn't enough to sway me. I personally would rather play at 60fps with higher resolutions and textures, as that is a more immersion gaming experience to my eyes.

[stuka06]

One threshold is the refresh rate of your monitor. Above that, any additional frames being rendered are not displayed due to the monitor "bottlenecking" it.

 

I, on the other hand, think that the average FPS should sit a bit above at least 60fps or your monitor refresh rate. Reason for that is the fact that sometimes you have frame drops and being above that "magic number" serves as a safety net for your computer to still output a smooth experience, even with increased strain.

[D2ultima]

I am out for the answer, at what point does the number for FPS reach a point where humans cannot really perceive a difference. Now, I'm not trying to say that FPS is completely obsolete, I am an enthusiast and I still want to reach for the stars, but this is just something I have been curious about. What  I am asking of you all is to help me decide, what number should I start at to move up from in blind tests. All responses are appreciated, Thanks.

FPS doesn't matter beyond the refresh rate of the screen. I can see the difference between 100fps and 120fps for example, but I have a 120Hz screen. If i had a 60Hz screen I'd see nothing more than 60fps. If I had a 144Hz screen I'd see nothing above 144fps.

 

If you cannot perceive the numbers above 60 yourself, that's fine, but eventually you would if you kept using the screen. The smoothness would become more and more apparent to you, etc.

 

Going by specific numbers, around 200fps is where humans start losing the ability to perceive small changes. At 300fps you reach the limit and it becomes a large blur.

 

No screens actually process refresh data above 144Hz though. EVER. EVER EVER EVER. Even those "240Hz NASA monitors" that are meant to read satellite info and stuff? They simply take a 120Hz input feed and double up each frame for 240Hz. In other words, it's like taking a 30fps video and rendering it at 60fps... it does nothing beneficial. It might look smoother, but there is only 30 frames of data per second, so there's no actual visual benefit.

 

So for most cases, it stops being useful above your refresh rate.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please note, all of the above information is entirely dependent on visual FPS. Some games like CoD require 125fps, 250fps, 333fps, etc to work optimally, and at certain FPS counts can even become hackish. For example, forcing CoD 4 to 333fps allows such a high jump height, good fire rate, good hit detection, movement speed and other benefits that punkbuster would kick you if you set com_maxfps to 333. I could set it to 300, I could set it to 350. I could set it to 250. But 333 would get a kick.

[Mush Brain]

I can see all the way up to 144FPS ( no faster panels yet) but i don't care if i use an IPS at 60hz, i prefer image quality.

[Cheddle]

I am out for the answer, at what point does the number for FPS reach a point where humans cannot really perceive a difference. Now, I'm not trying to say that FPS is completely obsolete, I am an enthusiast and I still want to reach for the stars, but this is just something I have been curious about. What  I am asking of you all is to help me decide, what number should I start at to move up from in blind tests. All responses are appreciated, Thanks.

 

as mentioned your FPS should always be at or above the refresh rate of your monitor. and your refresh rate should be as high as possible.

 

If people want to share their "opinions" on how at xxx FPS or xxx Hz there is no difference they need to get educated... http://jgp.rupress.org/content/25/6/819.full.pdf+html

 

The human eye is capable of detecting a single photo of light, the nerves that tell your brain the eye has detected some light require about 9 photons over the span of 1ms, at higher densities of photons (virtually every condition aside from a light-tight room with a photon emmiter) the time span to activate nervs shortens.

 

So even in such a low light condition as to only provide 9,000 photons per second (to put this sensitivity into perspective - outside light provides about 400000000000 photons per second) we can perceive the difference at 1000fps - but its not enough light to get a "full response" from the nerves.

 

your black/white detectors (low light) are capable of full transition in sensitivity at roughly 300hz (you can imagine this as the full off to full on time taken, being about 3ms)

 

your colour detectors (bright light only) are capable of full transition in sensitivity at roughly 80hz (about 12.5ms for full off to full on)

 

This is why when its dark you cannot see colour (note: you have a concentration of colour receptors in the centre of your eye, this is why when you look at a star directly it is darker than when you look away from it and see it from the corner of your eye)

 

keep in mind smaller changes in photon density are more readily perceived, its not a 12.5ms delay to see colour and a 3ms delay to see brightness)

 

now... this is where it gets funky, the minds perception of vision is subjective and what you "see" is not actually what your eyes see, it is what your consciousness produces based on information provided by your eyes.... so what is actually happening at 60hz or 144hz or any other rate of refresh on your screen is your brain is essentially streaming you a continuous blurry image of what is happening - the same thing happens when you see rain, its not individual droplets but they are long streams of water... this is to compensate for the activation time of the rods and cones in your eyes and to take both colour data and brightness data (separate receptor types are used) and provide you with one view of the world...

 

so the higher the refresh rate, the more "accurate" your imagined view of the screen is compared to what is actually being generated by the game.

 

this is why its harder to catch a ball under 50hz fluro lights than it is to catch it outside in daylight

[bomerr]

About 96fps

 

Although I'd take 30 FPS with better graphics, resolution, and textures is most cases over high fps.