Can someone explain to me 30fps vs 60fps?

[GaS]

Ok well I'm a console gamer and I see a lot of people complaining that console games run only at 30fps. To me, 30 fps is fine though. I dont see whats bad in it? I can see 25 or below being bad and there I notice the choppyness but at 30fps, which might sound stupid and weird, it seems smooth to me. I don't see a point in me wanting more when I find nothing bad about 30fps but surely there is someone here who can simply(without bringing up pages and pages of websites with walls of text) explain it to me. What's wrong with 30fps? Seems smooth to me. Is there perhaps any example that I can look up something, some pic or something where I would see 30fps being bad?

[Matsy]

 

Or you can go here: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html and see it very clearly.

 

Youtube can only show 30fps, but its been slowed down so you can tell the difference.

30fps is blurred and choppy, the 60fps is smooth.

 

Also have you ever sat down on a PC and tried a 60fps game and then try it at 30fps?

Until you actually see it for yourself, ofc you will think 30fps is "smooth".

Personally 45 is borderline for me, that is as low as I would possibly go ever.

[the_devil52]

The only way is to experience it. try playing a game on PC at 60 FPS then try playing it again at 30 FPS. You should notice a massive difference.

[iAsuno]

when you start playing at 60fps above, you would notice the difference.

[xDLGx]

In games with very fast movement, such as some action games, first person shooters and driving games, 30 fps is not enough to give a smooth experience. Until you've done gaming in 60 fps and you try to go back to the console 30 fps you won't fully understand it no matter how it's explained.

 

It also depends on the game engine, some engines handle lower fps a lot better than others.

[brownninja97]

I used to be the same as that guy. I would play bf3 a lot on ps3. Then i brought bad company 2 for pc and with 60fps its like a whole new game. It feels so different and a ton better.

[smjpl]

The reason you think 30fps is fine on a console is due to the amount of latency that is already built into consoles. The controller is one part that causes a lot of delay. Wired controls can help with that to a degree. Also the TV screen does a lot of signal processing which adds a certain amount of latency. Then finally there is the analogue stick. This is what allows you to not feel the lag as much. You get a sort of disconnected feeling from using the thumb sticks. When most people on PC complain about lag they don't see the lag as much as they feel it. All of this feeling occurs through the mouse which gives you such a connected feeling to the game. If the mouse lags behind our movement at all it is really noticeable. Personally in FPS multiplayer, I don't like playing with less than 100fps.  

[MegaDave91]

Once you go 60, you'll never go back.

[sribeast21]

60fps is better. discussion over

[TechTheWorld]

30 fps starts with a 3. 60 fps starts with a 6.

[SkilledRebuilds]

30 images sent to the display every second (Minimum)
60 images sent to the display every second (Smoother)

Higher = More better

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
THIS LINK GIVES A PROPER EXAMPLE OF 15/30/60FPS and Visual Difference in Smoothness

Here's another one

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

[Jebonia]

I used to be in the same situation as you. The problem is, that 30fps is fine for controller as the controller is sluggish in controlling your aim. You have also not experience 60fps on a pc. Once you go on pc and try to game on 30 fps with a mouse and keyboard, you are not going to have a good time. Do the same thing but change the mouse and keyboard to a controller, you are having an okay time.

[Jebonia]

The reason you think 30fps is fine on a console is due to the amount of latency that is already built into consoles. The controller is one part that causes a lot of delay. Wired controls can help with that to a degree. Also the TV screen does a lot of signal processing which adds a certain amount of latency. Then finally there is the analogue stick. This is what allows you to not feel the lag as much. You get a sort of disconnected feeling from using the thumb sticks. When most people on PC complain about lag they don't see the lag as much as they feel it. All of this feeling occurs through the mouse which gives you such a connected feeling to the game. If the mouse lags behind our movement at all it is really noticeable. Personally in FPS multiplayer, I don't like playing with less than 100fps.  

are the specs in your sig out dated? Because you said nothing under 100fps when your monitor can only reach up to 74 since you said you OCed it

[smjpl]

are the specs in your sig out dated? Because you said nothing under 100fps when your monitor can only reach up to 74 since you said you OCed it

 

That is my monitor refresh rate. That is a bit different. I am not able to tell you why having a higher fps than monitor your monitor can output make a difference but it does. It make a massive difference. On that note I have been trying to figure out if 120Hz or 144Hz monitors are worth it. I'm not 100% sure they are but some people swear by them. Others say its a gimmick. I can't decide until I actually play on one.

[zheavy]

That is my monitor refresh rate. That is a bit different. I am not able to tell you why having a higher fps than monitor your monitor can output make a difference but it does. It make a massive difference.

 That makes no sense at all. please clarify as the only thing that will happen when having higher frames is screen tearing which is a downside actually..

[MPX309]

You won't really see it in YT videos properly, since YT is 30fps anyway . . . Most noticeable for me is that I spent alooot of time playing BF3 on PS3, and when I moved onto PC it felt so much smoother, more fluid, movement, reloading, aiming down sight etc. . . I know COD is 60fps on console but tbh I really don't like the way that game plays much tbh

[MrSuperb]

 

Or you can go here: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html and see it very clearly.

 

Youtube can only show 30fps, but its been slowed down so you can tell the difference.

30fps is blurred and choppy, the 60fps is smooth.

 

Also have you ever sat down on a PC and tried a 60fps game and then try it at 30fps?

Until you actually see it for yourself, ofc you will think 30fps is "smooth".

Personally 45 is borderline for me, that is as low as I would possibly go ever.

 

24 fps, 30 fps and 60 fps in video recording is something COMPLETLY different!

The reason why a 24/30 fps is blurred has to to with the longer shutter speeds!

[smjpl]

 That makes no sense at all. please clarify as the only thing that will happen when having higher frames is screen tearing which is a downside actually..

 

I can't tell you why but trust me, it does. I leave off ultra settings because if I start getting below 90 I start to under perform to my usual standards. It just makes the slightest difference to my aiming. Also, I don't know what it is but I actually never see tearing and I aim to have around 150fps avg on a screen that refreshes at 75Hz. 

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/382560-33-60fps-60hz-monitor - This might give you some answers. Some people say it decreases the mouse latency which could be a very plausible answer.  

 

[leipero]

In games with very fast movement, such as some action games, first person shooters and driving games, 30 fps is not enough to give a smooth experience. Until you've done gaming in 60 fps and you try to go back to the console 30 fps you won't fully understand it no matter how it's explained.

It also depends on the game engine, some engines handle lower fps a lot better than others.

I agree with one exception, in good game engines, and on good hardware, 30FPS on 60Hz display is extremely smooth, even for fast paced racing games (Split/Second Velocity for example). On very good PC's about any game is smooth on 30FPS, without much exceptions (tho, there are very few).

[Jebonia]

That is my monitor refresh rate. That is a bit different. I am not able to tell you why having a higher fps than monitor your monitor can output make a difference but it does. It make a massive difference. On that note I have been trying to figure out if 120Hz or 144Hz monitors are worth it. I'm not 100% sure they are but some people swear by them. Others say its a gimmick. I can't decide until I actually play on one.

I have had brief experience with a xlt2420t (4 hours) and i can tell you that i enjoy the colour depth and viewing angles of IPS panels much more than 120/144hz. And are you sure you aren't just falling for a placebo?

[smjpl]

I have had brief experience with a xlt2420t (4 hours) and i can tell you that i enjoy the colour depth and viewing angles of IPS panels much more than 120/144hz. And are you sure you aren't just falling for a placebo?

 

The reason I am sure is due to me playing on my 1440p screen. Using the 1440p screen I was only getting around 80fps avg. I was going mad saying the input lag on this screen was terrible and that I had to use my other monitor (I made threads about it). This was something I noticed the very first time I played on the monitor. Recently I noticed if I turn all settings to low and turn off AA, the 1440p monitor feels way better because I am hitting 160+fps avg.

 

Also, if I play with Vsync on the game feels completely unplayable and it is noticeable in my performance. This happened the first time I played CoD BO2. I started playing and thought it was shit for ages. I thought they changed the aiming somehow. Then I noticed I only had 60fps constantly. Turned off Vsync and boom! The game felt great again.