Gamer experience

[Zaydoon]

Hi there. Say you have an extreme rig that does not bottleneck any graphic card, at what fps you notice that the game(at max setting) starts to loss it's smoothness and does it matter at what monitoring frequency. Can anyone elaborate if my question has the wrong parameters.thanx

[MVPernula]

Let's say that you're on a dual Titan X(P) setup with a 6800K.

 

There is no game, even at 4K that wont run smoothly.

[ShadowCaptain]

8 minutes ago, Zaydoon said:

Hi there. Say you have an extreme rig that does not bottleneck any graphic card, at what fps you notice that the game(at max setting) starts to loss it's smoothness and does it matter at what monitoring frequency. Can anyone elaborate if my question has the wrong parameters.thanx

 

generally the minimum you want is 60fps

[Crowes]

Just now, ShadowCaptain said:

Generally the minimum you want is 60fps

Definitely nowadays, though 30FPS is playable.

[bughtoo]

5 minutes ago, MVPernula said:

Let's say that you're on a dual Titan X(P) setup with a 6800K.

 

There is no game, even at 4K that wont run smoothly.

 

10 minutes ago, Zaydoon said:

Hi there. Say you have an extreme rig that does not bottleneck any graphic card, at what fps you notice that the game(at max setting) starts to loss it's smoothness and does it matter at what monitoring frequency. Can anyone elaborate if my question has the wrong parameters.thanx

 

Its very subjective to say what smoothly means. When you take it as a number (not below 60fps) then @Zaydoon is right. When you take personal opinion, it is possible to spot the difference between 60 fps, 120 and even between 120 and 200 and so on  The feel of the game, precision and comparability comes with higher fps, especially when it comes to precise FPS games, where the most precise aim wins. 

So i would say for buttery buttery and eye candy smoothness you would need to have average FPS around 150 and lowest FPS at 100. 

[ShadowCaptain]

Just now, Crowes said:

Definitely nowadays, though 30FPS is playable.

not to me

 

and if you just build a shiny new expensive rig, you would never settle for 30fps, maybe if you were using a celeron and GT 840 or something  and wanted the basic playable experience 

 

but on an "extreme rig" 30fps is unplayable 

[Crowes]

3 minutes ago, bughtoo said:

Its very subjective to say what smoothly means.

Not entirely. There are groups of people who all agree what smoothly means -- these groups tend to be people who own similar products: those who own 1440p monitors, those who own graphics cards possible of outputting 120 frames, et cetera.

 

2 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

not to me

 

and if you just build a shiny new expensive rig, you would never settle for 30fps, maybe if you were using a celeron and GT 840 or something  and wanted the basic playable experience 

 

but on an "extreme rig" 30fps is unplayable 

Hence the italisization! Nobody should settle for 30FPS if you've poured money into a rig capable of more, though it doesn't make it any less playable, it just makes it really unenjoyable...

[ShadowCaptain]

1 minute ago, bughtoo said:

So i would say for buttery buttery and eye candy smoothness you would need to have average FPS around 150 and lowest FPS at 100. 

Assuming you have a monitor capable 

 

 

[tlink]

30 fps is the lowest fps measured that you should aim for, 60 fps overall often hits that mark quite well, with 90 fps you almost never dip to 30 fps. so around 60-90 would be ideal. monitor frequency is measured in HZ and 1 HZ is equal to 1 fps. so to display 60 fps you need a 60hz monitor. for 144 fps you need a 144hz monitor. 60 fps minimum is what the movie industry aims for because its smoother. around 28 fps is the turning point from actually being able to see the frames change to becoming an illusion of movement. thats why minimum 30 fps is the least you should aim for for smooth gameplay every time.

[ShadowCaptain]

2 minutes ago, Crowes said:

Hence the italisization! Nobody should settle for 30FPS if you've poured money into a rig capable of more, though it doesn't make it any less playable.

It does,I would just turn off the PC if i was getting 30fps and not use it

or lower settings to get it back to 60

 

If I could only game at 30fps, I wouldnt bother owning a PC 

Its not a great experience, and undermines the  point of buying a good PC - therefore its unplayable 

[bughtoo]

@Crowes thats why i said min fps 100 and average 150 (so if read through you would find that i share the similar opinion), but there are people who consider total smoothness to be as high as possible and once they experience more they can tell the difference when its less  

 

@ShadowCaptain i think even if your monitor isnt capable the lag between rendering by gpu and rendering by monitor(when not using freesync/gsync) is lower and lower the higher the framerate is, which might improve the gaming experience

 

[ShadowCaptain]

Just now, bughtoo said:

 

@ShadowCaptain i think even if your monitor isnt capable the lag between rendering by gpu and rendering by monitor(when not using freesync/gsync) is lower and lower the higher the framerate is, which might improve the gaming experience

 

That mostly only applies to a few games, can think of CSGO off the top of my head

 

on a lot of games, getting fps higher than 60 on a 60hz display often results in tearing or other stutters, but it really depends on the engine

I always find its best to try and match your framerate to your display rate, thats why Gsync and Freesync raise and lower the FPS of the display to match the game to aid perceived smoothness 

[bughtoo]

Just now, ShadowCaptain said:

That mostly only applies to a few games, can think of CSGO off the top of my head

 

on a lot of games, getting fps higher than 60 on a 60hz display often results in tearing or other stutters, but it really depends on the engine

I always find its best to try and match your framerate to your display rate, thats why Gsync and Freesync raise and lower the FPS of the display to match the game to aid perceived smoothness 

AS my favorite game thats the game i was exactly referring to  and i am sure it applies also to more games. 

 

But in general u are right. I am already looking forward when my Acer XF270HU comes and the second 290x with waterblock, Hmm that will be the eye candy i am looking for  

[ShadowCaptain]

2 minutes ago, bughtoo said:

AS my favorite game thats the game i was exactly referring to  and i am sure it applies also to more games. 

 

But in general u are right. I am already looking forward when my Acer XF270HU comes and the second 290x with waterblock, Hmm that will be the eye candy i am looking for  

 

CSGO is quite unique in that even on a 60hz screen there is a difference between 200 and 300fps , not many other games work this way

[bughtoo]

9 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

CSGO is quite unique in that even on a 60hz screen there is a difference between 200 and 300fps , not many other games work this way

Inspite of any monitor, at least bragging rights are applicable when running on 300 instead of 200 fps

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, Zaydoon said:

Hi there. Say you have an extreme rig that does not bottleneck any graphic card, at what fps you notice that the game(at max setting) starts to loss it's smoothness and does it matter at what monitoring frequency. Can anyone elaborate if my question has the wrong parameters.thanx

for me personally it really depend on the game...but usually bellow 60FPS i can tell it's getting choppy...i have a 1440p Gsync monitor and personally i aim for 80FPS...i've found that for me 80FPS is where it really does feel super smooth (perfect) if i can get 100FPS without having to durn down settings then that's good, but for me there is not much difference between 100 or 80FPS probably because of Gsync, but it all feel smooth to me...at around 60FPS i start to notice that it's not as smooth...

120FPS or 144FPS...i couldnt care less about since IMHO anything above 100FPS is wasted, you just don't notice it IMHO.

[Miguel Batista]

Well, I must say that on lower end hardware, 30 fps with some decent motion blurr makes the game playable if its not a game where controller input is a major factor. Games like Witcher III are good enough at 30 fps on a low end rig (like an i3+750ti combo). In racing sims, shooters and some fighting games, 30 fps is not good enough because it affects gameplay. Of course, I aim for 80, 90 fps personally because it provides the best experience for me though sometimes, I prefer to increase resolution to 4K and get 60 fps due to the image looking a bit sharper. In MWO for example, rendering at 4K and then downscaling to 1440p is the best AA the game has. FXAA and postAA look like a terrible blurry mess and MSAA just eats all your machine's resources because reasons... And you can still see jagged edges. Since I can get 72 fps average, I just play it at 4k.

 

So it depends on what you are looking for really...