whats the highest fps that we can see the difference in gaming?

[saif96]

so we pretty much can see the difference between 30 and 60 fps clearly correct? and if you get +60fps we can see it being even more smoother but i think theirs a limit for example, you can bearly see any difference between 120fps - 240fps so what exactly is the limit that we can see a smoother experience in gaming? i feel like its somewhere close or around 100fps but does anyone know exactly what the number is?

[Glenwing]

This might be a good read:

 

https://www.blurbusters.com/4k-120hz-with-bonus-240hz-and-480hz-modes/

[Enderman]

Eyes do not see in frames.

There is no exact "limit" to how short a frame can be.

It depends on thousands of variables like ambient lighting, the content on the screen (eg a white flash on a black screen vs a movie), age of the person, etc etc etc.

 

Tests show that the human eye can detect a single photon of light so technically you could have a black screen running at 100000000hz and have one white frame inserted and you would be able to notice a flash.

Obviously there would need to be 0 ambient light, no screen backlight, and many other things set correctly.

 

So no, depending on the content on the screen there is technically no limit.

 

Another example, if you have an image on the screen that is moving horizontally at 1 pixel per hour then you obviously can't tell the difference between 30hz and 240hz.

It all depends on ambient conditions and what is actually on the screen.

[JoostinOnline]

I can tell a difference between 50 and 60fps, but the difference is usually bigger there than between 60 and 144fps. That's excluding tests designed to show the difference. I just don't notice details like that when I'm actually gaming. I definitely notice resolution and lighting effects though. What's important is that you find what stands out most to you and focus on that.

[19_blackie_73]

As long as frame times are consistent, I personally don't see much difference between 40 and 60+fps in games. Maybe that's just me, but i don't the fuzz about high refresh rate displays. Couls be because I'm spending my time mostly on other things than gaming so i don't care as much or I'm too distracted with the content of the game or what to do in the game.

Where i do see a difference is 30fps vs 60fps especially in videos with fast moving subjects.

I'd rather have 4k with 50fps than 1080p with 144Hz+

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

0 and 1 lol

the PS3 ran on 30fps and looks perfectly fine as long as it plays smooth

so any fps consistent over 30fps is fully playable and every enjoyable

[voiha]

46 minutes ago, saif96 said:

you can bearly see any difference between 120fps - 240fps

For example I can tell the difference of how smooth is a game if it's at 100 fps and at 200fps, it's at the responsivness of the mouse of how quick/smooth everything moves and such. There is difference if there wasn't 200FPS wasn't going to be the low end for competetive CS:GO gaming

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

9 minutes ago, voiha said:

it's at the responsivness of the mouse of how quick/smooth everything moves and such

this is not relevant to FPS, the monitor input lag/ latency determines this factor, in milli sec, ms

[peacefulpolarbear]

42 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Eyes do not see in frames.

There is no exact "limit" to how short a frame can be.

It depends on thousands of variables like ambient lighting, the content on the screen (eg a white flash on a black screen vs a movie), age of the person, etc etc etc.

 

Tests show that the human eye can detect a single photon of light so technically you could have a black screen running at 100000000hz and have one white frame inserted and you would be able to notice a flash.

Obviously there would need to be 0 ambient light, no screen backlight, and many other things set correctly.

 

So no, depending on the content on the screen there is technically no limit.

 

Another example, if you have an image on the screen that is moving horizontally at 1 pixel per hour then you obviously can't tell the difference between 30hz and 240hz.

It all depends on ambient conditions and what is actually on the screen.

Ive seen people claim this. What about lights flickering in slow motion video (as low as 120fps)?  I think this has something to do with the power grid operating at 60hz. I've never heard anybody mention seeing this with the naked eye. Are you able to see lights flickering all the time?

[monjessenstein]

2 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

this is not relevant to FPS, the monitor input lag/ latency determines this factor, in milli sec, ms

I'd argue that it actually is, as higher framerates produce lower frametimes, shortening the time between frames allowing new inputs to be shown on screen earlier.

[voiha]

1 minute ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

this is not relevant to FPS, the monitor input lag/ latency determines this factor, in milli sec, ms

It actually is.
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pixel5]

in your testing where you can barely see the limit between 120FPS and 240 FPS did you also use a monitor with the same refreshrate?

 

if not you are still limited to whatever refresh rate your monitor has.

[Spotty]

51 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

the PS3 ran on 30fps and looks perfectly fine as long as it plays smooth

so any fps consistent over 30fps is fully playable and every enjoyable

Go to Testufo.com
On the home page will be a test where there are multiple UFOs flying across the screen at different rates. If you have a 60hz monitor it will show 60fps, 30fps, and 15fps (by default). Let me know if you notice any difference between the 60fps and 30fps tests.

[SolarNova]

See or 'feel' ?

 

I can watch an image at 30 FPS and its fine, so long as frame times are consistent.

if that image is controlled artificially then the same goes for 60, 120, 144, and 240. So long as the what is being displayed is identical between each, the difference is minimal, it’s there most certainly, but minimal none the less. You need specific scenarios to notice a difference, like if your taking a view from within a race car and trying to see as much detail as possible as things go flying by at speed, you will notice a big difference between 30,60, and 120 fps as more and more detail is visually displayed.

 

Now when you add a real person into the mix things change. if a person plays a game and does so keeping things as close the same as possible in each run, you will still notice, as a viewer, a bigger difference.

As the FPS increases up from 30, the game will feel more responsive, the player will feel like they can react and do things quicker, so it will show. Fast turns will look noticeable faster for example.

 

Then if you yourself are the player, the 'feel' will be significantly different from 30 up to 60, and up to 120. Beyond that, that 'feel' is harder to see but it is there.

So can you 'see' the difference, yes , more so in specific scenes.

 

Can you 'feel' the difference, most certainly, up to an including i would say 144hz. Beyond that i couldnt say.

 

[Enderman]

7 hours ago, peacefulpolarbear said:

Ive seen people claim this. What about lights flickering in slow motion video (as low as 120fps)?  I think this has something to do with the power grid operating at 60hz. I've never heard anybody mention seeing this with the naked eye. Are you able to see lights flickering all the time?

Some people are more sensitive to it than others.

Since it's not a flash of light in complete darkness, it's repeated flashes of light one after the other, they (at least for most people) just blend together into continuous light.

The way the eye adjusts sensitivity is another variable.

 

It's easy for cameras to detect because when they record a frame either the light is on or off.

Nerve cells in the eye have a cool down time so if it's a high frequency flashing (aka pwm) it will just look continuous.