How many FPS is smooth to you?

[NiNE]

Smooth for me would be no lower than 30. I've heard the human eye can only refresh at no more than 30 FPS anways. But of course the higher the better for me. In AA i usually get 80-90 and thats with all settings on Ultra High. But it also depends on the game and the size of maps too. Like in Joint Ops i only get a max of 55, but in Ghost Recon and can get a max of 1600

 

[MetalStorm]

Smooth for me would be no lower than 30. I've heard the human eye can only refresh at no more than 30 FPS anways. But of course the higher the better for me. In AA i usually get 80-90 and thats with all settings on Ultra High. But it also depends on the game and the size of maps too. Like in Joint Ops i only get a max of 55, but in Ghost Recon and can get a max of 1600

While it is true that the human eye can't see the difference between 25 FPS and above, for example PAL TV is 25FPS and looks fine. I fail to see how come when on the computer I can tell the difference when its running under 60 fps.

If you don't believe me limit the FPS in Q3 to various frame rates - 25 looks SHOCKING.

 

[g0dM@n]

While it is true that the human eye can't see the difference between 25 FPS and above, for example PAL TV is 25FPS and looks fine. I fail to see how come when on the computer I can tell the difference when its running under 60 fps.

If you don't believe me limit the FPS in Q3 to various frame rates - 25 looks SHOCKING.

I've said this before, but I think it's because the monitor's refresh rate and your eye's rate is not in synch. If it were in synch then 30fps would probably look awesome.

 

[Streifenkarl]

35-45 is smooth enough for me. And I never lower my details or resolution when I game online, I want the nice gfx no matter what.

Im not so much bothered about the minimum FPS, but the fluctuations. It really sucks when your framerate drops from 70FPS to 35FPS in on second, and goes back to 70 in the next. This is really irritating sometimes when you want to shoot at someone. If the game would stay 35FPS for the whole time then I would prefer that.

 

[MetalStorm]

I've said this before, but I think it's because the monitor's refresh rate and your eye's rate is not in synch. If it were in synch then 30fps would probably look awesome.

That is complete ***, since when have TVs had anything to know the exact sync of your eyes?
If your monitor is displaying at 60Hz and you do as I said and set quake to run at 30 fps, then the same 2 frames are being shown a second, and it will STILL look crap, I'm not saying I understand the reason for this - why TVs look fine where as games don't.

I think it might be because TVs use film which has a certain exposure time - so when something moves fast it blurs, that's the only reason I can think of.

 

[austinbmxnig]

yeah film and tv's have some kid of blur thing that makes it all smooth, probably was invented on accident...........my lcd at 75hz looks kinda choppy when my fps is in the 150's on high at 1280x1024, its 8ms 19" samsung, but it is still fun as hell, venice, g.skill, and a x800-xtpe make games amazing to play, like a sensory overload

 

[Bathroom Monkey]

50ish is smooth to me. Any more than 50 and I can't tell the difference.

If a game kept above 40 the whole time, I'd never know the difference, though. But 50fps with a few dips is pretty smooth to my untrained eye

 

[g0dM@n]

That is complete ***, since when have TVs had anything to know the exact sync of your eyes?
If your monitor is displaying at 60Hz and you do as I said and set quake to run at 30 fps, then the same 2 frames are being shown a second, and it will STILL look crap, I'm not saying I understand the reason for this - why TVs look fine where as games don't.

I think it might be because TVs use film which has a certain exposure time - so when something moves fast it blurs, that's the only reason I can think of.

Monitors and TVs are completely different.

 

[MetalStorm]

Monitors and TVs are completely different.

As I said, the only difference being the motion blur inherrent with the filming techniques, yet it looks completly fine on TV, I fail to see the difference otherwise.

 

[g0dM@n]

There is a huge difference. We each have our own opinions. My eye can see a huge difference.

 

[Dell_Axim]

60FPS, that's what my LCD monitor runs at.

 

[Kevin007]

55-65

 

[Susquehannock]

voted 55-65

which coincidentally is the same as the average TV (= 60hz)

 

[g0dM@n]

TVs are verrrry different

 

[Opio]

I think 60+ is smooth, but I voted 90, because I play RTCW and ET and i'm used to getting a stable 125 fps. In those games you need 333fps to do certain jumps, but thats a little high.

 

[doh boy]

i prefer having the fps at my refresh rate of 75 hz, much less flickering compared to 60hz/fps.

 

[g0dM@n]

i prefer having the fps at my refresh rate of 75 hz, much less flickering compared to 60hz/fps.

Yes, and with Vsync on.

 

[Feydd]

When tje FPS drops below 60 It starts to effect my aim. 50 or below is visibly slow to me.

 

[starchild]

For CS:S 75 to 110 is a good smooth gameplay,but my card starts to dip into the 30 or 40's it is annoying.(1280x1024)The higher the better no matter what the eye can use properly.Pwnage doesn't happen@20fps.

 

[Janus67]

I prefer to have at least 60fps, with over 90 being preferable if possible. it just feels so much smoother.