How many FPS is smooth to you?

[poogl3]

I stop noticing differences around 35-40 frames per second... not that my flat panel is helping matters very much.

 

[lee1026]

well, most LCDs can handle up to 60 fps.

 

[p|astic]

the threshold for human sight being able to tell whether something is still or "moving" is around 20 fps.

what does that mean? do you have a link? i've heard this countless times, yet pure experience proves otherwise for me. (this is assuming the statement provided is related to this poll). if i unknowingly delete my config is cs, and the fps_max is capped at 72, it's ungodly choppy. or if i accidentally keep my refresh lock at 85 instead of 100hz, it's definitely noticeable. noticeable to the point where i say "oops, that's right i need to fix my rates" as soon as i see the first image in game.

obviously, there are physical differences in the eye, person to person. but i think that whole 20 fps thing is pure crap, lol. i assume 20fps is the point in which if the image is moving, the eye will blur the image. if you shot a single frame onto a wall for 1/60th of a second, or even 1/120th of a second, are you telling me you wouldn't see it?

i just just googled the first thing that came to my head "human eye fps limit". first thing that came up "Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible". http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

 

[Nexus Realized]

Voted 65-85, I don't really notice anything different once it gets any higher.

 

[Evil_Eye]

I'd have to say around 80+ without vsync and only 60 with vsync.

 

[motherboard1]

depends on your definition of smooth

I would say anything above 30 "feels" smooth, that doesnt mean you cant still see that this is an animation

Iv never had a refresh rate and fps higher than 60, so Iv never seen a game that I cant notice the effects of frames changeing when the screen pans if Im looking

but Im happy if any of my first person shooters stay above 30, but Im used to playing games with less

but when it dropps below 20, it does really start to hinder the ability to aim and shoot

 

[mystfied]

Smooth for me means /no/ noticeable jumping in the frames.

I play Counter-Strike: Source a lot, so usually I play with at least 60 fps. Anything lower interferes with the fluidity of the game and therefore my aiming.

But anything else... like RPG related stuffs or RTS games do fine with 40.

 

[Deanzo]

55 to 60 is preferable

 

[RoadWarrior]

Something I noticed the other day when pushing an old 4200 right to the edge, is that gameplay is smoother at some lower framerates than it is at high frame rates. I can overclock it to run at 80fps average but that's spiking to 120 and crashing to 20, it's freakin' 'orrible to try and play on like that. A milder OC gives an average of 60fps that varies only +/- 10 fps, which is MUCH more playable.

 

[mcoleg]

Cool&Quiet, perhaps?

 

[Tyreal]

Cool&Quiet, perhaps?

Unlikely. Throttling only kicks in when the system is idle.

 

[azu]

I can't see.. but i can feel

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Depends on the game hardcore.

 

[redrumy3]

55-65 is smooth for me, im capped at 85 anyway so that is fine. =]

 

[Agashka]

i was used of round ~35-45fps but now im stuck with a GF4 , 15 to 20 is fine, o well , for now i dont care...

 

[Arca_ex]

In FPS games my accuracy gets loads better when it is over 90 FPS, although I can't see a difference, my scores go up. I usually run all the games at the highest refresh rates I can without running into problems.

 

[X0d1@k]

Most games are fine at 30 or higher. However fast shooters like UT2k4 work alot better for me when they are running over 60. In that regard I would argue the pace of the action determines my reqirements for enjoyable FPS.

Is this true? Wow, then all this striving to get 90 fps etc. I understand you may want a higher than 35fps because of some fantastic visuals and all, but what is the final edge where you decide that anymore fps is just too much. I guess its all game specific really, so to rephrase what is the highest fps needed to cover all games currently out at max everything? Is it possible? Is my question just lacking in its content?

 

[JigPu]

There is no such thing as a "maximum framerate" the eye can see, or even a "minimum framerate for motion". People need to give up the idea, because it is inherently flawed.

Neither the eye nor brain work with "frames". Photons striking the retina trigger an immediate (well, discounting the time for the pigments to become excited ) nerve impulse to the brain. Impulses from the entire retina are not stored up to be delivered as a single frame to the brain, but instead arrive at the brain whenever a photon strikes. The brain processes the impulses from the retina, doing a number of operations to turn the individual photon strikes into useful data.

"Motion" comes from the signal processing done by the brain and limits of the retina.

As an example of motion from signal processing, I could show you a video recorded at 5FPS that looked perfectly smooth. How? If I were to move what was on the screen slowly enough, eventually the motion estimation done by the brain would be able to let you see fluid motion. Similarly, if I could move the scene fast enough, the brain could see individual frames even at 120FPS.

As an example of where the retina can cause issues, the movie theater is excelent. When looking directly at the screen, motion in the movie appears to be rather smooth. If you look away and observe the screen from the corner of your eye however, you'll notice tons of flickering. The retina is far less sensitive to changes in light levels at the center of the retina, so the constantly varying light caused by the projector's shutter aren't noticed when looking directly forward, and motion is seen.

Part of the reason most people can stand to watch movies and television, but find games laggy at the same framerates is due to a lack or existance of a feedback loop. While watching television, the viewer is forced to see whatever the cameraman shot. The brain is passively consuming the video. It has no control over the virtual eye of the camera. When gaming, the user has a direct influence on what is displayed on screen, so the brain uses the mouse to control it's virtual eye. When moving the virtual eye (mouse) the brain expects an instantanous response as it gets when moving the real eye. If it comes across a delay of several milliseconds however, the user can "feel" the display lagging behind their actions. How sensitive to lag a person is and how involved in the feedback loop they are (first person shooters have you deep in a loop, while other types of games require less feedback) decides how the gameplay feels. A insensitive person can play shooters at 40FPS without trouble, while even the most sensitive of gamers would be hard-pressed to notice lag in a real-time strategy at the same framerate.

JigPu

 

[wellnessoc5]

I can't notice any jerkiness above 25FPS, so as long as the minimum Framerate does'nt go below 25, i'm ok

 

[thefranklin]

I need the lowest to be above 50. Oblivion kills me sometimes, but its soo pretty.