Support NeoGAF

[EVO]

60fps easily. I've never been that sensitive to framerate, but after months of 60fps gaming going back to 30fps in Ratchet & Clank was jarring as fuck.

 

[JudgmentJay]

60 FPS is more important to me.

 

[Falcs]

What am I, a filthy casual??
60FPS minimum.

 

[RurouniZel]

1080/60 all day every day.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

framerate over resolution 8 times out of 10.

 

[Kintaro]

1440p/60fps is my sweet spot. \o/

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

Framerate is king.

 

[Dennis]

Still no poll.

The mods are asleep.

 

[kraspkibble]

frame rate > resolution.

4k would be awesome but I won't be using it on my PC until there is a single card out that can do most games at 4k 60fps.

 

[Dennis]

Only after the image before you is perfect can we start concerning ourselves with the less important fact of how fast it gets displayed per second.

 

[Justinh]

1080/60+ is definitely my preference.

Although I've not experienced UHD/4K, I have very strong doubts that I'd rather play at UHD/30 than 1080p/60.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Only after the image before you is perfect can we start concerning ourselves with the less important fact of how fast it gets displayed per second.

Smooth and pretty > choppy and gorgeous.

 

[ChasingComets]

Like most people said, it really has to be judged on context; a steady 30 can in some cases be preferable to an inconsistent 60, and 4K wouldn't add much to a fairly simple looking indie title as opposed to something like The Witcher. Or you playing on a large 4K TV, or using a smaller monitor? And what about the PC specs? All these can affect the choice.

 

[Stoze]

If you're on a 27" monitor with an overclocked 980ti you should be gaming at 1440p. Turn off hairworks or a few other minor things and I'll bet you can easily hit a steady 60+ fps the vast majority of the time in Witcher 3. edit: Derp, saw that you plan on playing on the couch either way. Even if you're playing on tv 1080 or 4k native res...I'd still go 1440p since you can hit 60fps with it. It's still a big difference on a big screen.

But yeah if those were my only choices I'd take the 1080p/60.

 

[jotun?]

when you're talking 4k vs 1080p, you're really looking at something more like 30fps vs 120fps

 

[Bornstellar]

1080/60. I'll take a higher framerate over resolution any day. Gameplay > Visuals IMO.

.

 

[Ogawa-san]

I have a 4k display and a 970, the only games I've actually played in 4k were old ones.

60 or bust. 720/60 if it needs to be.

 

[SoulUnison]

I'd do absolutely anything to get a game to 60FPS, graphics quality be damned, for the most part.

 

[newsguy]

I do 1440 100fps in Rocket League.

 

[Roni]

Did you mean to type 960? A 970 allows you to play everything at 1080p/60 on a mix of high and ultra settings from my experience.

Something wrong with your rig if 1080p/30fps is what you think you have to go for with a 970.

I can play MGSV and other less demanding games at 60FPS, sure. But for more demanding games like Witcher 3 and GTAV, at absolute Ultra, I can only manage a solid 30. So I take that as a baseline.

 

[mattiewheels]

Smooth and pretty > choppy and gorgeous.

Dennis only needs 1fps for screenshots, though.

 

[Kindekuma]

Frame rate, frame rate, frame rate. Visuals can take a hit, but if it doesn't play nicely then I don't want to keep playing the game, seeing fast fluid and responsive motion matters to me the most. I'll only crank up visual settings if it's more than what my system can handle at a constant FPS for screenshots.

4K is pretty to look at and all, but if it can't steadily play at a high consistent framerate then there's no point. I still think it's too early for 4K gaming to become mainstream at this point since the hardware requirements are very demanding.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

I can play MGSV and other less demanding games at 60FPS, sure. But for more demanding games like Witcher 3 and GTAV, at absolute Ultra, I can only manage a solid 30. So I take that as a baseline.

Don't play at absolute ultra then, I played Witcher 3 at 60fps 99% with a few settings turned down a little, you'd barely notice the visual difference but you'd be blind not to notice double the frame rate. Lots of games have a setting or two that will absolutely cripple performance if put on ultra but will run perfectly on high.

 

[Gunslinger]

*deleted* wrong post.

 

[opticalmace]

Ps4k is not capable of running games native 4k imo. I would much rather have 1080p with 60 fps mandatory. Leave the 30fps for regular os4 version.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Roni]

Don't play at absolute ultra then, I played Witcher 3 at 60fps 99% with a few settings turned down a little, you'd barely notice the visual difference but you'd be blind not to notice double the frame rate. Lots of games have a setting or two that will absolutely cripple performance if put on ultra but will run perfectly on high.

You're not wrong and I used to be a lot more obsessive about settings and all, nowadays though, I usually just crank it up and deal with VSync. I'll get a better cards eventually and that problem will go away.

 

[Gunslinger]

What does that have to do with this thread?

My bad bro wrong thread. You are right lemme edit my post right now.

 

[Kindekuma]

Don't play at absolute ultra then, I played Witcher 3 at 60fps 99% with a few settings turned down a little, you'd barely notice the visual difference but you'd be blind not to notice double the frame rate. Lots of games have a setting or two that will absolutely cripple performance if put on ultra but will run perfectly on high.

For me I can't quite max out MGSV completely (shadows and SSAO being on High), but I can't tell the difference in 1080p between high and extra high while in motion, and changing down settings to get the best performance is always worth it.

Ps4k is not capable of running games native 4k imo. I would much rather have 1080p with 60 fps mandatory. Leave the 30fps for regular os4 version.

With the proposed hardware "leak" for the PS4K, there is absolutely 0% chance that could run games in 4K. A GTX 980 chugs with 4K and needs SLI to be manageable, but I'm excited to see how AMD's Polaris will handle 4K with the new GPU line up. If a single card can do 4K with consistent FPS then I'm sold since I plan on switching down the road in a few years to a higher res.

 

[Hyun Sai]

FPS > Resolution

Unless the game is not animated at all I guess.

 

[SapientWolf]

Still no poll.

The mods are asleep.

Options should be:

4k/30fps
1080p/60fps
Dennis

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

The real answer is 1440p at 60fps.

If only given those choices, it depends on the game. Fast, action-heavy or competitive mp games, 1080p/60 (or 1080/144fps).

For the Witcher though, or even Tomb Raider, Metal Gear V, or Dark souls, I would gladly do 4K/30fps. Your 980 ti would probably do closer to 40+ on those titles with the proper monitor anyways.

 

[Tecnniqe]

60fps
30fps is a slideshow

 

[Glass Shark]

I'm not ready to go 4K yet. When I do, it will be no compromises 4K/60fps+

 

[RiccochetJ]

Hell, I'll even dip lower than 1080 if it gets me over 60fps.

 

[GHG]

60fps
30fps is a slideshow

No.

Anyway, to answer your question OP it depends on the game. If it's a racing/sports or action heavy game then I will always go for 1080/60 or the highest resolution that allows me to get 60fps. If it's a game that's slower paced then I will downsample from 4K or similar and lock it to 30fps.

 

[BigTnaples]

4K 30.



Unless it's a competitive game. I think that case 1440p 60.


1080p is old hat.

 

[Jay Seven]

60fps feels better than 4K looks.

 

[mattiewheels]

60fps
30fps is a slideshow

Here come the people who think 60fps is a slideshow, I know we have some.

 

[KingBroly]

You gotta have that 60fps. There's no going back.

 

[IcyRhythms]

I've been spoiled on 60FPS for the better part of a decade now. I have a 4690K, 980 Ti, and 16GB RAM. I know that I'm holding back this 980 Ti but not playing at 1440p, 4K, or 144hz. Is the difference between 60-100FPS+ as big as it the jump from 30 to 60?

 

[quesalupa]

Depends on the game for me.
Rise of the Tomb Raider would be a 4K/30.
Metal Gear Rising I'd have to 1080/60.

 

[Ombala]

Depends on what kind of game it is.

 

[Zeneric]

1080/60.

 

[MuchoMalo]

I only have a PC because frame rate is king.

 

[Iorv3th]

It depends on the game. Something like Tomb Raider I would probably go for better visuals and 30fps. Anything that has fast action/combat would be a higher framerate.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

I can play MGSV and other less demanding games at 60FPS, sure. But for more demanding games like Witcher 3 and GTAV, at absolute Ultra, I can only manage a solid 30. So I take that as a baseline.

I'm playing through Witcher 3 right now with a 970, with just hairworks off and shadows at high. Everything else is set to ultra (well, shitty motion blur and vignetting is off, but that doesn't drop frames anyway).

Fix yo rig.

Edit: Oh and GTA V? That game can be near maxed too.

 

[MrCunningham]

Neither.


3440 x 1440 x 60fps

Bingo. Why pick one or the other when you can choose something in the middle?

 

[Finaika]

Wait for Pascal for 4K/120fps.

 

[Adam_Roman]

1080p/60fps. Though I'd rather have 1080p/144fps.

 

[Chobel]

4K/30fps > 1080p/60fps

Said no one ever.

EDIT: Wait, there are actually some people who prefer 4K/30fps in this thread?