CaptainGyro
Banned
The correct answer is no, it is not as noticeable as 30 vs 60.
I am always right
I am always right
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So 120 FPS vs 60 FPS - As Noticeable as 30 vs 60?
- Thread starter Dubz
- Start date
im not a big PC gamer... and ive always been in the Locked 30fps + high resolution/fx/textures/etc > 60fps camp.
With that said... do games actually run in 120? like... if your TV/Screen is 120hz or higher... is it actually worse for games running at 60fps? wouldnt higher refresh tvs/monitors actually cause weirdness for games that dont actually run that fast framerate-wise?
Again i dont know too much other than what i have (consoles with a 60hz hdtv)
But just how beneficial is a higher Refresh TV if games dont run that high?
With that said... do games actually run in 120? like... if your TV/Screen is 120hz or higher... is it actually worse for games running at 60fps? wouldnt higher refresh tvs/monitors actually cause weirdness for games that dont actually run that fast framerate-wise?
Again i dont know too much other than what i have (consoles with a 60hz hdtv)
But just how beneficial is a higher Refresh TV if games dont run that high?
Wolf Akela
Member
Absolutely. Otherwise you'll just see a comparison of 60FPS vids.
A stable 30 fps looks great (in 4K of course).
For me, the jump from 60Hz to 122Hz continues to blow my mind. The input lag reduction is just insane and smooth-ass desktop browsing is the icing on the cake.
I also find that high refresh rate screens work best when games have a borderless window option.
I'm also running GTA V in 4K/30fps but with mostly high settings (I only have one 290). The frame times are pretty consistent too.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
It's a shame nobody used (or was allowed) to use stereo3D on TVs to push a 120Hz refresh to the wider consumer.
Super Stardust HD effectively renders 720p120 for example. If there was no offset for each eye and you viewed the screen without glasses you should get a mono 120Hz refresh.
Super Stardust HD effectively renders 720p120 for example. If there was no offset for each eye and you viewed the screen without glasses you should get a mono 120Hz refresh.
There are very few TV's that run a true 120Hz. You'll need a 120Hz/144Hz PC monitor to experience 120Hz+.
TV advertising has confused a lot of people about what 120Hz should actually look like.
Fachasaurus
Member
120+ requires GSync/Freesync for me to give a crap. I would rather have 60fps consistently than 144 where it dips to 133 and then back up. THAT is really jarring for me.
Plus the hardware requirements to run 120 consistently is intense. Not for me right now at least. Hopefully Freesync and GSync take off quickly and with lots of enhancements!
Plus the hardware requirements to run 120 consistently is intense. Not for me right now at least. Hopefully Freesync and GSync take off quickly and with lots of enhancements!
Doctoglethorpe
Member
I fully believe its a big step up, but given that I can't afford to chase that kind of performance, I don't want to spoil myself by actually trying it out and end up disappointed with what I can realistically have right now (or end up further put off by console performance as I frequently use them still).
I'm new be nice
Member
It's one of those things where you really notice it after you've use it for awhile and then go back to 60hz.
I remember the first time I used my monitor accidentally in 60hz (because it was being cloned to my TV and I forgot) and I thought there was something wrong with my mouse. Where did all this lag come from? It's not responsive anymore! It just jerks around and shit is there a problem with the connection??
Took quite a bit of head scratching before I realized it was running in 60hz. That's when it hammered it home, I could never go back to 60hz again, if I have the choice.
I remember the first time I used my monitor accidentally in 60hz (because it was being cloned to my TV and I forgot) and I thought there was something wrong with my mouse. Where did all this lag come from? It's not responsive anymore! It just jerks around and shit is there a problem with the connection??
Took quite a bit of head scratching before I realized it was running in 60hz. That's when it hammered it home, I could never go back to 60hz again, if I have the choice.
TouchMyBox
Member
Depends on the game.
If you're playing competitive fps, 60Hz is a bad joke. For other games, 60Hz is mostly fine.
Weird, I can't tell the difference much so long as the fps stays in the triple digits.
If you're playing competitive fps, 60Hz is a bad joke. For other games, 60Hz is mostly fine.
Weird, I can't tell the difference much so long as the fps stays in the triple digits.
I believe people who can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 just don't have their hardware setup correctly. It's a huge damn difference. You see and FEEL the difference. Both in games and in daily usage of your machine. It's amazing. The bad thing is... My GTX 980m just can't hand all that frame rate goodness at high resolutions and rich graphical fidelity. But it is a huge difference FOR ME. Going back to 60fps ISN'T depressing, but it's kind of disheartening knowing what you can get out of games that aren't frame locked. It really feels like you cheating out of how responsive it is. Playing competitive games at 60fps is just fucking laughable. And the look of it is just buttery smooth.
The sad thing is, the average consumer wont even notice this until it becomes a mainstay in probably around 2020 or 2025.
The sad thing is, the average consumer wont even notice this until it becomes a mainstay in probably around 2020 or 2025.
For me it seems choppy unles it's 60 70 plus and horrible sub 30 . But only when I'm playing competive cs . Otherwise don't care as Long as it's not sub 15
Edit : it's hard to say tho I only check fps once I feel it's choppy in cs and when I do it's def sub 60 . And when I feel it's unplayable is when I notice drops under 30 ... But only in cs .
Edit : it's hard to say tho I only check fps once I feel it's choppy in cs and when I do it's def sub 60 . And when I feel it's unplayable is when I notice drops under 30 ... But only in cs .
God damn it.
Now I have to find someone who has a 120hz monitor just to compare.
fml
While I would recommend anyone getting a 120Hz+ display to get one that supports variable refresh rates at this point, you still have alternatives (albeit not as good) if you don't. Such as: No Vsync whatsoever causing tearing, true Triple Buffered Vsync (Windowed mode with Windows Aero On) which eliminates Vsync stutter (dropping between 8.3ms frames to 16.7ms frames) but not judder, or half-refresh Vsync to emulate 60Hz.
Mechanical Snowman
Member
Not as noticeable, but it is absolutely worth it.
I have a GTX680 and GTAV runs at a nice 60. If i upgraded my graphics card I'd make the game run at 120 over increasing graphics settings and IQ.
when 144hz free sync monitors and free sync display port becomes standard, 30fps games are going to feel stunningly outdated, there is just no comparison.
I have a GTX680 and GTAV runs at a nice 60. If i upgraded my graphics card I'd make the game run at 120 over increasing graphics settings and IQ.
when 144hz free sync monitors and free sync display port becomes standard, 30fps games are going to feel stunningly outdated, there is just no comparison.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Even 85 vs 60 is noticable (I used to have an 85 hz monitor, now I bought a 60 hz one and it was a noticable downgrade)
Main thing I've noticed about being at a lower framerate is that it makes tearing WAY more visible (makes sense with tears staying on the screen longer and the distance the camera moves between frames being larger), to the point where tearing really bothers me now.
Idk if it's as noticable though, 30 hz is just way too low for smooth animations and the input lag at 30 fps is way too high.
It's still objectively much better to have 120 fps than 60.
Main thing I've noticed about being at a lower framerate is that it makes tearing WAY more visible (makes sense with tears staying on the screen longer and the distance the camera moves between frames being larger), to the point where tearing really bothers me now.
Idk if it's as noticable though, 30 hz is just way too low for smooth animations and the input lag at 30 fps is way too high.
It's still objectively much better to have 120 fps than 60.
Gipsy Danger
Member
I don't think the jump is as noticeable as 30 to 60 but gaming at 120/144 is a blessing. And if you have a Gsync monitor you can mostly just never worry and maintain a steady 100+ with a high end machine in modern games.
Like the "1080p looks like eyecancer to me" comments when people are accustomed to 4k.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think it's as noticeable as 30->60, but there's a noticeable difference. I have a 144Hz gsync monitor, so anything above 60fps is a bonus.
Gipsy Danger
Member
That's not the question being asked.
60fps is pretty shit, though. it's just that 30fps is so much more shit.
funking giblet
Member
Anyone who has played Quake III @ 125fps on a 125hz CRT knows all about it, Not only did the physics give you a boost, but going back to 60hz hurt your eyes! CRT @ 60hz had low persistence though, so you could see a subtle effect, as if the image was vibrating or flickering.
Fried Food
Banned
30 to 60 is way more noticeable. I don't think there is really even a debate on this.
Chezzymann
Member
What about 120 vs 240?
There is a noticeable difference in visual fluidity between 60 -> 120
This is coming from a guy who went from 60 to 144 less than a year ago.
Things also feel a lot smoother in general - your mouse cursor, browsing, images that pan across the screen (less ghosting), etc. Definitely worth it in my opinion.
This is coming from a guy who went from 60 to 144 less than a year ago.
Things also feel a lot smoother in general - your mouse cursor, browsing, images that pan across the screen (less ghosting), etc. Definitely worth it in my opinion.
Shuggananas
Banned
See you in five years "144 hz is horseshit go for 240 hz"
60 is way more than enough.
60 is way more than enough.
No it isn't and stop with the lying. Different people are used to different things. No way is 60hz acceptable to me when I have the option of 120+
SneakyStephan
Banned
Pretty much.
Especially on lcd screens 60 fps is garbage for motion resolution.
It's also vastly much better than 30 fps
the two are not mutually exclusive
I found it hard to go to 60 hz from 85, It'll be even harder to go back to 60 fps once you're used to 120.
Rationalising being stuck on a lower standard and then saying that you'd prefer to stay stuck on it forever is not doing anyone any favors.
Phreakuency
Banned
Agreed. I love my 120/144hz monitor.
I've played games at 4K resolution on a native monitor and visually, 120/144 (at 1080) is so much better. It's the next level for me. Absolutely beautiful and at times surreal.
Gipsy Danger
Member
This is not the question and you know it. And 60 should easily be the low end.
Wasn't there a thread a while back about some sciencey research which suggested that, due to some eyeball biology and assuming 20/20 vision, there's a diminishing return of noticeability after ~92 fps?
Edit: oh, and anyone who's dragged a window around on a 120hz screen will (should!) immediately see a difference compared to doing so on a regular 60hz one.
Edit: oh, and anyone who's dragged a window around on a 120hz screen will (should!) immediately see a difference compared to doing so on a regular 60hz one.
This is true in so many areas. Frame rate, resolution, audio, food, cars, clothing, whatever.
Moving up the quality scale feels nice, moving back down the quality scale feels like you're being punished for something terrible you did in a previous life.
Omnii-chan
Member
When I got my Alienware 3D monitor I tried playing Black Ops 2 multi-player in 120 fps from 60 fps. It was night and day.
I really notice the judder in 30 fps games. 60 fps is a sweet spot, I think it is the minimum fps that developers should aim for in fast-ish paced games. However 120 fps to me feels like utter perfection. It's just so amazingly smooth. In my experience, it makes for a much nicer presentation and gaming experience.
I really notice the judder in 30 fps games. 60 fps is a sweet spot, I think it is the minimum fps that developers should aim for in fast-ish paced games. However 120 fps to me feels like utter perfection. It's just so amazingly smooth. In my experience, it makes for a much nicer presentation and gaming experience.
Shuggananas
Banned
Yes it is, it's just relativism.
When 30 fps was the norm you had people saying only 60 fps was ok. Now 120 fps is available so the same people say it's the only acceptable thing. When 240 fps or whatever becomes available the same persons will bandwagon for this frequency.
This is not 100% true IMO. The new UT on UE4 runs like a dream on my single 970 for example. I expect future (properly optimized) UE4 titles to do the same.
Also, the 70-90 fps range already feels much smoother than 60 so it's not a waste even if you can't reach 120.
If the rest of humanity would have that attitude we would still be living in a cave.
30 is too slow for first person games with fast camera movement, animation may be fine at lower frame rates, but the camera in first person games moves way faster than anything in cinema.
If I wanted a high refresh rate monitor I could go and dig out my 15 year old CRT. In some respects we've gone backward.
SneakyStephan
Banned
30 fps is really bad (high amounts of input lag) for gaming, below it causes highly noticable stuttering and completely breaks the illusion of animations so below 30 is exponentially much worse than 30.
Input lag is the biggest enemy of interactive gaming.
60 is a lot better than that and it matches the refresh rate of most tvs.
The seemingly arbitrary numbers 60 and 30 (vs 29 and 61 or w/e) are due to the refresh rates of tv panels/tubes
60 is the refresh rate of most tvs and has been for 50+ years.
You need a common factor of 60 or you'll have annoying judder as some frames are shown twice and some aren't, or some frames are skipped)
30 hz happens to be the closest refresh rate that is above 24frames per second (the absolute minimum refresh rate required to give the brain the illusion of motion rather than just a series of images) that is also a common factor of 60, so on a 60 hz panel 30 fps is the minimum you can get away with while still providing the illusion of motion.
You could say 30 fps is the lowest common denominator of gaming (hehehe)
There are significant gains to be made past 60 for input lag and animation smoothness, and because we all use LCD panels that destroy our ability to resolve motion with their sample and hold method of displaying images there are HUGE gains to be made for motion quality and resolution.
Read up on sample and hold and the perceived blur it causes (due to how our eyes function) here and in the links provided in this link
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...use-motion-blur-not-pixel-transition-gtg.html
All of the above are facts and objective conclusions.
Inform yourself
Or keep tilting windmills, that's cool too.
edit: fixed translation issues from dutch xD
CaptainGyro
Banned
considering that most people do have that mentality, your statement doesn't make any sense at all
the idea that somebody suggesting one part of a technology is good enough and doesn't need to advance means that they think all technology in the world is good enough and doesn't need to advance is mind fuckingly idiotic
it's like a fallacy of composition