30 FPS should be your target and you'll never need more

[168cm 83kg 13cm]

I keep seeing people unironically whining about getting 40-60 FPS and calling it "bad performance". Well, let me tell you something: it’s NOT. Honestly, it’s embarrassing how spoiled gamers have become these days. Your precious AAA titles are running just fine, but here you are crying because you’re not hitting some arbitrary 100+ FPS threshold. Imagine being so entitled that you can’t enjoy a game unless your frame counter is stroking your ego.

Let me hit you with the atomic redpill - 30 FPS is the perfect sweet spot for gaming . It’s buttery smooth, cinematic, and honestly, anything more is just overkill. And let’s not forget: the human eye can barely detect anything above 30 FPS anyway. Anything higher is placebo at best, and at worst, it’s just inflating egos of gullible gamers who love throwing their money away for imaginary numbers in the corner of their screen.

I’ve got a high-end gaming rig that should be able to push 100+ fps in the majority of games I play. But instead, I use a frame limiter to cap everything at 30 FPS.
Why? Because I’m smart
I don’t need my rig running at full power just to feed me unnecessary frame rates. 30 FPS gives me the optimal gaming experience and exactly how games were meant to be played.

30 FPS master race will always reign supreme. If you disagree, you’re probably one of those delusional people spending more time in Nvidia Control Panel than actually playing the game.

Cheers~

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

The real difference is the facct that you're just above 60 FPS. 60-120 is not a very noticable difference when it comes to input. I dont know who thought you that...

Anything below 60 will become more and more noticable.

After 60, there's not much of a difference when it comes to input lag. Where liess the big difference? Competitive shooters, simply because you as an example see people come earlier around corners.

Thats why imho its okay to have 60 average to account for drops into 30-60.

30-60 big difference 60-90 same big difference but once you start going past 120 it starts to degrade on how noticeable in a big way.
Me I can tell and feel what 30fps is what 60fps is and what 90fps is all the way to 120fps then everything after that it drops off sharply but still slightly feels better all the way into the 200s.

60-90 is not a big difference at all.... lol

[PROX]

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

Origineel geplaatst door PROX:

People before discovering input latency be like:

On a serious note from my experience with 60hz getting 120 and higher fps felt better because of reduced latency. especially in action heavy games

difference when it comes to input. I dont know who thought you that...

My experience with games thought me that. That's why i wrote "From MY experience" maybe it's because i played a lot of competitive shooters with high fps. I agree that input latency difference from 120 and onwards can be not very noticeable.

[Simulacrum111]

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

Origineel geplaatst door Simulacrum111:

*snip*

Overall great post, but I'd like to add two things.

1) 30 FPS is absolutely playable for 99% of the population. The higher the FPS the smoother and more "clean" (can't think of another word to describe it) it looks, but anyone claiming that 30 FPS is "stuttery" or "choppy" is on that good ♥♥♥♥ (I'd ask for some but my company works with the USG and I don't want to lose my job.) 30 FPS is not as smooth as 60 FPS, but it's only when you get into the 23 FPS and below (or really any FPS that starts tearing because of desync with your monitors refresh rate) that stutter is an issue.

And 2) REFRESH RATE! If your monitor only has 60hz Refresh Rate then getting 240+ FPS won't look any different than 60 FPS and honestly may look worse. I have a 21:9 Ultrawide 60hz monitor, there's literally no reason for me to every want to push past 60 as my monitor would then be my limiting factor. What's great though is that 30 FPS is a fraction of 60, 90, and 120 FPS, so if you aim for 30 FPS as a baseline then you can have a non-tearing frame rate on even 60, 90, or 120 hz monitors. The 144hz monitors are a weird spot honestly and I'm not sure how they fit into this.

Your first point is about the smoothness of motion. At 30 FPS an object will appear to be in continuous motion to most people. This will not apply to an entire scene. Imagine you are playing a 3rd person game and the camera is centered on your player avatar. Motion will look acceptable near the player avatar. A tree, or car, or NPC near the edge of the screen can very easily appear to be "stuttery" or "choppy". This is because the distance traveled for objects near the edge of the scene is much greater than those in the center of the screen. Since the game tick is only 30 FPS an object near the edge of the screen will appear to teleport (lack of better word) between frame updates. At 60 FPS the distance traveled between frame updates is cut in half so the motion of the object is much smoother.

This is what I think players are referring to when mentioning stutter at 30 FPS. That and continuous motion does not mean smooth motion.

---------------------------

If your monitor is limited to 60 Mhz then anything above 60 Mhz would just be a waste. That is true.

Still, 30 FPS even on a 60 Mhz monitor isn't going to look great IMO. 60 FPS is a fairly low bar for modern displays. I don't think most of us are limited to 60 FPS or less by our displays. 120 FPS is definitely the norm whether it be game mode on TVs or simply standard. 240 Mhz is another matter, but I don't think 240 FPS on mid-grade hardware would be a reasonable request at all. I'm not suggesting anything like that.

[BEEP!]

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

30-60 big difference 60-90 same big difference but once you start going past 120 it starts to degrade on how noticeable in a big way.
Me I can tell and feel what 30fps is what 60fps is and what 90fps is all the way to 120fps then everything after that it drops off sharply but still slightly feels better all the way into the 200s.

60-90 is not a big difference at all.... lol

yes yes it is I can instantly tell when I'm not at 90 and at the 60 from simple mouse movement and impute delay alone and visually as well.
I can straight up tell with my mouse pointer from moving a single inch of what my fps is.
Lower the fps the less smooth the motion is it's that simple and I know what 30, 60, 90, and 120 looks like from a simple glance.
I can even show you a website if you even have a monitor that goes past 60fps.

[Gigantoad]

Origineel geplaatst door 168cm 83kg 13cm:

Origineel geplaatst door Necropants:

no 30fps is not "cinematic" most games were 60 fps back in the day btw.

Let’s bring some perspective here: During the PS1 generation, games made for NTSC targeted 30 FPS, and in PAL regions, they barely hit 25 FPS. Many games even had a cap at 15FPS for graphic-intensive scenes. And guess what? No one cared. Those games were considered smooth and perfectly playable back then.
It wasn’t until the Nvidia/AMD marketing teams started pushing their "more FPS = better" narrative that gamers suddenly needed triple-digit frame rates just to feel validated. Gotta love how easily some people let corporations redefine their standards for "fun"

You forgot some things here. Back then we played on CRT screens (google why that matters a lot). The other thing you forgot is that back in the day on SNES we had many 50/60 fps games already. The only reason we put up with low fps on Playstation is that those were the days of early 3D graphics and we were willing to put up with it, not because that was the optimal framerate.

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

60-90 is not a big difference at all.... lol

yes yes it is I can instantly tell when I'm not at 90 and at the 60 from simple mouse movement and impute delay alone and visually as well.
I can straight up tell with my mouse pointer from moving a single inch of what my fps is.
Lower the fps the less smooth the motion is it's that simple and I know what 30, 60, 90, and 120 looks like from a simple glance.
I can even show you a website if you even have a monitor that goes past 60fps.

Right...

Show me this website, cause if its UFO checker then thats a horrible website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-p4xJxPv4U

Here you go, a proper test beyond 60...

[Scipo0419]

Origineel geplaatst door PROX:

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

Overall great post, but I'd like to add two things.

1) 30 FPS is absolutely playable for 99% of the population. The higher the FPS the smoother and more "clean" (can't think of another word to describe it) it looks, but anyone claiming that 30 FPS is "stuttery" or "choppy" is on that good ♥♥♥♥ (I'd ask for some but my company works with the USG and I don't want to lose my job.) 30 FPS is not as smooth as 60 FPS, but it's only when you get into the 23 FPS and below (or really any FPS that starts tearing because of desync with your monitors refresh rate) that stutter is an issue.

And 2) REFRESH RATE! If your monitor only has 60hz Refresh Rate then getting 240+ FPS won't look any different than 60 FPS and honestly may look worse. I have a 21:9 Ultrawide 60hz monitor, there's literally no reason for me to every want to push past 60 as my monitor would then be my limiting factor. What's great though is that 30 FPS is a fraction of 60, 90, and 120 FPS, so if you aim for 30 FPS as a baseline then you can have a non-tearing frame rate on even 60, 90, or 120 hz monitors. The 144hz monitors are a weird spot honestly and I'm not sure how they fit into this.

People before discovering input latency be like:

On a serious note from my experience with 60hz getting 120 and higher fps felt better because of reduced latency. especially in action heavy games

You can't honestly believe that input latency from 30 to 60hz is *actually* and *significantly* noticeable, can you? Based on this site [www.rtings.com], my monitor has a 60hz input lag of 10.2ms, a monitor with a similar 60hz input lag of 10.1ms, but can run at 120hz, had a 120hz input lag of 5.3ms. This is roughly a 1.9x increase in input latency between 120 and 60hz. So if we assume (since I can't find any actual data on 30hz) that it's a similar increase from 60 to 30hz, that would give me an input lag of ~19.38ms.

The same site also lists *when* input latency actually becomes noticeable. Excerpt below:

When does the input lag become noticeable?

Any monitor adds at least a few milliseconds of input lag, but most of the time, it's small enough that you won't notice it at all. There are some cases where the input lag increases so much to the point where it becomes noticeable, but that's very rare and may not necessarily only be caused by the monitor. Your peripherals, like keyboards and mice, add more latency than the monitor, so if you notice any delay, it's likely because of those and not your screen.

There's no definitive amount of input lag when people will start noticing it because everyone is different. A good estimate of around 30 ms is when it starts to become noticeable, but even a delay of 20 ms can be problematic for reaction-based games.

So my 19.38ms estimate *can* be problematic for reaction-based games. But unless I'm approaching 30ms it's really not going to be noticeable and will be more likely be attributed to a latency issue with my computer to the game in online games or a misplay on my part than because input lag.

I'm not sure you're aware of how small an increment of time 20ms actually is. You can try to use the stopwatch on your phone by starting and stopping as close to 0.02s as you can get, or a "reaction time." app to get an idea.

Edit: for the record the fastest "start/stop" time. I could get on my stopwatch was 0.09s or 90ms. Over 4x slower than the estimated input lag for my monitor at 30 fps

[Grumpy Giuseppe]

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

30-60 big difference 60-90 same big difference but once you start going past 120 it starts to degrade on how noticeable in a big way.
Me I can tell and feel what 30fps is what 60fps is and what 90fps is all the way to 120fps then everything after that it drops off sharply but still slightly feels better all the way into the 200s.

60-90 is not a big difference at all.... lol

60 to 90 is hell of a difference.
Even 120 to 144 is easily noticeable.

Your eyes can see around 900 fps peaks in normal situations.

[DAVOS CENSORSHIP 2030 FTW!!!]

Lmao, you People sure like feeding the most Obvious of Specimens.

[BEEP!]

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

yes yes it is I can instantly tell when I'm not at 90 and at the 60 from simple mouse movement and impute delay alone and visually as well.
I can straight up tell with my mouse pointer from moving a single inch of what my fps is.
Lower the fps the less smooth the motion is it's that simple and I know what 30, 60, 90, and 120 looks like from a simple glance.
I can even show you a website if you even have a monitor that goes past 60fps.

Right...

Show me this website, cause if its UFO checker then thats a horrible website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-p4xJxPv4U

Here you go, a proper test beyond 60...

O yes the one website that's literally built to test fps and motion that every single professional tech reviewer uses and likes isn't enough for you.

It's very simple 60fps feels like there's a permanent motion blur going on for me, compared to 90fps and then at 144fps it's a near perfectly clear smooth image.

It's not my fault you can't tell a difference.

Hell even at a simple glance of my mouse across the screen I can tell i my monitor refresh range is set at 144.

[BEEP!]

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

Origineel geplaatst door PROX:

People before discovering input latency be like:

On a serious note from my experience with 60hz getting 120 and higher fps felt better because of reduced latency. especially in action heavy games

You can't honestly believe that input latency from 30 to 60hz is *actually* and *significantly* noticeable, can you? Based on this site [www.rtings.com], my monitor has a 60hz input lag of 10.2ms, a monitor with a similar 60hz input lag of 10.1ms, but can run at 120hz, had a 120hz input lag of 5.3ms. This is roughly a 1.9x increase in input latency between 120 and 60hz. So if we assume (since I can't find any actual data on 30hz) that it's a similar increase from 60 to 30hz, that would give me an input lag of ~19.38ms.

The same site also lists *when* input latency actually becomes noticeable. Excerpt below:

When does the input lag become noticeable?

Any monitor adds at least a few milliseconds of input lag, but most of the time, it's small enough that you won't notice it at all. There are some cases where the input lag increases so much to the point where it becomes noticeable, but that's very rare and may not necessarily only be caused by the monitor. Your peripherals, like keyboards and mice, add more latency than the monitor, so if you notice any delay, it's likely because of those and not your screen.

There's no definitive amount of input lag when people will start noticing it because everyone is different. A good estimate of around 30 ms is when it starts to become noticeable, but even a delay of 20 ms can be problematic for reaction-based games.

So my 19.38ms estimate *can* be problematic for reaction-based games. But unless I'm approaching 30ms it's really not going to be noticeable and will be more likely be attributed to a latency issue with my computer to the game in online games or a misplay on my part than because input lag.

I'm not sure you're aware of how small an increment of time 20ms actually is. You can try to use the stopwatch on your phone by starting and stopping as close to 0.02s as you can get, or a "reaction time." app to get an idea.

Edit: for the record the fastest "start/stop" time. I could get on my stopwatch was 0.09s or 90ms. Over 4x slower than the estimated input lag for my monitor at 30 fps

You do know you have a monitor impute latency then a hardware impute latency and then a game impute latency right?
Monitor+GPU+CPU+M&K+game+fps= the actual impute latency.

There are a lot of variables at play like even fighting games have been at 60fps for decades since the 1990s dude to minimize delay while playing and for a smooth image.

[Scipo0419]

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

Origineel geplaatst door GamingWithSilvertail:

Right...

Show me this website, cause if its UFO checker then thats a horrible website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-p4xJxPv4U

Here you go, a proper test beyond 60...

O yes the one website that's literally built to test fps and motion that every single professional tech reviewer uses and likes isn't enough for you.

It's very simple 60fps feels like there's a permanent motion blur going on for me, compared to 90fps and then at 144fps it's a near perfectly clear smooth image.

It's not my fault you can't tell a difference.

Hell even at a simple glance of my mouse across the screen I can tell i my monitor refresh range is set at 144.

I would like to again emphasize that you are in the extreme minority. You might have a gift and I genuinely think you should use that gift in some way. But I would bet that 90% of the gaming population can't tell what FPS they're at with a glance of their mouse, and unless they're seeing a side-by-side comparison of fps won't be able to tell a significant difference in regular gameplay.

[Scipo0419]

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

You can't honestly believe that input latency from 30 to 60hz is *actually* and *significantly* noticeable, can you? Based on this site [www.rtings.com], my monitor has a 60hz input lag of 10.2ms, a monitor with a similar 60hz input lag of 10.1ms, but can run at 120hz, had a 120hz input lag of 5.3ms. This is roughly a 1.9x increase in input latency between 120 and 60hz. So if we assume (since I can't find any actual data on 30hz) that it's a similar increase from 60 to 30hz, that would give me an input lag of ~19.38ms.

The same site also lists *when* input latency actually becomes noticeable. Excerpt below:


So my 19.38ms estimate *can* be problematic for reaction-based games. But unless I'm approaching 30ms it's really not going to be noticeable and will be more likely be attributed to a latency issue with my computer to the game in online games or a misplay on my part than because input lag.

I'm not sure you're aware of how small an increment of time 20ms actually is. You can try to use the stopwatch on your phone by starting and stopping as close to 0.02s as you can get, or a "reaction time." app to get an idea.

Edit: for the record the fastest "start/stop" time. I could get on my stopwatch was 0.09s or 90ms. Over 4x slower than the estimated input lag for my monitor at 30 fps

You do know you have a monitor impute latency then a hardware impute latency and then a game impute latency right?
Monitor+GPU+CPU+M&K+game+fps= the actual impute latency.

Right, and of those, refresh rate/fps is the smallest portion of input latency. You're far more likely to experience input latency from your mouse/keyboard/controller or network than you are your monitors refresh rate or the fps the game is running at.

[BEEP!]

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

O yes the one website that's literally built to test fps and motion that every single professional tech reviewer uses and likes isn't enough for you.

It's very simple 60fps feels like there's a permanent motion blur going on for me, compared to 90fps and then at 144fps it's a near perfectly clear smooth image.

It's not my fault you can't tell a difference.

Hell even at a simple glance of my mouse across the screen I can tell i my monitor refresh range is set at 144.

I would like to again emphasize that you are in the extreme minority. You might have a gift and I genuinely think you should use that gift in some way. But I would bet that 90% of the gaming population can't tell what FPS they're at with a glance of their mouse, and unless they're seeing a side-by-side comparison of fps won't be able to tell a significant difference in regular gameplay.

Nope your just wrong even SONY found out that over 70% of there console gamers want more FPS and would rather play on performance mode to maximize the fps.

Even fighting game's have been at 60fps since the 90s for this exact reason.

[Gigantoad]

Origineel geplaatst door Scipo0419:

Origineel geplaatst door 1080Puktra:

O yes the one website that's literally built to test fps and motion that every single professional tech reviewer uses and likes isn't enough for you.

It's very simple 60fps feels like there's a permanent motion blur going on for me, compared to 90fps and then at 144fps it's a near perfectly clear smooth image.

It's not my fault you can't tell a difference.

Hell even at a simple glance of my mouse across the screen I can tell i my monitor refresh range is set at 144.

I would like to again emphasize that you are in the extreme minority. You might have a gift and I genuinely think you should use that gift in some way. But I would bet that 90% of the gaming population can't tell what FPS they're at with a glance of their mouse, and unless they're seeing a side-by-side comparison of fps won't be able to tell a significant difference in regular gameplay.

Yeah that's nonsense. I could demonstrate this you by just dragging a window around on the desktop. I guarantee you would see and feel the difference in a massive way between 60 and say 240Hz. The latter will feel like you're sliding a piece of paper around on your desk.