What FPS do you guys think it's acceptable?

[Jun]

I'm getting like 60~80 FPS on 1440p
Is it decent?

[katzenkrimis]

60 is good.

Gamers are too obsessed with frames per second.

When I was younger, I worked on animations. 24 FPS was what we learned as kids.

Today, people want a trillion frames per second. If gamers were offered that, they'd take it.

Pointless.

[patrick68794]

gonna be different for everyone. 60+ is good for me most of the time since G-sync handles pretty much any tearing once I'm above 50fps, and with an OLED sub 60fps can look a bit choppy. In some games even 60-70fps can look the same but it's usually fine (it is in this game).

[Cerul Liber]

1440p 165 fps max settings with no upscaled acceptable

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by Cerul Liber:

1440p 165 fps max settings with no upscaled acceptable

something that not even the 5090 can do in most new games lol

[Shield]

1080 and 60 is all i need

[Jun]

Originally posted by JinxTheWorld:

Hardware and settings? Lol.

You basically are asking a blind man does the sky look clear.

i7 13700k
4070ti 12GB
32GB RAM

Sorry for not pointing that out
I have my settings mostly on high, raytracing on low

[bshock]

4K/60 is the lowest I'll consider acceptable.

[Jun]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

60 is good.

Gamers are too obsessed with frames per second.

When I was younger, I worked on animations. 24 FPS was what we learned as kids.

Today, people want a trillion frames per second. If gamers were offered that, they'd take it.

Pointless.

Agreed
I'm okay with 60 FPS
I'm just asking because I could play Valhalla on 100 FPS no dips

[ospholis]

60fps 1080p bare minumum for borh consoles and PC but console plebians doesnt know what 60fps looks

[ospholis]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

60 is good.

Gamers are too obsessed with frames per second.

When I was younger, I worked on animations. 24 FPS was what we learned as kids.

Today, people want a trillion frames per second. If gamers were offered that, they'd take it.

Pointless.

Back in the stone age there wasnt good enough tecnology and right now we have powerful hardware, there's no excuse for such low FPS in a modern game

[Jun]

Originally posted by ospholis:

60fps 1080p bare minumum for borh consoles and PC but console plebians doesnt know what 60fps looks

Lmao, console plebians is crazy

[Lasagna]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

60 is good.

Gamers are too obsessed with frames per second.

When I was younger, I worked on animations. 24 FPS was what we learned as kids.

Today, people want a trillion frames per second. If gamers were offered that, they'd take it.

Pointless.

Animation is different than gaming, low fps causes input delay which isn't a problem with non-interactive media.

60 fps is the goal, more is good if you have a high refresh rate monitor.

[Waldherz]

I love how most people here dont provide their settings, res or hardware in one post.

I may as well claim that Id be getting 900000 fps.
At 80p with ini tweaks and framegeneration.

[Jun]

Originally posted by ospholis:

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

60 is good.

Gamers are too obsessed with frames per second.

When I was younger, I worked on animations. 24 FPS was what we learned as kids.

Today, people want a trillion frames per second. If gamers were offered that, they'd take it.

Pointless.

Back in the stone age there wasnt good enough tecnology and right now we have powerful hardware, there's no excuse for such low FPS in a modern game

I guess 60 is still acceptable even for todays standards

[ospholis]

Originally posted by Jun:

Originally posted by ospholis:

Back in the stone age there wasnt good enough tecnology and right now we have powerful hardware, there's no excuse for such low FPS in a modern game

I guess 60 is still acceptable even for todays standards

60 is not the standard, is the barebones experience that every game SHOULD provide, 144 is the standard