What is the highest frame rate a pc can get?

[bckshaen]

title

[Washell]

Up to thousands in menus.
144 on the top line of displays.
And there's probably a hardware limit on each gpu no-one ever bothered to work out because it would be a no load output aka black screen.

All in all it's a question that has too many variables for a meaningful answer, nor any funny or surprising answers.

[𝔇ave]

too many factors can influence maximum framerate. there is no definitive answer

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

This is what I get playing FEAR.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1523239839

[Supafly]

Blank page + more and more powerful hardware = countinues to grow.

Even with the latest hardware

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Up to thousands in menus.
144 on the top line of displays.
And there's probably a hardware limit on each gpu no-one ever bothered to work out because it would be a no load output aka black screen.

All in all it's a question that has too many variables for a meaningful answer, nor any funny or surprising answers.

Exceeding thousands in menus
Exceed monitor refresh rates. Just because a monitor can only display 60, 120, 144 frames doesn't mean a PC can not render them
Produce a blank screen and keep improving hardware, increasing Overclocks etc and Frames will still be produced at high and higher amounts per second. The only limit is how many we'd actually be able to see.

As for OP you need a more tailored question with context. Game, Benchmark? Settings? Resolution?

[Pocahawtness]

I think your question should be "how many frames per second can a person see"? FPS has diminishing returns. A 50% increase over a standard monitor has a noticeable difference, but as that percentage increases any difference gets less and less noticeable.

[Washell]

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

Exceed monitor refresh rates. Just because a monitor can only display 60, 120, 144 frames doesn't mean a PC can not render them

If we define the maximum frame rate as the number of frames it can display to the human eye, and as such can be counted with the help of a high-speed camera, it would be 144 frames per second on top of the line displays.

I was giving 3 different numbers based on three different criteria to illustrate the foolishness of the question.

[Sapph]

There is no limit to how many frames you can get. It all depends on settings, hardware, the game and the game engine limits.

For example, there is this one old MMORPG from around 2008, where I can get 4000 fps in the log in screen. This is because the engine has no framelimit and the log in screen is mostly static image. So with a powerful gpu and cpu you get a ridiculous framerate in that.

But the moment you log in, the framerate drops down to 30 to 200, depending of area.


And then there is games like Skyrim where you are basically locked to 60fps. While you can remove the lock, it makes the game itself break because physics are tied to the framerate.

And then there is games which are just simply locked completely. Even to as low as 30fps. (these are usually console ports from PS2/PS3 era)

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Sapph eredeti hozzászólása:

There is no limit to how many frames you can get. It all depends on settings, hardware, the game and the game engine limits.

Indeed. Though in the old days, it usually meant that we had to use a physical speed limiter set in the BIOS.

@Everyone in the thread:
If any of you ever wondered what the "Turbo" button was meant for on old Pentium 1 machices, it was to make sure that games meant to run on the 8088 wouldn't speed up if you played them. It made older games playable.

[_I_]

full frames or partial frames?

there are some 240hz monitors if you want full frames
with vsync off, or partial frames, you can hit 1000+ fps with older games (the gpu will render full frames, but the display will be given x/hz partial frames for each image)

[Supafly]

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

Exceed monitor refresh rates. Just because a monitor can only display 60, 120, 144 frames doesn't mean a PC can not render them

If we define the maximum frame rate as the number of frames it can display to the human eye, and as such can be counted with the help of a high-speed camera, it would be 144 frames per second on top of the line displays.

I was giving 3 different numbers based on three different criteria to illustrate the foolishness of the question.

Yes but the question was how many frames can a PC get. Monitors and our eyes are not part of a PC so refresh rates has no relevance.

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Up to thousands in menus.

I quote this part to clarify what you meant. Exceeding 1000's. Upto thousands contradicts the other. Upto means literally that 'upto' not an that amount or higher. To be higher it needs to exceed. You added 's to 1000. 1000's implies 1000+, 1000 or higher.

So one part of the statement is correct and the other is wrong. Hence why I clarified it to be Exceeding

[Washell]

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

Monitors and our eyes are not part of a PC

I don't know. If you ask a hundred people to draw a PC, I think the majority will be display, mouse and keyboard and maybe a case.

In any way, for my example, in that specific issue, the PC includes every part involved with displaying an image, which the current common top of the line choice does 144 times per second.

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

I quote this part to clarify what you meant. Exceeding 1000's. Upto thousands contradicts the other. Upto means literally that 'upto' not an that amount or higher. To be higher it needs to exceed. You added 's to 1000. 1000's implies 1000+, 1000 or higher.

I didn't mean higher, I meant what I meant, up to a number in the thousands. Exceeding thousands would mean the framerate would be in the millions. Which it won't be.

Please don't clarify me. You're jumping to conclusions instead of reading comprehensively and at every single step you miss my general point and focus on the insignificant details.

[Supafly]

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

You're jumping to conclusions instead of reading comprehensively

So are you

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

Monitors and our eyes are not part of a PC

I don't know. If you ask a hundred people to draw a PC, I think the majority will be display, mouse and keyboard and maybe a case.

In any way, for my example, in that specific issue, the PC includes every part involved with displaying an image, which the current common top of the line choice does 144 times per second.

OP asked for PC. You jumped to the conclusion that includes a monitor I merely pointed that out to you in my first post

Suicidal Monkey eredeti hozzászólása:

Just because a monitor can only display 60, 120, 144 frames doesn't mean a PC can not render them

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

I didn't mean higher, I meant what I meant, up to a number in the thousands.

Upto 1000's does that include 10,000's or 100,000's? So I stand by my clarification. Exceed 1000 or maybe even say fps in the 1000's. Adding of the 's implies the number will grow, increase, where as the phrase upto literally means upto. No more, maybe less, but upto, no higher. So it's either upto 1000, in the 1000's, exceeds 1000, in excess of 1000.

Upto dictionary definitions

used to say that something is less than or equal to but not more than a stated value, number, or level:

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Exceeding thousands would mean the framerate would be in the millions. Which it won't be.

As for in the millions why not? It's all about processing power and the image in question. Take a basic blank screen at a tiny tiny resolution and have a seriouslly overpowered system and it could be possible with todays hardware. If not, it WILL still be possible using newer tech. Again the OP was Vague hence suggestion to clarify. Instead of letting people jump to conclusions.

[bckshaen]

Sapph eredeti hozzászólása:

There is no limit to how many frames you can get. It all depends on settings, hardware, the game and the game engine limits.

For example, there is this one old MMORPG from around 2008, where I can get 4000 fps in the log in screen. This is because the engine has no framelimit and the log in screen is mostly static image. So with a powerful gpu and cpu you get a ridiculous framerate in that.

But the moment you log in, the framerate drops down to 30 to 200, depending of area.


And then there is games like Skyrim where you are basically locked to 60fps. While you can remove the lock, it makes the game itself break because physics are tied to the framerate.

And then there is games which are just simply locked completely. Even to as low as 30fps. (these are usually console ports from PS2/PS3 era)

Why tie engine to fps though

[_I_]

if you want to go back to the commodore days and earlier devs could and would create 'dummy' frames while it was sending info to the display to turn specific pixels specific colors

640x480x60hz = 18m fps, if you create a full frame for each pixel to be sent to the display

[Omega]

☭Daslennyface☭ eredeti hozzászólása:

Sapph eredeti hozzászólása:

There is no limit to how many frames you can get. It all depends on settings, hardware, the game and the game engine limits.

For example, there is this one old MMORPG from around 2008, where I can get 4000 fps in the log in screen. This is because the engine has no framelimit and the log in screen is mostly static image. So with a powerful gpu and cpu you get a ridiculous framerate in that.

But the moment you log in, the framerate drops down to 30 to 200, depending of area.


And then there is games like Skyrim where you are basically locked to 60fps. While you can remove the lock, it makes the game itself break because physics are tied to the framerate.

And then there is games which are just simply locked completely. Even to as low as 30fps. (these are usually console ports from PS2/PS3 era)

Why tie engine to fps though

https://youtu.be/AqDOefJc7a4