Uncapped FPS vs Limited FPS

[Kalimba Chozo 🇻🇮]

Which of the two do you prefer and why?

[mimizukari]

Limited @ 60, you can get some distinct advantages if you go over in some games, as well as it just feels weird, 60 is the best spot for fps to be imo for every genre I enjoy.

[Dusk of Oolacile]

I don't care as long as it doesn't stutter.

[The Burning One]

Originally posted by Dusk of Oolacile:

I don't care as long as it doesn't stutter.

[mimizukari]

Originally posted by Dusk of Oolacile:

I don't care as long as it doesn't stutter.

diablo 3 runs fine at like 12 frames with no stutter because it's coded to slow down and feel better at lower frames (or it was at launch, think they tweaked the code a bit so it would stutter to catch up cuz you'd literally be 2/3rds slower) some levels were notorious for lag on mid-spec machines, that was hell.

think a general guide line is atleast 60 fps and no stutter XD

[Exiled Alchemist]

Personally speaking it is all situational, and depends on how the game is made. Some older titles are better capped, because they where not made to run at a higher fps. What can happen to select titles is faster than normal animation speeds causing enemies to charge at the player making it impossible to kill, or run from. Other times it can cause the player to move way to fast, and clip into the terrarin. For example: Older versions of Hitman: Codename 47 has speed issues that requires the user to play with processor settings in task manager to get the game running smoother. That is because older versions can't handle running on a 4 core processor, and will require the user to change the game in task manager to limit it to only using 1-2 cores.

More modern games don't have this issue, and normally have features like vsync to help future proof the games. For example, if you played Doom (2016) 20 - 30 years from now you may have to turn vsync on to prevent possible issues that could come up with the speeds of future video cards, and processors.

[Astro_80 (WASH YOUR HANDS!)]

Originally posted by FiniteIce™:

Which of the two do you prefer and why?

Depends on the game but usually uncapped.

[Conway]

Originally posted by FiniteIce™:

Which of the two do you prefer and why?

Normally I'd go with uncapped, but since my graphics card cries of agony the second I hit 61 fps I have to go with limited Fps.

[laff]

Rendering more than what can be displayed by your monitor is mostly a pointless load on your computer, but I have never experienced any "input lag" or other problems people claim to encounter when limiting frame rate. If the game is optimized/old enough, I'll set it to double my monitor's refresh rate though.

[Zefar]

Properly uncapped FPS limits are always the best. Locking it to 60 is better than 30 but people have higher refresh rate monitors and they should not be punished for it.

[76561198001062896]

I rather have slower but stable framerate than one which goes all over the place and feels jittery

[mimizukari]

Originally posted by Zefar:

Properly uncapped FPS limits are always the best. Locking it to 60 is better than 30 but people have higher refresh rate monitors and they should not be punished for it.

if it's a competitive environment of a game, such as fighters or twitch action fps, then they should be punished until it's the norm. just like it took 10 years for 1080p to become the norm, and now things are developed primarily with that in mind, 60 hz monitors are still the norm.

[Zefar]

Originally posted by Shiki Ryougi:

Originally posted by Zefar:

Properly uncapped FPS limits are always the best. Locking it to 60 is better than 30 but people have higher refresh rate monitors and they should not be punished for it.

if it's a competitive environment of a game, such as fighters or twitch action fps, then they should be punished until it's the norm. just like it took 10 years for 1080p to become the norm, and now things are developed primarily with that in mind, 60 hz monitors are still the norm.

Back when gaming kicked off on PC and big titans showed up. FPS was never really capped. Hell in Starcraft there is a max FPS limit of 300 but it's on 150 or so by default.

FPS caps showed up when Developers just made games for consoles and consoles are also the one reason we got a 30 FPS cap.

This has nothing to do with game development not catching up. It's them not caring.

[Vincent]

60 if the game is capable of reaching it, 30 if the game is constantly at 40-50 frames.

[Zubenelgenubi]

Vsync because i like as steady of a frame rate as possible. 'Uncapped' makes your FPS jump all over the place, which can be hard on the eyes, and interferes with accuracy and other things.

[Jej]

Limited. I'd rather have a somewhat low, but consistent framerate than a higher fluctuating framerate.