30fps or 60fps ???

shruikan2553

I cant tell the difference, or at least the difference is minimal. I find it difficult to care what the FPS is as long as it is above 25ish. Suppose playing mostly on PC for years has made me immune to the novelty of this new major feature.

Azza

60FPS>30FPS there is no debate, its just better. But its not a deal breaker for me, I can still happily play most types of game at 30FPS so long as its consistent.

TireeTerror

I really wonder what is wrong with people thinking it makes little difference. There is a huge gigantic gulf of a difference in a fast paced FPS title between 30FPS and 60FPS. The extra smoothness makes it much easier to lead your target. All you have to do is turn your settings down to get high fps (if you have a dated PC) and see the improvement once your fps is higher. Its a huge difference.

Chris_Heilong

For those who are used to last gen consoles only check this, top is Halo anniversary at 30 fps, nice detail on the graphics but it still feels underwhelming, then look at how good it is at 60fps, its like a totally different experience.

30fps

60fps

(please select 60fps from the resolution tab)

shruikan2553

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

For those who are used to last gen consoles only check this, top is Halo anniversary at 30 fps, nice detail on the graphics but it still feels underwhelming, then look at how good it is at 60fps, its like a totally different experience.

30fps

60fps

(please select 60fps from the resolution tab)

They still look pretty much the same, at most the 60fps is a bit smoother but nothing worth the hype tbh.

Captain Chaos

It's a massive difference, even just looking at it. Playing it makes it almost a different game. Playing The Last of US at 60fps on PS4 made it a new game to me after playing it at 30fps on PS3. It's alot easier to get those all important headshots with the game running at 60fps. Being a PC gamer it should be a bigger deal to you than a console only gamer and be far easier for you to see the difference.

Skill Magill

moc moc a moc wrote: »

PC master race checking in:

Only filthy peasants play at anything less than 144 fps.

144 hz surely?

Mickeroo

What do I need to look for in a tv to know its capable of 60fps? I play my one on a fairly old 720p tv but I've no idea what frames I'm seeing. I know destiny is only 30fps, but Titanfall seems a good bit smoother though I don't know if that's the fps or just the way the game is.

I'm aware the one is generally not capable of 60fps but apparently MCC will be. I can never see much a difference when I look at comparison vids or gigs though tbh.

DaveDaRave

Depending on the genre, but most of the time i cant play a game that dips into the 30-40fps range coz i find it quite noticeable. if its always 40+ and i never notice it really.

Captain Chaos

Mickeroo wrote: »

What do I need to look for in a tv to know its capable of 60fps? I play my one on a fairly old 720p tv but I've no idea what frames I'm seeing. I know destiny is only 30fps, but Titanfall seems a good bit smoother though I don't know if that's the fps or just the way the game is.

I'm aware the one is generally not capable of 60fps but apparently MCC will be. I can never see much a difference when I look at comparison vids or gigs though tbh.

It's the hz of a TV. Alot of time you will see 1080p @50 or 1080p @60 on serceen. That is telling you what that TV can output. New LED TV can do 120hz as standard and 3D TV start at 200hz up to 800hz.

If you TV is maxed out at 720p and 50hz and the game is running at 1080p and 60fps native then you will see it scaled down to 720p and running at 50fps as that's all your screen can show you. This can cause image "tearing " at times as the TV catches up to the images it has to drop to keep up.
You can't know what fps a game is running at on a console unless you have a debug version.

moc moc a moc

Skill Magill wrote: »

144 hz surely?

144 Hz = monitor refresh rate
144 FPS = game render rate

Ideally you want them both matching.

Heisenberg88

Poor console merchants will never understand this really.

Usually the PS4 or Xbox one have to turn all settings to medium to achieve 60FPS at 720P.

salamanca22

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They still look pretty much the same, at most the 60fps is a bit smoother but nothing worth the hype tbh.

Make sure the second one is playing in 60fps mode by changing the quality of the video.


60 fps is a massive difference and in a lot of twitch games will make the difference between life and death a lot of the time.

Retr0gamer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They still look pretty much the same, at most the 60fps is a bit smoother but nothing worth the hype tbh.

It's not really about how it looks though. 60Hz brings a huge boost in playability and controller response.

Myrddin

How anyone prefers a lower frame rate over a higher one is baffling. There's a huge difference between the two. The master race must be laughing their socks off at this thread

K.O.Kiki

Myrddin wrote: »

How anyone prefers a lower frame rate over a higher one is baffling. There's a huge difference between the two. The master race must be laughing their socks off at this thread

Good luck playing half the games mentioned. :pac:

C14N

60FPS is definitely preferable to me, I love how smooth things look, even if it is a little jarring at first. It's not really a night and day difference imo but there's no way you wouldn't notice it.

That said, on my PC I'd typically boost the detail if it meant sacrificing the 60FPS, being the not-very-hardcore gamer that I am.

Myrddin

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Good luck playing half the games mentioned on a console

Fyp :P

MadYaker

A higher frame rate is always better. But the most important thing really is consistency.

Edit: Why does it have to be 30 or 60? Surely the fps will change massively depending on the game you're playing and the specs of your PC? I get over 100 fps on counter strike but with games like Arma 3, Dayz and Planetside 2 the fps changes depending on whats being rendered on the screen, ie: lots of explosions or big cities cause a drop in FPS compared to say driving through empty counryside.

C14N

MadYaker wrote: »

A higher frame rate is always better. But the most important thing really is consistency.

Edit: Why does it have to be 30 or 60? Surely the fps will change massively depending on the game you're playing and the specs of your PC? I get over 100 fps on counter strike but with games like Arma 3, Dayz and Planetside 2 the fps changes depending on whats being rendered on the screen, ie: lots of explosions or big cities cause a drop in FPS compared to say driving through empty counryside.

I think a lot of console games tend to lock it at one or the other which is why they're the two options.

Captain Chaos

MadYaker wrote: »

A higher frame rate is always better. But the most important thing really is consistency.

Edit: Why does it have to be 30 or 60? Surely the fps will change massively depending on the game you're playing and the specs of your PC? I get over 100 fps on counter strike but with games like Arma 3, Dayz and Planetside 2 the fps changes depending on whats being rendered on the screen, ie: lots of explosions or big cities cause a drop in FPS compared to say driving through empty counryside.

That's why you have the V-sync option. It locks the game to a frame rate. On PC you can turn it off and get 100+fps but then you seen screen/image tearing if you display can't manage it.

If a system/console is powerful enough to run a game at about 60fps all the time no matter what, the developers can V sync it at 60fps and it will never drop no matter happens in game. A few console games lets you turn V-sync on of off. On you get consistent fps and off you will get higher at times and lower at others depending on whats being rendered.

It's all about balance between performance and specs of said systems and it's the same for both consoles and PCs. Just PC users have far more controls as they can change specs, change resolutions, texture quality, draw distances etc. For consoles the developer decides the best compromise and that's it.

Azza

V-Sync is one of the most complicated topics when it comes to gaming, it has a huge impact on controller responsiveness and image quality.

Basically the higher the frame rate the more responsive your controls are and vice versa is true, the lower your fps the more sluggish your controls feel.

So you would think the higher the frame rate the better. If a frame rate is fairly consistent with only minor frame rate fluctuations your not going notice much if any effect on the games controls, assuming V-Sync is off.

But if your frame rate is different to that of your monitors you get whats known as screen tearing which can be very ugly visual artifact and distracting.

V-Sync fixes that but introduces a consistent frame of input lag. That's fine for most people until you frame rate drops under the refresh rate of your monitor. Say your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz. If your frame rate drops below 60fps even by just a single frame your actually frame rate will drop to 30fps and even though 30fps is playable the change in controller responsiveness is very noticeable, particular if your frame rate is consistently going above and below 60fps. If the frame rate drops below 30fps with V-Sync enabled your actual frame rate is 20fps and thats extremely noticeable. Controls feel very sluggish.

Variable V-Sync is a compromise solution, when your above a target frame rate, v-sync is enabled and disabled when you drop below it. This helps maintain controller responsiveness at the occasional cost of image quality. Once you drop below the target frame rate, screen tearing occurs but at least controller responsiveness doesn't change as drastically.

Triple Buffered V-Sync allows you to run at whatever frame rate your computer can muster be it 38, 45, 52 or whatever with v-sync enabled and prevent screen tearing. However the problem is that only applies if your game is OpenGl based. Most games are DirectX based and while it works similarly in DirectX it adds a second consistent frame of input lag (32ms). Alot of people find this makes controller responsiveness to laggy.

Nvidia is coming along with G-Sync a proprietary tech that ties V-Sync to a monitors refresh rate, giving a tear free screen and keeping controller responsiveness with introducing additional input lag. However it can introduce a small amount of ghosting artifacts :P

AMD have there own new tech coming out soon Free-Sync. Not sure how thats suppose to work.

EoinHef

Free sync isnt really an AMD tech,there working on it with Vesa to make it an open standard. As in available to anyone.

G-Sync is Nvidias,as in proprietary tech that will only work with there specially adapted monitors and there graphics cards.

Personally 60fps for me all the way. I mostly play shooters,so the higher fps is very useful. Any shooters ill lower settings till i get a consistent 60fps. Single player games dont bother me as much when played with a lower framerate and the detail settings cranked up.

Id agree consistency is key though,variable frame rates are worse than a lower locked framerate.

I've only read the first post and skimmed the rest. How is there four pages on this debate? How could 30 fps ever possibly be better than 60?

Playing any game at a competitive level, having 30 fps is a massive handicap.

Wossack

Let me do some complex maths on the subject

60/30 = 2

yes, as I thought. 60 fps is twice as good as 30fps

Wossack

Wossack wrote: »

Let me do some complex maths on the subject

60/30 = 2

yes, as I thought. 60 fps is twice as good as 30fps

Nah man its a magnitude scale like richter. Its 10^30 times more betterer

Quick comparison. You are putting yourself at an enormous disadvantage in any competitive game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKcB-an2eiM

I personally prefer smooth gameplay over pretty graphics in single player games, so 30fps is not enough at all for me. I usually aim for at least 70

moc moc a moc

Azza wrote: »

Nvidia is coming along with G-Sync a proprietary tech that ties V-Sync to a monitors refresh rate

Other way around - it ties the monitor's refresh rate to the computer's frame rendering rate.

C14N

Deleted User wrote: »

I personally prefer smooth gameplay over pretty graphics in single player games, so 30fps is not enough at all for me. I usually aim for at least 70

Doesn't that require a special monitor?

Icyseanfitz

do people actually think 30fps is better than 60fps??? higher resolution = better, better visuals = better, better frames per second = better, can a game be great at 30fps, of course but it would be even better running at a stable 60fps