PDA

View Full Version : What FPS is Playable



icow
11-07-2010, 07:02 PM
Would 47 fps (Far Cry 2 on High) be good enough to be considered playable?

Chilling_Silence
11-07-2010, 07:41 PM
Generally speaking anything over 30 is "acceptable", and over 60 is no longer noticable to the human eye from what I understand (Though I could be wrong).

Keep in mind that in normal circumstances the higher the better, as when things start going "Boom!" and walls fall down, rocket launchers fire, car parts explode, the framerate generally drops a fair bit

powerover
11-07-2010, 09:11 PM
i would say so, agree with Chilly here.

8ftmetalhaed
11-07-2010, 09:27 PM
The higher fps the better, but only up to a point. You will get to a point where you can't see the difference between a certain level of frames, and you will certainly hit one where your monitor cannot produce the images fast enough.
That's why vsync is useful, as it puts a cap on frames at the monitor's refresh rate, so as to avoid tearing and visual artifacts.

And yes 47 would be considered pretty well playable, provided it didn't drop much lower than that.

The Error Guy
11-07-2010, 10:03 PM
I had COD4 Running at its max (125) Made things a lot smoother. got rid of extra bits that suck FPS down like decals, floating bits of paper and the spent shell casings flying everywhere.

I have found that most settings (and the best settings) are not found in the GUI but in the console/terminal

Metla
11-07-2010, 10:37 PM
Your eyes don't work in FPS they just relay back to the brain whatever is in their field of vision, so it depends on the media and on what you have conditioned yourself to.

The entire "your eyes cant see over 60 or 100 fps" is pointless as your eyes aren't counting frames, and 100fps certainly makes a visionary difference in games with a long draw distance.

You don't suddenly go blind when the fps are peaking, You see just what is being displayed.

qazwsxokmijn
11-07-2010, 11:07 PM
47 is very much acceptable, even for an FPS game. That's probably the average FPS I would get at 1680x1050 on Crysis with everything maxed out when I had a 5870......man I miss those days. :D

hueybot3000
11-07-2010, 11:11 PM
whered the 5870 go?

Deimos
11-07-2010, 11:16 PM
Back when I used to play Quake 3 competitively I had a monitor that could run either 1600x1200@100hz or 1024x768@200hz, during practice and matches I found there was a significant difference in my performance when playing at 200fps, e.g. in a certain map against 3 nightmare bots @ 100fps I would win by 5 frags but @ 200fps I would win by 15 or more frags (first to 20).

qazwsxokmijn
11-07-2010, 11:22 PM
whered the 5870 go?
Sold it, then got a 4870x2, then 2x 4830s, then 5850, and now 9800GTX+. :lol:

hueybot3000
11-07-2010, 11:25 PM
:dogeye:

The Error Guy
11-07-2010, 11:31 PM
Some one once stated that if you have poor hit registration then increasing FPS would help fix that. although I doubt that. hit reg problems would mostly regard latency

qazwsxokmijn
11-07-2010, 11:32 PM
Yeah, sad, but when I sold my 5870 it was in like late Feb, uni started in March and I play very little during the year....figured since the 5870 has a bit of value still I'd sell it rather than leaving it sitting doing nothing.

Now I have a 9800GTX+, traded my 5850 for it + 260 cash. Saving up to watercool and get a 5970 at the end of the year! :D

Deimos
11-07-2010, 11:45 PM
Some one once stated that if you have poor hit registration then increasing FPS would help fix that. although I doubt that. hit reg problems would mostly regard latency

It depends on the game, if the game has good netcode then input lag is the major factor.
I think HardOCP did an article on input lag, they recorded a gaming session with a high speed cam and measured the input lag in number of frames, so lets say the input lag of Q3 is a mere 3 frames, doubling the framerate will half the input lag.