6 Frame Rate Facts You Didn't Know

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

6 Frame Rate Facts You Didn't Know

These facts may change your stance in the great frame rate debate.

Read Full Article

But none other then 30fps has that silky smooth cinematic experience.

On a more serious note, I agree with everything said.

PeeC Master Raec 60fps 5 lyf.

Unfortunately the people MOST needing to read such articles are either willfully ignorant, or too stupid to understand it. Ubisoft comes to mind.

*shrugs* I knew every one of those facts.

I'm hoping this will help silence the pseudoscience and "I feel" argumentation in the regular forums...but probably not.
People are stubborn.

I don't know about you guys, but I certainly can differentiate between a ball that moves so fast it becomes a blur, and a fast moving blur.
Sometimes I just sit in the cinema and the screen hasn't shown any sharp or recognizable image for 5-10 seconds because the camera is moving. Sometimes I really wish they'd just hold the camera still, or you know, actually animate and film in a higher framerate.

Even though I was already aware of these, I must still thank you for this. It's refreshing to see one of the gaming sites actually approach the 'debate' from an informed point of view.

I wish more people understood just how complex frame rates, refresh rates, and render technology in general really are. Certainly more complex than "Higher is always better." or "30 looks fine to me, so screw 60."

Very good read, Mr. Miozzi. I just hope other forum goers here take the time to read it.

I read it. I agree with it. I still don't care.

Consistency is all that matters to me. Sure, higher feels better. I can't and won't argue that. But I also don't care so long as the rate is consistent. That's it. It comes down to the fact that I just can't afford the hardware required to run at higher rates. It's not an issue of willful ignorance, it's an issue of dealing the best with what I have. Which is why I don't bitch when frame rates are locked at 30 because funnily enough, that's a rate I CAN do consistently. See how that works?

I just wish some people would actually understand THAT.

Aaron Sylvester:
Unfortunately the people MOST needing to read such articles are either willfully ignorant, or too stupid to understand it. Ubisoft comes to mind.

Ubisoft is neither. They merely put on a facade of ignorance in order to use it as an excuse.

Their console games run at 30 FPS because that's all they can handle. The PC versions run at 30 FPS either because they are lazy in porting, or to promote the console versions. Probably the latter, and the popular theory is that they are being paid by the console companies to do it.

The people who need to see this sort of article are the ones who buy Ubisoft's line of bullshit that they are using to distract from their actual failings or dirty deeds.

1Life0Continues:
I read it. I agree with it. I still don't care.

Consistency is all that matters to me. Sure, higher feels better. I can't and won't argue that. But I also don't care so long as the rate is consistent. That's it. It comes down to the fact that I just can't afford the hardware required to run at higher rates. It's not an issue of willful ignorance, it's an issue of dealing the best with what I have. Which is why I don't bitch when frame rates are locked at 30 because funnily enough, that's a rate I CAN do consistently. See how that works?

I just wish some people would actually understand THAT.

Actually, I would rather have 60 with occasional drops to 45 than 30 with no drops, because when 60 drops to 45 you either don't notice it at all or even with the change it still looks and feels better.

The problem is when it drops below 30, at which point things start to look very bad.

There are monitors with fresh rates up to 120hz (and possibly more I haven't shopped in awhile).
Some LCD panels can be overclocked beyond 60hz.

60hz is only your limit if it happens to be your limit.

DoctorM:
There are monitors with fresh rates up to 120hz (and possibly more I haven't shopped in awhile).
Some LCD panels can be overclocked beyond 60hz.

60hz is only your limit if it haoppens to be your limit.

I've been playing on a 144hz monitor for the last ~1.5 years and become so used to it that 60fps feels choppy to me now...unless it's a much slower-paced game like Skyrim or an MMO.
For any fast-paced game like shooter or racer it's gotta be at least 90-100fps for me to feel fully "in perfect control" of my camera/aim, preferably 110fps+.

If looking at visual aspects only, it's quite hard to tell the difference between 60fps and 120+ fps. But the FEEL is a whole other story. You feel 100% connected and "in sync" with your controls, everything is soooo buttery smooth and responsive (like rubbing yourself with baby lotion). Now I can't go back :D

Okay, what is the stuff we probably didn't know? This all looks like the same stuff that's trotted out in every framerate argument.

Atmos Duality:

I'm hoping this will help silence the pseudoscience and "I feel" argumentation in the regular forums...but probably not.
People are stubborn.

Aaron Sylvester:

If looking at visual aspects only, it's quite hard to tell the difference between 60fps and 120+ fps. But the FEEL is a whole other story. You feel 100% connected and "in sync" with your controls, everything is soooo buttery smooth and responsive (like rubbing yourself with baby lotion). Now I can't go back :D

You guys should chat.

Zachary Amaranth:
You guys should chat.

Eh nobody can really argue against the fact that 120-144hz feel smoother and more responsive (assuming your hardware can push those framerates). Any sane reviewer and gamer who has played on one will tell you it's an objectively better experience.

Also BenQ XL2420TE (and other 144hz panels) are quickly becoming the official standard at professional gaming leagues.

DoctorM:
There are monitors with fresh rates up to 120hz (and possibly more I haven't shopped in awhile).
Some LCD panels can be overclocked beyond 60hz.

60hz is only your limit if it happens to be your limit.

The one I'm using right now is 144hz.

That's the current highest as far as I can tell. Unless there's some crazy stuff I'm not aware of.

So, I suppose the question is "Does 144hz feel smoother".

Well, yes. It feels a bit more reactive, and animation appears more fluid.

Is the difference as big as 30 vs 60? Well, no, nowhere near as massive.

I consider 60 to be the goal. More than that is great, it makes the game feel better, but, If I can't achieve 144hz, I don't find it worthwhile to downgrade visuals to reach it.

G-sync or FreeSync is also really nice and you don't notice what you're missing until you have it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the part about the refresh rate only true if you have vertical sync on?

Injecting actual science articles about this on the Escapist? MADNESS!

Knew the fact about audio making 24FPS film standard already though. ;)

Well this is why the discussion will continue for a few years longer without progress, half factual information pieces heavily padded with opinion. Which are then taken as gospel over and over again.

Really sucks that my monitor does 240hz but there isn't a driver for it so windows defaults to 60hz. Would love to see the 240hz in action.

As someone who has worked in Graphic Art and Video Production.. heah this is all pretty true and yes there are monitors that go above 60 infact CRT Monitors could easily go up to a 100hz, you could get 160 hz if you shelled out some cash.

he difference however is very small and honestly after about 80hz the human eye starts maxing out. The ability to perceive differences drops exponentially both in th level of difference perceived and the number of people that are physically capable of seeing the difference.

There's also the fact that in games.. the fps is sort of based on what the designers accounted for.. simply put if the designers work with say 40fps in mind then the game will look great at 40 because everything in the graphical presentation is built around that.

Framerate basically became a number that marketers started throwing around ... as th saying goes... find the difference between your product and the competitor's and then makje that difference sound very important in your favour.

I never cared for the FPS discussion. The theory behind it is interesting, but as someone who games on a machine that was outdated 4 years ago I'm quite happy to get constant 16 on "newer" titles (damn kids calling Oblivion old! grumble grumble). 30 is nice, 60 is nice, 20 is good enough to game. And yes, I know the difference. Occasionally I play on my brother PC and unlike mine his is a gaming machine. Sometimes it's difficult to go back to my choppy performance, so I understand why those of you used to the higher standard would consider 20 FPS borderline unplayable and 16 FPS not worthy of booting up the game.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Really sucks that my monitor does 240hz but there isn't a driver for it so windows defaults to 60hz. Would love to see the 240hz in action.

Well unless your monitor is using some crazy ass tech that i don't know about, it probably just takes a 120hz input signal and doubles it (by showing every frame twice). Even if it needs special drivers you should be able to get 120hz out of it without any, might be another problem there, possibly you're using the wrong cable, I believe some of the older standards don't support 120.

come on, this is all so that people can justify blowing stupidly big money on useless shit

I've run into too many nut jobs who claim to be able to see a difference between 120 fps and 60 fps a decade ago on 6o hertz monitors that I see nearly all of the debate as nonsense.

What you really want is constant frame rate. If the frame rate changes chances are the input loop that is probably bound to the render loop slows down too. When that happens the game is no longer smooth. The catch is that the input loop can be running at 15 iterations per second even at the 120 fps. It's only when it changes that there is a problem.

Aaron Sylvester:

Zachary Amaranth:
You guys should chat.

Eh nobody can really argue against the fact that 120-144hz feel smoother and more responsive (assuming your hardware can push those framerates). Any sane reviewer and gamer who has played on one will tell you it's an objectively better experience.

Also BenQ XL2420TE (and other 144hz panels) are quickly becoming the official standard at professional gaming leagues.

Even just the desktop is much better at those refresh rates, I have a 144hz panel and anyone uses to other PCs remarks how much faster and smoother web browsing and the window animations etc even though my PC isn't really faster at those kind of tasks. The high frame rate makes a big difference to the user experience though.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Really sucks that my monitor does 240hz but there isn't a driver for it so windows defaults to 60hz. Would love to see the 240hz in action.

Are you using a dedicated graphics card or an APU? Nvidia and AMD drivers support higher refresh rates than 60hz, if you are and still not getting the option in the drivers you're using the wrong cable.

You need either a displayport cable or a dual link DVI, there are several types of DVI cable and this will help you pick the right one[1]

image

[1] Heard about a lot of people that simply used any DVI cable they had without checking and not being able to activate features before

I love these sorts of discussions, mostly because there isn't one answer. Even in gaming, different frame rates can apply to different situations. Strategy games don't need the same frame rate as a shooter for example.

I think the argument does need a good deal of discussion though. The whole "60fps - 1080p" argument sounds petty to some people but its surprisingly important. In a few years, 4K gaming and 4K TV will be common place and while its not as much a technical issue for movies and TV to up-scale, gaming has been slacking for some time now. In fact, those who develop game engines particularly work with visual effects to improve the current standard of visuals, with no real concern to the amount of GPU stress if the resolution was doubled. As such, games have improved visually on standards we're used to seeing a generation ago but the allowance of FPS has declined to the point where console games are being downscaled from the "standard" resolutions and take a massive frame hit. It sucks that despite 4K monitors and graphics cards becoming more affordable now, the number of things you could use with them at full detail are lacking.

That aside, the 30 FPS thing being more "cinematic" is just bollocks. You're just trying too hard to make your game look too good on the wrong hardware.

Nice inclusion of gif images. This should be forwarded to Ubisoft execs. If we're lucky the revelation it causes might just be enough to make their brains explode.

Such an excellent informative article.

These facts will inform my future very important frame rate discussions ;)

It's not a debate. 60fps is better in every single instance that involves gaming.

I struggle to understand how there even is an argument about it.

Nice article!

Personally, I was a console gamer all my life, so fps debates went right over my head. On console, the game runs how it runs and that's that-- you can't change any settings or options to modify that. I guess I was just used to 30fps and never put much thought into it.

However, I got into PC gaming last year and my eyes have been opened. 60fps is now my golden standard, and I can barely tolerate to play anything below 40-50fps. It just feels so slow, sluggish, and unresponsive. That said, I'm sure if I sat down and forced myself to play a game at 30fps, I'd probably get used to it again, but it would be hard. And with Bloodborne coming to PS4 next year, I might have to do just that...

Telling your audience they don't know these things is pretty condescending. Especially when what you have to say is pretty basic AV stuff.

pretty kool. now expand the discussion by doing a part 2 article talking about the technology in regards to common refresh for standard, 3d and 4k tv's and monitors, the difference and limits of HDMI and other wires, and what sacrifices you have to make when going both high framerate and high rez gaming/video. :)

And then toss in pixel density too :)

60 is fine. Only one time where having more frames per second was advantageous comes to mind. In Quake 3 Arena fps of 120 or 125 (can't remember which) made the player move a bit faster. I believe it was part of the bunny hopping technique. We would drop our graphics down low enough to get the fps up to the magic level and enjoy the boost.

I will state two things:

1) The Hobbit in 48 FPS looked amazing for about the first 20 minutes and then I stopped noticing the quality jump and watched it as any other movie.

2) When I started playing Skyrim on my PC at a 1080p resolution and at least 60 FPS I noticed an incredible difference in animation quality and overall appearance. I will never play it on a console again.

Proverbial Jon:
2) When I started playing Skyrim on my PC at a 1080p resolution and at least 60 FPS I noticed an incredible difference in animation quality and overall appearance. I will never play it on a console again.

Trouble is higher refresh rates than 60hz or so in Skyrim will make things explode, literally. It bugs out the physics for some reason and when you enter a new cell area like a building the physics go crazy and everything flies all over the place, if its a cluttered building like (the divines forbid, the mess, the horror of it!) your player house crammed with loot you get an apocalypse of flying cheese wheels, chunks of fish, plates, tankards and hundreds of other random pieces of clutter.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here