• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Since when became 60fps gaming a must

Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,603 (0.69/day)
Location
Alabama
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard X470 Tachi Ultimate
Cooling Scythe Big Shuriken 3
Memory C.R.S.
Video Card(s) Radeon VII
Software Win 7
Benchmark Scores Never high enough
If you hook up a PSX to a HDTV that still has those god awful composite inputs, it'll look terrible compared to an old CRT TV with the same hookups. There are upscalers though... I have a cheap SCART to HDMI converter/upscaler that makes PS1 games look pretty decent. Not a difficult job when starting with SCART though...
Thing is if it's used with upscalers or not, newer high res TV's makes all the lack of resolution with older games stand out and the entire thing just looks worse.
It's almost like amplifying all the graphical limitations/imperfections of an older game because newer TV's make these stand out in sharp detail vs older ones smoothing/blending them instead.

Believe me, I've tried it with an HDTV, my 4K monitor and that's always been the results vs just using my old TV instead and that's across all the older consoles I have.
Even a PS2 can look crappy but it's not quite as bad, it's only with the PS3 and similar gen consoles it's looks fine with an HDTV but it's also a reflection on the advancement of the tech as time has passed.
Not much we can do about it except deal - It is what it is.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,209 (1.71/day)
Location
Austin Texas
Processor 13700KF Undervolted @ 5.6/ 5.5, 4.8Ghz Ring 200W PL1
Motherboard MSI 690-I PRO
Cooling Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 w/ Arctic P12 Fans
Memory 48 GB DDR5 7600 MHZ CL36
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 FE
Storage 2x 2TB WDC SN850, 1TB Samsung 960 prr
Display(s) Alienware 32" 4k 240hz OLED
Case SLIGER S620
Audio Device(s) Yes
Power Supply Corsair SF750
Mouse Xlite V2
Keyboard RoyalAxe
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores They're pretty good, nothing crazy.
No, human eye can see 60 fps. the reason movies are made 29fps is that we don't typically have fast movements.
however in 29fps, if you watch a soccer player kicking a ball, you'll see some ghost effect. skiing, racing....

This is actually not why. In the film industry 24 fps is the standard was originally the minimum for smooth motion that was budget friendly. It is way too low so your brain has to 'imagine' the frames between giving the movie a more dramatic feel and helping suspend disbelief (an unintended effect) -- but this is still done today to give movies a certain feel - we can definitely shoot in 60 but it doesn't feel the same 24FPS is the 'cinematic standard'.

Watch a cringy high school play at 60 fps and then slow it down to 24fps and you will see what I mean.


EDIT: go to TV setting #4

Needless to say you want your games to feel as responsive as possible since faster response = more control = more fun.

Old school nintendo games ran at 60 / 50 fps depending on the tv, and they felt AWESOME.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
9,725 (5.12/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 7800 XT
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 single-core: 1,800, multi-core: 18,000. Superposition 1080p Extreme: 9,900.
No, human eye can see 60 fps. the reason movies are made 29fps is that we don't typically have fast movements.
however in 29fps, if you watch a soccer player kicking a ball, you'll see some ghost effect. skiing, racing....
Yes we do. Action movies, car chases...

No, the reason 29 fps (25 in Europe) movies are fine is because it's constant. The eyes have a lot easier job filling out the details when you're presented with still frames at a constant pace. It's the same reason why DOS games were enjoyable without running anywhere near 60, or even 30 fps. They were locked to your CPU's clock speed, so their frame pacing was as constant as it could be. That's also why I prefer a constant 30 fps to a variable 40-60 with dips and hikes.
 
Last edited:

hat

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
21,731 (3.43/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Starlifter :: Dragonfly
Processor i7 2600k 4.4GHz :: i5 10400
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 Pro :: ASUS Prime H570-Plus
Cooling Cryorig M9 :: Stock
Memory 4x4GB DDR3 2133 :: 2x8GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) PNY GTX1070 :: Integrated UHD 630
Storage Crucial MX500 1TB, 2x1TB Seagate RAID 0 :: Mushkin Enhanced 60GB SSD, 3x4TB Seagate HDD RAID5
Display(s) Onn 165hz 1080p :: Acer 1080p
Case Antec SOHO 1030B :: Old White Full Tower
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro - Bose Companion 2 Series III :: None
Power Supply FSP Hydro GE 550w :: EVGA Supernova 550
Software Windows 10 Pro - Plex Server on Dragonfly
Benchmark Scores >9000
Thing is if it's used with upscalers or not, newer high res TV's makes all the lack of resolution with older games stand out and the entire thing just looks worse.
It's almost like amplifying all the graphical limitations/imperfections of an older game because newer TV's make these stand out in sharp detail vs older ones smoothing/blending them instead.

Believe me, I've tried it with an HDTV, my 4K monitor and that's always been the results vs just using my old TV instead and that's across all the older consoles I have.
Even a PS2 can look crappy but it's not quite as bad, it's only with the PS3 and similar gen consoles it's looks fine with an HDTV but it's also a reflection on the advancement of the tech as time has passed.
Not much we can do about it except deal - It is what it is.
My point was that using an upscaler with a good quality connection turns out a lot better than simply plugging in a crappy composite connection to an HDTV. Today's TVs have a really hard time with low resolution video, and often can't even properly display low resolutions over better connections like component.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,603 (0.69/day)
Location
Alabama
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard X470 Tachi Ultimate
Cooling Scythe Big Shuriken 3
Memory C.R.S.
Video Card(s) Radeon VII
Software Win 7
Benchmark Scores Never high enough
My point was that using an upscaler with a good quality connection turns out a lot better than simply plugging in a crappy composite connection to an HDTV. Today's TVs have a really hard time with low resolution video, and often can't even properly display low resolutions over better connections like component.
Oh yeah, I agree with all that.
I also know some games themselves are a factor since some were done better than others concerning graphics, again it's just something we have to deal with.
The ones with better graphics tend to have a lower FPS due to the hardware limitations of the time.
There were only a few games that had both, good graphics and FPS to go with it but even then at times the FPS suffered.
 

qubit

Overclocked quantum bit
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
17,866 (3.00/day)
Location
Quantum Well UK
System Name Quantumville™
Processor Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz)
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible)
Case Cooler Master HAF 922
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe
Power Supply Corsair AX1600i
Mouse Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow
Keyboard Yes
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
60 should be the minimum. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120, it's just so much more fluid and responsive. I can also tell the difference between 120 and 144, just 24 higher, but it's quite subtle. I can't comment with certainty about higher fps, because I don't have a monitor that goes higher than 144, but I reckon I'd see the difference and feel it for sure.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
2,678 (1.94/day)
System Name Mean machine
Processor 13900k
Motherboard MSI Unify X
Cooling Noctua U12A
Memory 7600c34
Video Card(s) 4090 Gamerock oc
Storage 980 pro 2tb
Display(s) Samsung crg90
Case Fractal Torent
Audio Device(s) Hifiman Arya / a30 - d30 pro stack
Power Supply Be quiet dark power pro 1200
Mouse Viper ultimate
Keyboard Blackwidow 65%
Then I'm not a normal person as I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 fps. :roll:
I dont believe that is the case. Even just on the windows desktop there is a huge difference between 60 and 144,just scrolling a webpage or moving your mouse. Have you tried a 144 monitor?

I hvent tried more than 144, but i assume we start hitting diminishing returns at 240hz.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
9,725 (5.12/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 7800 XT
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2, 4 + 8 TB Seagate Barracuda 3.5"
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 single-core: 1,800, multi-core: 18,000. Superposition 1080p Extreme: 9,900.
I dont believe that is the case. Even just on the windows desktop there is a huge difference between 60 and 144,just scrolling a webpage or moving your mouse. Have you tried a 144 monitor?

I hvent tried more than 144, but i assume we start hitting diminishing returns at 240hz.
No, I haven't. My phone can do 90 Hz, but the only time I can sort of see it is when I'm scrolling, but sometimes not even then. The difference is negligible, at most.

I'd much rather have accurate colours than high refresh rates. I'll take a 60 Hz IPS or VA over a 144 Hz TN without a second thought.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
2,678 (1.94/day)
System Name Mean machine
Processor 13900k
Motherboard MSI Unify X
Cooling Noctua U12A
Memory 7600c34
Video Card(s) 4090 Gamerock oc
Storage 980 pro 2tb
Display(s) Samsung crg90
Case Fractal Torent
Audio Device(s) Hifiman Arya / a30 - d30 pro stack
Power Supply Be quiet dark power pro 1200
Mouse Viper ultimate
Keyboard Blackwidow 65%
No, I haven't. My phone can do 90 Hz, but the only time I can sort of see it is when I'm scrolling, but sometimes not even then. The difference is negligible, at most.

I'd much rather have accurate colours than high refresh rates. I'll take a 60 Hz IPS or VA over a 144 Hz TN without a second thought.
I don't think those are your options, there are 240hz VA panels for example. Anyways...
 

qubit

Overclocked quantum bit
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
17,866 (3.00/day)
Location
Quantum Well UK
System Name Quantumville™
Processor Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz)
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible)
Case Cooler Master HAF 922
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe
Power Supply Corsair AX1600i
Mouse Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow
Keyboard Yes
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
No, I haven't. My phone can do 90 Hz, but the only time I can sort of see it is when I'm scrolling, but sometimes not even then. The difference is negligible, at most.

I'd much rather have accurate colours than high refresh rates. I'll take a 60 Hz IPS or VA over a 144 Hz TN without a second thought.
tbh it's really not that noticeable between 60 and 90. 60 and 120 on the other hand is like night and day. Even just moving the mouse pointer around it's very noticeable and even more so when windows are dragged around, let alone gaming. I know, because I've got a 144Hz monitor and have tried all the different refresh rates on it.

On top of that, my iPad can do 120Hz. Switch that off and 60Hz looks surprisingly juddery on its crisp display.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,465 (1.14/day)
Processor 5800X3D -30 CO
Motherboard MSI B550 Tomahawk
Cooling DeepCool Assassin III
Memory 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V @ 3800 CL14
Video Card(s) ASRock MBA 7900XTX
Storage 1TB WD SN850X + 1TB ADATA SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell S2721QS 4K60
Case Cooler Master CM690 II Advanced USB 3.0
Audio Device(s) Audiotrak Prodigy Cube Black (JRC MUSES 8820D) + CAL (recabled)
Power Supply Seasonic Prime TX-750
Mouse Logitech Cordless Desktop Wave
Keyboard Logitech Cordless Desktop Wave
Software Windows 10 Pro
There is also an event where Ubisoft CEO Guillemot states 30 FPS is what gamers want for their 'realistic' gaming experiences. Its the 'best way to game' according to the man. We all know it is utter bullshit. 30 FPS is a frametime that for many a game, is not just uncanny, but can kill your gameplay. When it can drop from that bottom line, it gets exponentially worse.

Enjoy this laugh while we're on the subject :D We all know where AC Unity went, by now, into the books as easily the shittiest AC ever, or among them.

You mean this? :laugh:

ubisoft.png
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
787 (0.63/day)
Not entirely. You need a pretty good HDTV to get a similar image quality that you would have on an old TV. Quite simply because scanlines aren't pixel perfect. Basically old TVs had their own way to pass AA over anything, and it did the job well to smooth out the image. LCDs lack that, they have a pattern they map to.
Absolutely true, when I was a kid we had a big Philips CRT TV in the living room but it had a matrix screen which wasn't too good and you could see the pixel grid easily, when I entered high school I got as a gift a smaller Grunding that had a planar screen (if I remember "Athens line") and it was crazy good, tons of free antialiasing and the colors were insane, day and night difference with Philips.
I got it together with PS1 and the upgrade was just insane!
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,661 (0.53/day)
Location
North Dakota
System Name Office
Processor Ryzen 5600G
Motherboard ASUS B450M-A II
Cooling be quiet! Shadow Rock LP
Memory 16GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX 5600 XT
Storage PNY CS1030 250GB, Crucial MX500 2TB
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF
Case Fractal Define 7 Compact
Power Supply EVGA 550 G3
Mouse Logitech M705 Marthon
Keyboard Logitech G410
Software Windows 10 Pro 22H2
Absolutely true, when I was a kid we had a big Philips CRT TV in the living room but it had a matrix screen which wasn't too good and you could see the pixel grid easily, when I entered high school I got as a gift a smaller Grunding that had a planar screen (if I remember "Athens line") and it was crazy good, tons of free antialiasing and the colors were insane, day and night difference with Philips.
I got it together with PS1 and the upgrade was just insane!

16- and 32-bit (plus N64) generation console titles are def best played on a ~19" CRT (IMO)
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
787 (0.63/day)
16- and 32-bit (plus N64) generation console titles are def best played on a ~19" CRT (IMO)
19” CRT monitor? Not for me, I had a Sony and an Eizo (much better) but I never tried any console on them, I didn't have a converter plus when I tried some games at 640X480 (PC) the pixels were very annoying visible (the usual resolution for 19" was 1280X1024 or 1024X768 at least)
(16bit was around a quarter of 640X480, I can't imagine that a 256X224 (SNES) looked good on 19" CRT or are you talking about emulation?)
But depends, I guess tastes are different plus you may had a good converter?
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,661 (0.53/day)
Location
North Dakota
System Name Office
Processor Ryzen 5600G
Motherboard ASUS B450M-A II
Cooling be quiet! Shadow Rock LP
Memory 16GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX 5600 XT
Storage PNY CS1030 250GB, Crucial MX500 2TB
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF
Case Fractal Define 7 Compact
Power Supply EVGA 550 G3
Mouse Logitech M705 Marthon
Keyboard Logitech G410
Software Windows 10 Pro 22H2
19” CRT monitor? Not for me, I had a Sony and an Eizo (much better) but I never tried any console on them, I didn't have a converter plus when I tried some games at 640X480 (PC) the pixels were very annoying visible (the usual resolution for 19" was 1280X1024 or 1024X768 at least)
(16bit was around a quarter of 640X480, I can't imagine that a 256X224 (SNES) looked good on 19" CRT or are you talking about emulation?)
But depends, I guess tastes are different plus you may had a good converter?

Not on a monitor, but a TV. I'm talking running native here, rather than emulated. Should have specified. Anyway, modern CRT TVs were all 480 scanlines (CRTs have no pixels) regardless of size, and console output scaled to fit. The signal was also interlaced, which combined with a little upscaling produced the "natural" antialiasing referred to earlier in the thread. 19" is large enough that one can still see detail from ~2m away, but not so large that everything starts to look blocky and gross.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,661 (0.53/day)
Location
North Dakota
System Name Office
Processor Ryzen 5600G
Motherboard ASUS B450M-A II
Cooling be quiet! Shadow Rock LP
Memory 16GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX 5600 XT
Storage PNY CS1030 250GB, Crucial MX500 2TB
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF
Case Fractal Define 7 Compact
Power Supply EVGA 550 G3
Mouse Logitech M705 Marthon
Keyboard Logitech G410
Software Windows 10 Pro 22H2
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
787 (0.63/day)
Not on a monitor, but a TV. I'm talking running native here, rather than emulated. Should have specified. Anyway, modern CRT TVs were all 480 scanlines (CRTs have no pixels) regardless of size, and console output scaled to fit. The signal was also interlaced, which combined with a little upscaling produced the "natural" antialiasing referred to earlier in the thread. 19" is large enough that one can still see detail from ~2m away, but not so large that everything starts to look blocky and gross.
OK you meant TV.
Regarding the sharpness of the image produced, a shadow mask or aperture grill and it's quality made a huge difference I think.And the difference in clarity between a 640X480 image and a 1280x1024 one was huge imo on a 19" CRT monitor.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,661 (0.53/day)
Location
North Dakota
System Name Office
Processor Ryzen 5600G
Motherboard ASUS B450M-A II
Cooling be quiet! Shadow Rock LP
Memory 16GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX 5600 XT
Storage PNY CS1030 250GB, Crucial MX500 2TB
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF
Case Fractal Define 7 Compact
Power Supply EVGA 550 G3
Mouse Logitech M705 Marthon
Keyboard Logitech G410
Software Windows 10 Pro 22H2
OK you meant TV.
Regarding the sharpness of the image produced, a shadow mask or aperture grill and it's quality made a huge difference I think.And the difference in clarity between a 640X480 image and a 1280x1024 one was huge imo on a 19" CRT monitor.

Oh, for sure. I ran 1152x864 on my last CRT monitor (a 19", incidentally), though, cuz screen elements got too small otherwise.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,046 (0.22/day)
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard ASRock X670E Lightening PG
Cooling Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120SE CPU cooler, 3x 140mm, 1x 120mm case fan
Memory 32GB G.SKILL Flare X5 DDR5 6000 (PC5 48000) F5-6000J3038F16GX2-FX5
Video Card(s) ASUS RTX 4070
Storage 2TB Sandisk SSD, 2TB P31 SK Hynix, 4TB WD SN850X, WD Black 6TB, WD Red Plus 12TB
Case Fractal Design Definse S
Power Supply Seasonic Focus 750
Mouse Logitech Pro
Keyboard Corsair Strafe Cherry MX Silent w/red LED
VR HMD HTC Vive
Software Win 10 Pro
60 should be the minimum. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120, it's just so much more fluid and responsive. I can also tell the difference between 120 and 144, just 24 higher, but it's quite subtle. I can't comment with certainty about higher fps, because I don't have a monitor that goes higher than 144, but I reckon I'd see the difference and feel it for sure.

60 looks bad. 80-90 is what I like as my minimum, but sometimes put up with around 60 for SP games. Typically ray tracing gives me frame rates around 50-60 in games with DLSS. I often decide to turn it off and get 80-90 frame rates without DLSS because the difference in frame rates is very noticeable.

60 is my absolute minimum. I try and get 120 or so. It looks better than 90 without a doubt, but 90 isn't too bad. Now if you're playing an online FPS like Battlefield or CoD, you really want more like 120 average frame rates.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
2,515 (1.34/day)
Location
UK, Leicester
System Name Main PC
Processor 13700k
Motherboard Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D4 - Bios 13.02
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 3080 RTX FE 10G
Storage 1TB 980 PRO (OS, games), 2TB SN850X (games), 2TB DC P4600 (work), 2x 3TB WD Red, 2x 4TB WD Red
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2X
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Software Windows 10 21H2 LTSC
Isnt a must for me today, probably never will be, been having fun playing eternal sonata in RPCS3 with frame rate from around 18FPs up to 30FPS, and for the first time getting my money's worth from VRR. I usually value image quality over frame rate, unless its a case of stutter/tearing fest from not been able to hit frame target. I am typically happy with 30 or 60 frame rate targets.

I also feel if frame rate is too high then lose the immersion, so e.g. flames in games 100% look better at 30, and the higher the frame rate the less immersive a RPG will feel, I also hate it when TVs interpolate frames in movies, as it then feels like i am watching a TV soap.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
3,159 (0.56/day)
System Name White Theme
Processor Intel 12700K CPU
Motherboard ASUS STRIX Z690-A D4
Cooling Lian Li Galahad Uni w/ AL120 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3200 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Aero 4080 Super 16GB
Storage 2TB Samsung 980 Pro PCIE 4.0
Display(s) Alienware 38" 3840x1600 (165Hz)
Case Lian Li O11 Dynamic EVO White
Audio Device(s) 2i2 Scarlett Solo + Schiit Magni 3 AMP
Power Supply Corsair HX 1000 Platinum
It's always been a must for me ever since the Super Nintendo days and the 90s-2000s arcade era. I think what made me sensitive to framerates was when I first visited an arcade as a kid, I could tell the arcade machines had faster moving images almost lifelike movement and big screens which to me made it look really fun and premium for example Marvel VS Capcom, Dark Stalkers, Metal Slug etc. Then there were other machines with 3D fighting that ran at slower frames and this is what helped me differentiate between slow/fast frames.

Moving onto a decade later and I'm trying to achieve 60fps on Crysis lol, for games low FPS just feels less responsive and less fun. I can tolerate 50-60fps though before I start getting bothered by the movement.

Movies however need to stay at 24fps. 60FPS would make every movie look like those old soap operas that were recorded in 60fps lol.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
5,581 (3.00/day)
Location
Poland
Processor Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE
Memory 2x16 GB Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 Rev E @ 3800 CL16
Video Card(s) RTX3080 Ti FE
Storage SX8200 Pro 1 TB, Plextor M6Pro 256 GB, WD Blue 2TB
Display(s) LG 34GN850P-B
Case SilverStone Primera PM01 RGB
Audio Device(s) SoundBlaster G6 | Fidelio X2 | Sennheiser 6XX
Power Supply SeaSonic Focus Plus Gold 750W
Mouse Endgame Gear XM1R
Keyboard Wooting Two HE
All ya have to do is to play something like Yakuza in 30 fps and in 60 fps mode. 60 is so much more responsive, 30 feels sluggish. Sure, you can get used to it, but motion fidelity and responsiveness is a must for something like brawler. For some RTS game or something much slower paced sure, you can get by with 30 fps.
On top of that there's also issue of frame pacing and stuttering, which pays even bigger role. Hell, I'd take locked 60 with proper frame pacing and no stutter over 100 fps + with stutter caused by frametime spikes any day.
 
Joined
May 8, 2021
Messages
1,978 (1.87/day)
Location
Lithuania
System Name Shizuka
Processor Intel Core i5 10400F
Motherboard Gigabyte B460M Aorus Pro
Cooling Scythe Choten
Memory 2x8GB G.Skill Aegis 2666 MHz
Video Card(s) PowerColor Red Dragon V2 RX 580 8GB ~100 watts in Wattman
Storage 512GB WD Blue + 256GB WD Green + 4TH Toshiba X300
Display(s) BenQ BL2420PT
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Topping D10 + AIWA NSX-V70
Power Supply Chieftec A90 550W (GDP-550C)
Mouse Steel Series Rival 100
Keyboard Hama SL 570
Software Windows 10 Enterprise
Moving onto a decade later and I'm trying to achieve 60fps on Crysis lol, for games low FPS just feels less responsive and less fun. I can tolerate 50-60fps though before I start getting bothered by the movement.
It's possible, but Crysis was surprisingly heavy on few CPU cores. My FX 6300 dropped to 30s, so basically CPU with 2x better single core performance is needed. Surprisingly it's not the graphics card that is actually the biggest bottleneck. My old FirePro V8800 (Radeon 5870) can run it at 1080p medium-high. Something like RTX 3050 should be fine for 1080p high-ultra. I also suspect that Crysis can't utilize more than 4GB RAM due to it being 32 bit game, but that's just speculation.

All ya have to do is to play something like Yakuza in 30 fps and in 60 fps mode. 60 is so much more responsive, 30 feels sluggish. Sure, you can get used to it, but motion fidelity and responsiveness is a must for something like brawler. For some RTS game or something much slower paced sure, you can get by with 30 fps.
On top of that there's also issue of frame pacing and stuttering, which pays even bigger role. Hell, I'd take locked 60 with proper frame pacing and no stutter over 100 fps + with stutter caused by frametime spikes any day.
Ah yes, you know you are Yakuza player, when you have hardware for it to run at 60 fps +, but it just drops to 30s for seemingly no reason. But to be fair, it's a weird quirk of Japanese 3D games. I also played Sonic Generations and my fps was unstable for seemingly no reason. Also had same issue with Sleeping Dogs.
 
Top