60FPS vs. 30FPS vs. 20FPS difference shown w/ the help of F1 2013(pcgameshardware.de)

The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is huge, but that video didn't do a great job displaying it. I really hope most next-gen titles will try to hit a consistent 60 FPS. If they fall back to 30 again I might skip them and further upgrade my PC instead. Games at 30 FPS just don't feel as enjoyable.

And lol at the "you can't see more than 24 FPS anyway" and "24 FPS is more cinematic" lines. Come on guys. The difference is night and day.
 
I spent quite sometime playing GTAV on my PS3.

Then i got tired of it and went back to BF3 on my PC.
Everything on ultra, 120 fos on a 120hz monitor.

Mindblown. So beautiful...

Same thing for me going from 360 gta to back to BF on PC. I seriously can't fathom not being able to see the difference. It's instantly clear to me when something isn't 60 fps.
 
Pretty sure this is the same video slowed down to different speeds, dropped frames galore. That's not really an accurate representation of anything.
 
I like how the commentary guy even says that 30fps is barely playable with racing games.

Yeah, being that I totally speak and understand conversational German, I also enjoyed totally knowing he said that because I totally understood what he was saying.


Totally.
 
Awesome explanation, thanks!

That said, doesn't that mean that if my PCs GPU can display up to a constant 45-50fps in a particular game I'd be better off locking it at 30?

I'd say you're better of, turning down some graphic settings to get 55-60 or better 60+. But if this isn't an option it can be better to lock it at 30, unless the game really handles such framerates very well, because input lag still should be lower at 45-50. So I would say it depends on the game, just try it out.
 
Take that feel of the Call of Duty games away from the next gen versions and watch as even the most casual dude bro gamer go "something feels off about the new CODs"

60 fps matters
 
I don't have to pay attention to trackside details or billboards to see 60fps, I don't even need a side by side comparison to notice. No wonder people don't care for 60fps if they have to "look hard" for it on side by side comparisons... which is sad. :(
 
Take that feel of the Call of Duty games away from the next gen versions and watch as even the most casual dude bro gamer go "something feels off about the new CODs"

60 fps matters

It certainly adds something to the game, but I don't feel like I'm observing lag at a locked 30. It's not something I would say is a detriment to the game or the experience necessarily (racers and fighters exempted).

When a game dips to Perfect Dark levels or Blighttown on Xbox 360 levels? Virtually unplayable.
 
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.

This isn't the solution - there were just as many 60fps games (possibly more in fact) on the PS1 and PS2/Xbox than we've seen on the PS3/360. The current gen are more than capable of shifting things quickly, see CoD and pre-Horizon Forza titles. The problem is developers changing their priorities based on screenshot-driven media whining, and idiots posting about how "jaggies literally hurt my eyes to look at" (etc).


For every advanced shadow and specular highlight, another frame is killed.
Please, think of the frames.
 
I remember back in the day... I had a 486/33 and TIE-Fighter ran at 15fps at most. Then I saw it at a friend's 486/66 and saw how SMOOTH the motion was. I was jealous as FUCK.
When Quake came out, I worked my ass of scripting a version that could outrun the 'turtle'. I never could. :(
 
144Hz is where it's at, man. Best financially-irresponsible gaming purchase I've ever made. I'm wiggling my mouse cursor around right now just to feeeeel it.

120 Lightboost shits on 144hz and they've tested both.
motion-blur-graph.png

Outside of color performance the fastest clearest picture belongs to monitors, displays, or projectors that can do LB.
 
What about fighting games? Platformers? Rhythm games?

Or any fast paced game for that matter. The only way why many console games are ok in 30hz, is because they are slow as fuck.

For example, I cant imagine anyone playing new Shadow Warrior in 30hz, it would just not work.
 
Outside of color performance the fastest clearest picture belongs to monitors, displays, or projectors that can do LB.
Nah, my 120 Hz DLP projector doesn't need Lightboost :P

(DLP technology is inherently continuously refreshing like CRT, and not sample-and-hold like flat panels)
 
I think that's different for different regions. Europeans have different eyes than Americans for example. It's simply because of genetics. And THAT's why PAL and NTSC are different.

are you serious? that is completely wrong. there are no genetic differences between eyes in such a way. pal and ntsc exist due to electrical reasons foremost. in the usa, canada etc the electrical power is produced with 60 hz, in europe with 50 hz. now 60 hz means 30 fields for odd numbered lines on the screen and 30 fields for even numbered lines, resulting in ntsc's 30fps.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency
 
I have been watching lots of Gamersyde 60fps PC and Wii U videos , even for old games, and damn do they look like a different game. I will return to the PC and never look back as this gen I went Wii/PS3. I was like nahh it is not necessary but damn was I wrong.

This gen going Wii U / PC.

I am impressed by how many games are 720p60 on the Wii U.

Probably going i7 4770 + SLI ready MOBO + 1 GTX 760 or 770. Will see how far my budget goes, but it is worth it.
 
Elitist gamers with unrealistic expectations.

If all games were 1080p60 and looked not much better than current gen you can bet your arse that they are the same kind of people who would moan about not having "next gen" graphics.

Elitism indicates I consider myself entitled or superior, which isn't true. It's just objective reasoning that 60fps is a preferable experience and for some genres, the extra response time is vital. I'll always favour gameplay over visuals, it's that simple.

I do agree that under some circumstances, some people can make too big a fuss about it. You use TLoU as an example and while the hitches were annoying, it definitely didn't hurt my experience much, other than slightly breaking immersion. Then again, as someone already pointed out, comparing the importance of framerate with TLoU and a Formula 1 game, is apples and oranges.

I had a friend who used to say, people don't go online to argue a middle ground and that's definitely evident here. It's either one extreme or the other for some. But I believe gaming in general shouldn't be held to one standard and it should be a decision made on a per game basis. The same as choice over equipment on a movie. What's works for one project, won't for another.
 
I just recently bought a Benq XL2320TE and it had lightboost available. It really cuts the brightness down by half but you can reeeaaalllly tell the difference when running a blur busters test. Though when I tried it with CS:GO I didn't really notice between that and 144hz even with the 5ms added delay.

You can cut down on the fud.

It was really Half I'd let you say that. Funny you mention a blur busters test but not the calibiration page where they link to a site using a colorimeter to test contrast and color range differences.

This complaint is made all the time despite the fact for certain models this problem can be fixed by googling the issue and using better settings.
 
Well.... I can tell the 20 fps looks like a slideshow but I am having a really hard time seeing much difference between 30 and 60 fps... the difference doesnt seem as drastic as 20 fps to 30 for some reason to me :/
 
Don't care for racers but the 60 FPS is a thing of beauty. Difference between it and 30 FPS is night and day and my vision isn't even that great. Don't get how people can't see the difference.
 
They can't tell the difference between these either

I was actually lowering the HZ on my screen to see how the mouse cursor looked, just last night. I really hope people are being sarcastic here.

In movies, when the FR is high, stuff starts to look fake, or at least you can almost for certain, tell how it's merely a set, or you can see how the stage make-up is caked on some actors, during certain light conditions. (blu-ray, awesome GFX card, stellar TV or monitor)

In games, to me, higher frames are always going to be better. I don't give a shit who says otherwise. Call it fact, call it personal opinion. It is what it is.
 
Don't care for racers but the 60 FPS is a thing of beauty. Difference between it and 30 FPS is night and day and my vision isn't even that great. Don't get how people can't see the difference.

No different than color blind people. Some people's eye just aren't good at the response and speed part of things they could be excellent in color range though. Our eyes are all different and not everyone can be expected to see 60fps or 120fps with ease or at all.
 
The ability to distinguish 30 fps from 60 has more to do with how quickly someone's brain processes information, rather than how well their eyes are functioning.

I feel bad for those that are being honest and say they can't see a difference between 30 and 60. I can see it clearly, that must mean something isn't working how it's supposed to on them... Wonder if that's something that can be fixed or if some people are just like that and nothing is wrong.

But yeah, I'm with the guy that said 25 is not fine, 30 is fine and 60 is better. It would be great if all games were 60fps but if they can't then a solid 30fps is fine with me, but there can't be any drops, drops suck.
 
120 Lightboost shits on 144hz and they've tested both.


Outside of color performance the fastest clearest picture belongs to monitors, displays, or projectors that can do LB.

Until I read your post I had no idea what Lightboost was. Now I do... WHOA!

My next monitor HAS to support Lightboost.

Thank you!
 
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.

For a lot of us it wasn't /at all/ playable, and your comment of "buy a PC" doesn't hold up because you can't play titles like The Last of Us on PC.
 
The video was too short for me to really see a difference.



Well.... I can tell the 20 fps looks like a slideshow but I am having a really hard time seeing much difference between 30 and 60 fps... the difference doesnt seem as drastic as 20 fps to 30 for some reason to me :/

The video is shit. Instead of getting the game to run at different frame rates and recording, they take the video at 60 FPS and just encode it to different framerates to simulate the effect. It results in seemingly every other frame being just completely discarded and creating a choppyness.

Heres how the game moves at 30 FPS. Note there are higher quality settings in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hidFgPiFHRQ
 
At least Nintendo sees the value of making 60fps games right guys?! :(
In all honestly this should really be the standard now, shooters and racing feel so much cleaner and easier to control at 60fps when compared to 30...
 
I feel bad for those that are being honest and say they can't see a difference between 30 and 60. I can see it clearly, that must mean something isn't working how it's supposed to on them... Wonder if that's something that can be fixed or if some people are just like that and nothing is wrong.

But yeah, I'm with the guy that said 25 is not fine, 30 is fine and 60 is better. It would be great if all games were 60fps but if they can't then a solid 30fps is fine with me, but there can't be any drops, drops suck.

All games can be 60fps. You either lower the graphical effects or get more powerful hardware. I know people want every leaf, twig and pebble to be tessellated on the PS4, but it is more realistic to get 60fps.
 
Here is an interesting read from research done by the BBC:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
It comes to the conclusion that as you increase the resolution of captured images (videos) higher frame rates become more important for image quality.

"The spatial resolution of broadcast television cameras and displays has reached the point where the temporal resolution afforded by current frame rates has become a significant limitation, particularly for fast moving genres such as sport. BBC Research has successfully demonstrated that increasing the frame rate can significantly improve the portrayal of motion even at standard definition. If the spatial resolution of television standards continues to increase, raising the frame rate to maintain the balance between static and dynamic resolution will only become more important. Even at the spatial resolutions of SD and HDTV, the motion artefacts associated with 50/60Hz screen refresh rates will become increasingly apparent as television display sizes continue to grow.
Even for television pictures transmitted and displayed at conventional frame rates, capturing at high frame-rates can offer some improvement to picture quality through temporal oversampling, giving better control over temporal aliasing artefacts and offering a choice of “looks” to the director at the post-production stage. It also offers improved compatibility with the different conventional frame rates adopted internationally.
We assert that a higher capture and display frame rate leads to a step change in picture quality regardless of the spatial resolution."

There is an advantage with higher frame rates, especially at higher resolutions since you can see more detail on objects in motion. This is especially useful in the more competitive games like fps where you need to aim for the heads of targets moving whilst trying to discern friend from foe.
Take a look at this page (note that motion blur is being applied to both moving objects):
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Even with motion blur applied, at 60fps the details of the object in motion is more clear. Without motion blur the difference in frames become very apparent.
 
I don't disagree that 60fps looks cheap in some respects because we've been conditioned thru years of TV to see 30 as "cinematic," and 60 as "reality show / soap opera." This could be a serious roadblock going forward, as the Hobbit @ 48fps already showed. Consoles will probably stick to a standard 30fps as being "good enough" for a long time, as many people don't consider it as looking any better, or possibly worse.

On the upside, w/ the PS4/Xbone limited in power lacking the push to go 60fps will mean there will be much more detail than in the current generation -- PCs with its extra horsepower should benefit from 1080P+ games that look great at 60fps.
 
Top Bottom