60FPS vs. 30FPS vs. 20FPS difference shown w/ the help of F1 2013(pcgameshardware.de)
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
TetraGenesis
Member
Hahahaha, you are on a troll-roll today, man!
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.
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.
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.
This is what I was looking for. Thanks
iJudged
Banned
Like, totally...
iamshadowlark
Banned
Pretty sure this is the same video slowed down to different speeds, dropped frames galore. That's not really an accurate representation of anything.
TetraGenesis
Member
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.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
It blows my mind that people can't tell the difference. It's night and day.
I don't understand how anyone can prefer 60 fps over 30, bruh. 60fps is too gamey.
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.
FalsettoVibe
Member
60fps looks great!
Ludicrous Speed
Banned
Well 1080p30 may be too much to ask for as well! How about 900p30. That might be about the standard
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.
DangerDave
Member
Ha lol. Same here. 60 is barely cutting it now.
ComputerMKII
Banned
It's definitely real compared to 30 fps.
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.
What about fighting games? Platformers? Rhythm games?
Vanguardofyourdestruction
Banned
Not sure why people think 60 fps is the shit? It's too fluid, responsive and shiny imo.
I prefer gaming at a slower pace. 30 fps 4 life.
I prefer gaming at a slower pace. 30 fps 4 life.
capitalCORN
Member
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.
When Quake came out, I worked my ass of scripting a version that could outrun the 'turtle'. I never could.
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.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
I see this and all I can see is "real life is too fluid and to look at, I want it to be choppy and unresponsive".
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.
stargateheaven
Member
I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 am i weird?
You're an elitist.
Nah, my 120 Hz DLP projector doesn't need Lightboost
(DLP technology is inherently continuously refreshing like CRT, and not sample-and-hold like flat panels)
Dark Octave
Banned
As long as there is no jaggies. I can't stand the jaggies.
Give me 10 frames as long as there is no jaggies.
Give me 10 frames as long as there is no jaggies.
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
megabytecr
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Byakuya769
Member
The video was too short for me to really see a difference.
Wonko_C
Member
I would say because of consoles prior to the 32-bit era and arcade machines. The great majority of games were 60fps back then. Consoles abandoned high quality arcade gaming long ago.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
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.
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.
blurredvision
Member
If we have to keep making gifs or videos to show people the difference, then why bother?
illmatic19
Member
I pat myself on my back for sticking with Skyrim on PS3 and its sub 25 fps for 70 hours.
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.
AstroNut325
Member
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!
Pops Maellard
Member
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.
iamshadowlark
Banned
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
EternalTruth
Member
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...
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...
OldAsUrSock
Banned
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.
ccctrlaltdelete
Banned
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.
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.
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.