Support NeoGAF

[NomenNescio]

I'm currently playing Uncharted 4 on the 5 Pro, and switching between Fidelity (4K@60) and Performance (1440p@120) modes, unlocked frame rate. Jesús marimba. Fidelity is so slow for me after tasting that 120 fps butter. I mean, 60 is still enjoyable but the motion clarity 120 provides is just another level, way more noticeable than any higher resolution you can throw at me. It's like seeing everything in perfect clarity at all times, no matter how fast you move the camera.

Previously I already tasted close to 100 fps in Part I and II and while certainly noticeable, it's in games where you move the camera a lot (like U4) where you really realize how much of a difference it makes.

Tried to get used to 30 fps again in Return to Arkham, and I swear I was afraid of getting eye cancer or a stroke or something. Completely unplayable. Slideshow. You might as well see every frame individually like old cartoons.

I'm seriously considering building a monster PC just to enjoy all of my games like these in the foreseeable future. I don't even want to try 200+ fps because expecting that kind of performance in current games at high settings is not realistic even for NASA.

F*** 4K, f*** path tracing. Performance is god. We should be salivating for 360 hz.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Eh, I dunno, past 60 it’s greatly diminishing returns

Just like resolution beyond 4k

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Agreed. UC4 looks incredible at 120 FPS on Pro.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

As far as I'm aware Uncharted isn't 120fps in it's 120hz mode. It's like 80-90, but I might be remembering wrong. I know the frame counter on my C2 doesn't read that game correctly.

120hz is great, but I find it hard to really notice a difference once I go above that. Maybe if I really focused on it I could but playing games at 240hz and 120hz doesn't feel too awfully much different to me. I'm sure plenty of people out there can tell a difference but I can't.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Eh, I dunno, past 60 it’s greatly diminishing returns

Just like resolution beyond 4k

Not once you've noticed the motion clarity that very high fps brings.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

 

[Mayar]

You can't just go and surpass perfection

 

[Skifi28]

I generally disagree. It's nice to have, but not a big deal. With a mouse it's more noticable, but with a controller I don't really care.

 

[NomenNescio]

Eh, I dunno, past 60 it’s greatly diminishing returns

Just like resolution beyond 4k

120hz is great, but I find it hard to really notice a difference once I go above that. Maybe if I really focused on it I could but playing games at 240hz and 120hz doesn't feel too awfully much different to me. I'm sure plenty of people out there can tell a difference but I can't.

I guess sensitivity to this stuff varies from person to person. I believe beyond 120 fps you would only notice a difference with keyboard and mouse, within competitive games.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

I really need a pro, fuck being poor.

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

60fps definitely feels more choppy than 120fps.

Tbh I find my minimum acceptable frame rate has to be 75fps. This feels much more smooth and responsive than 60 and can happily play any game at this frame rate.

 

[Kacho]

Eh, I dunno, past 60 it’s greatly diminishing returns

Just like resolution beyond 4k

Nah, there's a very noticeable difference between 60 and 120. It makes 60 look jank when you go back to it. 30 is unplayable.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Some are more sensitive than others to it

For me 60 to 120 is huge but I know some who say its not a big deal to them

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Nah, there's a very noticeable difference between 60 and 120. It makes 60 look jank when you go back to it. 30 is unplayable.

30 ain’t unplayable

Your eyes adapt depending on the game I’d rather push visuals as far as they can go. But 60 is a good compromise now for most games

Chasing 120 is an absolute waste of resources

 

[analog_future]

~90fps is the point for me where it really starts to become diminishing returns.

Really as long as I'm sitting above 80fps, I'm happy.

 

[Evolved1]

I really need a pro, fuck being poor.

Honestly I have a Pro, I’m very sensitive to fps, and I think the performance difference from base PS5 are overstated. There are improvements, but it’s game by game and not too many really justify the upgrade. just being real.

 

[KyoZz]

Yeah it's a pretty big leap

You need to experience it to understand.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

yep, first time my friend booted up cold war I told him to make sure it was set to 120hz.
We were chatting while he was booting it up and then when he got to the menu he actually fell silent for a second followed by "hey...haha...what's going on? It looks like...really smooth or something haha?"
And I just told him: "yeah, welcome to the true next-gen feature ;]".

 

[mèx]

It is and that's why I try to play most SP games at 120 fps, pushing 240 when possible.

If you try to switch back to 60 fps after playing a game at 120 for some time, 60 looks almost juddery.

If I have to choose, motion clarity and fluidity gets priority over resolution.

 

[Lethal01]

Not once you've noticed the motion clarity that very high fps brings.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

60 on my crt still curb stomps 120 on the oled, and my crt also goes to 120

 

[Mayar]

Nah, there's a very noticeable difference between 60 and 120. It makes 60 look jank when you go back to it. 30 is unplayable.

Well, I wouldn't say so, human eyes are an adaptive organ and adapt very well to different conditions. I have retro consoles, I have new consoles, I have a PC and I playing on 30 (and on some retro consoles even less...) and on 60 and on 120. And over the years I have adapted so much that I simply don't pay attention to it. Do I see the difference between 30-60-120, of course, does it bother me when playing? No. Here, most likely, the most problems are with people who constantly and continuously play on 120 for several years, and their eyes have already gotten used to such conditions, then yes, it will cause discomfort.

 

[NomenNescio]

30 ain’t unplayable

I could stomach it in games where the camera moves very little (Bloodborne, Crash Bandicoot, Until Dawn). In other cases, no thank you.

 

[Gaiff]

The game doesn’t really reach 120fps consistently. You’re closer to 90-100 most of the time.

Yeah, the difference is pretty stark, but 60 never bothers me, unlike 30.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

If it's not 240 fps it's trash.

 

[DirtInUrEye]

It is in MPH as well.

 

[Mayar]

If it's not 240 fps it's trash.

Written by a person whose profile has the Switch, PlayStation and Xbox logo

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

If it's not 240 fps it's trash.

240? Pleb get to 480

The game doesn’t really reach 120fps consistently. You’re closer to 90-100 most of the time.

Yeah, the difference is pretty stark, but 60 never bothers me, unlike 30.

Yeah 30 is too harsh for me to enjoy anymore as well

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

I’m usually fine with 30 fps ngl

 

[viveks86]

I think games next gen onwards should have a performance mode target of 70+ (instead of 60+) and frame gen to 120. Should likely hit everyone’s sweet spot without brute forcing 120

And fidelity at 48+ with vrr.

 

[namenotfound]

My monitor goes to 165hz. Don't think there's a major difference between 120 to that. I've toggled down to 100hz and it nice to me. From a phone, not sure there's a major difference from 90 to 120. Jumping from 60 to 120 though, that was noticeable. My work laptop goes to 240hz. Toggling between 60hz and 240hz, that's a very noticeable difference

 

[DirtInUrEye]

~90fps is the point for me where it really starts to become diminishing returns.

Really as long as I'm sitting above 80fps, I'm happy.

90 is lovely and a common lock for me, but I'm content with 80 in single player games. 100 I'll play multiplayer in all day long. 110+ is where my eyes start to fail to discern any improvement.

60fps is acceptable with good post-processing only, otherwise I find it too choppy these days. 30fps I left behind when I returned to PC from PS4 about six years ago. It's not an exaggeration anymore to call 30 a slideshow.

 

[Kacho]

Well, I wouldn't say so, human eyes are an adaptive organ and adapt very well to different conditions. I have retro consoles, I have new consoles, I have a PC and I playing on 30 (and on some retro consoles even less...) and on 60 and on 120. And over the years I have adapted so much that I simply don't pay attention to it. Do I see the difference between 30-60-120, of course, does it bother me when playing? No. Here, most likely, the most problems are with people who constantly and continuously play on 120 for several years, and their eyes have already gotten used to such conditions, then yes, it will cause discomfort.

Yes, I'm in the group that has been playing at framerates higher than 60fps for years now. I used to be able to adjust to 30fps, but recently I haven't been able to stick with a game long enough for that to happen. I find it intolerable now.

 

[Lokaum D+]

Not once you've noticed the motion clarity that very high fps brings.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

he plays on PS5, he barely play at 60fps, 120 is just a dream for console users, he wont be able to notice the difference,

 

[hououinkyouma00]

240? Pleb get to 480





Yeah 30 is too harsh for me to enjoy anymore as well

I can stomach 30 with the right motion blur, and with slower games.

 

[T4keD0wN]

The lower you are the bigger the difference, never tried 30 to 60, but even 60 to 75 feels like a massive upgrade

60 to 120 is worlds apart, 120 to 260 felt like a much smaller difference without ELMB sync, that makes the biggest difference imo.

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

I really need a pro, fuck being poor.

I got a pro and your honestly not missing out on much at the moment, people over hype the pro IMO.

F*** 4K, f*** path tracing. Performance is god. We should be salivating for 360 hz.

Play Cyberpunk at 4k with path tracing at 60 FPS on PC .... I think you would change your opinion quickly.

 

[TheUsual]

Playing Halo Infinite multiplayer on PC at 120fps+ then again on my XSX at 60fps showed me the difference.

 

[Kacho]

But 60 is a good compromise now for most games

60 is more than fine. That should be the minimum for all games these days. It only looks jank after playing games at higher framerates for an extended period of time, but the adjustment period is quick. I can't adjust to 30 anymore. It always looks bad.

 

[Shaki12345]

30fps should be a punishable offense. GTA6 at 30fps will be absolutely horrible on modern TV's.

 

[NomenNescio]

 

[Topher]

30 to 60 is the must have big leap. 60 to 120 is gravy

 

[Rush2112]

It’s even more noticeable in fps games. Go try doom 2016 120 fps vs 60 fps. The difference is night/day.

 

[TintoConCasera]

I'm fine with 60 for most games, but for FPS games with mouse yeah the more the better.

 

[Bojji]

As some people have said, 90fps is when it becomes REALLY good and for me difference between between 90-120 is minimal. But between 60 and 90-120 it's big.

I have no problem playing games in 60fps or even 40 when there is no choice but 30fps? Fuck this shit, it belongs in a museum.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

May my "fake Frames" illuminate your path toward Nvidia GPUs.

 

[bitbydeath]

I’m usually fine with 30 fps ngl

Same, graphic quality is more important for me.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

75-90 is when you start getting into the good stuff
4k120 is sooo good

but modern displays need waaay more than 120hz to mimic CRT motion clarity
native 120fps = ~8ms of latency, 60fps is ~17ms.
if FG can turn 120fps into ~1000fps and keep latency around 10ms...

(just need super high refresh rate displays)

 

[3liteDragon]

Anything past 120's diminishing returns imo, 120's so smooth, 60 feels like 30fps to me if I switch back & forth.

 

[RoboFu]

the human eye can only see real frames.

 

[SlimySnake]

I'm currently playing Uncharted 4 on the 5 Pro, and switching between Fidelity (4K@60) and Performance (1440p@120) modes, unlocked frame rate. Jesús marimba. Fidelity is so slow for me after tasting that 120 fps butter. I mean, 60 is still enjoyable but the motion clarity 120 provides is just another level, way more noticeable than any higher resolution you can throw at me. It's like seeing everything in perfect clarity at all times, no matter how fast you move the camera.

Previously I already tasted close to 100 fps in Part I and II and while certainly noticeable, it's in games where you move the camera a lot (like U4) where you really realize how much of a difference it makes.

Tried to get used to 30 fps again in Return to Arkham, and I swear I was afraid of getting eye cancer or a stroke or something. Completely unplayable. Slideshow. You might as well see every frame individually like old cartoons.

I'm seriously considering building a monster PC just to enjoy all of my games like these in the foreseeable future. I don't even want to try 200+ fps because expecting that kind of performance in current games at high settings is not realistic even for NASA.

F*** 4K, f*** path tracing. Performance is god. We should be salivating for 360 hz.

thats because uncharted 4 isnt 4k 60 fps on the pro. it sits around 45-60 fps.

the 1440p mode doesnt consistently hit 120 fps either.

switch to performance + to see the 120 fps locked mode.

 

[Bojji]

Performance + is much lower res but it keeps that 120hz refresh most of the time.