What framerate for you is the tipping point of diminishing return?

What FPS?

  • 30

    Votes: 15 4.6%

  • 60

    Votes: 102 31.0%

  • 120

    Votes: 125 38.0%

  • 144

    Votes: 36 10.9%

  • 175

    Votes: 7 2.1%

  • 240

    Votes: 15 4.6%

  • 360+

    Votes: 13 4.0%

  • 90

    Votes: 16 4.9%
  • Total voters
    329
60 for most games.
144 for fast paced first-person shooters like DOOM Eternal.
 
Had a 165 before and could tell the difference between my current 120, but honestly this is fine.

I specifically bought a 4k120 OLED for my PC because it'll be a very long time before I can run new games at that spec no sweat.
 
60. I notice 120 when going back to 60 but I very used to it get quickly and nothing bothers me.
 
Last edited:
I don't really see a difference in 120fps from 60fps as much as I feel it. But it's not going to kill me to stick with 60 either.
 
Depends on the display, I could tell the difference slightly on LCD between 240 and 360, but with OLED 240 was looked better and I couldn't see a difference between OLED 240 and 360.
 
60 because i only have at most 60hz panels and can't be bothered otherwise, saves money tooX maybe someday i'll jump to 60+ and i know 120 fps looks better but i'm fine.
 
It's 60 for me. 120fps does feel better, but not enough to sacrifice anything else for. But when I can play a game with everything at maximum quality + 120fps I certainly do.
 
Once I get past 60 I do not notice as much as long as it is a steady frame rate. I find an unsteady frame rate to be more of an issue.
 
I've tested this on my 240fps monitor and honestly I think most normal people couldn't tell the difference above 30fps in a test. At least people who are not playing competitively. So I would say there is diminishing returns even above 30 for most people. I've not experienced anything above 240fps myself but I would say for me personally 60fps is the sweet spot. Especially when trying to hit 240fps means compromising on something else more noticeable.
 
The difference between 30 and 60 is always very noticeable and makes a huge impact. I've only tried a little bit of 120fps and though the difference from 60 is noticeable it's nowhere near as much as going from 30 to 60.
 
As much as I can tell the difference going from 144 back to 60, 60 is fine.

Around 90 is where I stop being able to tell at a glance what fps something is.
 
With a controller 60fps is 100% fine. Anything above is noticable, but it does not really affect the feel of the game much

With a mouse and keyboard controls 120fps is really preferable though - 60fps feels a bit rough then

... 30fps feels like shit no matter the controller
 
Last edited:
Visually I think 120hz is fluid enough, as for control response 280hz is the sweet spot for me (playing twitch shooters online on KB and M)

Technically, we can decouple display hz with framerate, Example: Using fastsync on Nvidia I can play a game with 300+ fps getting that crisp response time and having my 144hz monitor maxed out without any tearing or stutter.
 
Anything after 120fps is really hard to perceive irl gaming conditions. Like using this test ufo site. I can definitely see the difference between 120fps and 240fps but in an actually game I wouldn't be able to see unless you have two monitors running the game simultaneously.
 
30 is way too low fps no matter the game, 60 is where decent fluidity begins but still lacks fps to display fast movement correctly, 120 fps is pretty smooth for any circumstances, I also tried 144 and I don't think there is a big difference from 120, I'm fine here I don't believe I need more fps than that.
 
Sorry but the jump from 30-60 is vastly more noticeable than 60-120, so the tipping point for diminishing returns visually is definitely quite low.
 
60fps is fine, but I can feel and see the difference up to 240fps. Not sure about higher, I've never owner a monitor that can go higher.
 
I bought an LG which does 120fps, which my friends noticed the difference from what they have at home. My neighbor has an OLED monitor that goes higher than 120, but I couldn't see the difference between it and mine.
 
60 makes most games playable. 120 is the sweet spot for me though. Beyond that, can't tell the difference unless MSI afterburner tells me there is one. lol
 
On my ultrawide OLED there is an noticeable jump in clarity going from 144 to 175, while 60 to 144 is meh because the persistent blur is still there
 
I will stick with what I always say. If it updates like it's a CRT with technologies like rolling scan (which would probably require at least 1000hz) then 60fps for the content is fine for motion clarity. (It would also mean it wouldn't require huge computing resources to hit that frame rate.)
 
Last edited:
30fps is playable but almost always annoying even if I can get used to it.
~45fps is the point where a lower framerate stops bothering me.
60fps is the point where going higher doesn't do as much for me and has been my target fps for a long, long time. I don't really play games where microseconds of reaction matter.

I can tell the difference, visually, up into the 90-120 range and can feel the difference up to at least 144. Regardless of framerate I can tell when it's unstable or has drops of more than a few fps even if it doesn't bother me that much.
 
I can tell the difference between 30FPS and 60fps, anything above I can't say since my experience has been minimum. So I'll have to say 60FPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

We have obviously long since passed the point of diminishing returns in the arms race for “better graphics”
2 3
106
6K
BbMajor7th replied
Are there really diminishing returns, or are the returns just more subtle?
2
70
3K
Hawk The Slayer replied
High end PC user what resolution and framerate are you targeting?
2 3
136
4K
.Xeno replied
What is it about Nintendo that you appreciate the most?
2
66
191
Ribi replied
MS still wants developers to put games on their consoles, as a developer what would be the point?
2 3
113
511
TheSHEEEP replied
Top Bottom