Frames Per Second - Question

[Mr. Smith]

Is there a number of FPS that once you fall below this number, games become choppy/jumpy/annoying to play?

E.g. At 25 FPS you will notice choppy/jumpy behaviour in games.

I guess a reasonable estimate would suffice.

The reason behind the question is I'm looking at reviews comparing FPS at 1920x1200 for any games, trying to work out if the either the 320/640 gts will cut it or if I should get the gtx... The gtx might give 80 FPS but if the gts gives 60 FPS and my eyes won't tell the difference then I don't see the point in spending the extra, especially with the G92 round the corner...

So, at what FPS does a game become pants to play?

Nice one

 

[equk]

not sure what point a game becomes pants, but most monitors operate at 60hz so I guess the optimal fps would be 60 or more.

 

[FarFarAway]

Your eyes can't notice the difference above 60 FPS

However I find the acceptable FPS differs from game to game

For example F.E.A.R/ is playable at 25ish FPS, but CSS is only playable at above 50FPS. Oblivion is fine above 18ish FPS but Quake is horrible if you drop below 30ish for a period of time.

My list:

CSS: 55+

F.E.A.R.: 20+

Quake 4: 30+

CoD: 18+

CNC3: 15+

Oblivion: 15+

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: 25+

 

[Mr. Smith]

Cheers for that guys.

Rainbow 6 is annoying me, thats really the only game the gto is struggling with at these large resolutions...

 

[Allsorts]

In general, I start to notice 'dropped frames' at 25-30 fps but I find this doesn't affect the gameplay, for me anyway. Once the frame rate gets down to 15-20 fps I find games unplayable, and start to cry coz it means it's time to buy a new gfx card. As Kempez said I suppose it depends on the game too.

 

[limqareb]

imo cod 2 80+ is a must and you can say what you want but the best frame rates in cod 2 are 125 and 333 you get the smoothest gameplay

 

[FarFarAway]

imo cod 2 80+ is a must and you can say what you want but the best frame rates in cod 2 are 125 and 333 you get the smoothest gameplay

Don't talk BS

 

[MikeEnIke]

CoD 2 at 80+ ?!?!?! That is one of the few games that I know of that seems to have fluent movement at 18 FPS.

 

[Bogel]

CoD 2 at 80+ ?!?!?! That is one of the few games that I know of that seems to have fluent movement at 18 FPS.

I don't know about that, it can be anoying when you get around 20-30fps imo. Then again I like to take notice of all lag

*EDIT* I Guess I look for lag accually, I have fraps open when I play CoD2

 

[MikeEnIke]

Maybe I'm just scarred from the times I used to play Battlefield 1942 at 2-5 FPS, consistently D:

 

[limqareb]

Don't talk BS

listen in my experience thats the best , as you can see in my xfire profile i have 700+ hrs of call of duty 2 multiplayer so i know what im talking about ,

 

[Bogel]

listen in my experience thats the best , as you can see in my xfire profile i have 700+ hrs of call of duty 2 multiplayer so i know what im talking about ,

So if I am getting 60 fps (My average), I am lagging, or not playing as smooth as it looks?

 

[limqareb]

no its still fine but if you want to get smoothest shooting and moving thoose framrates are the best but 80 + will suffice

for example the thompson shoots 3 x as fast at 333 than at 125 fps

 

[PinGu^]

Well at kempez rightly said. Your eyes cannot see more than 60 frames a second.

Could be the server, could be you.

 

[Toxcity]

no its still fine but if you want to get smoothest shooting and moving thoose framrates are the best but 80 + will suffice

for example the thompson shoots 3 x as fast at 333 than at 125 fps

I have heard that its not looking for smooth gameplay..

When playing CoD2 when the FPS is over a certain amount the way the game engine works is that it speeds the motion up a little.

In a way.. CHEATING!

 

[weihk]

listen in my experience thats the best , as you can see in my xfire profile i have 700+ hrs of call of duty 2 multiplayer so i know what im talking about ,

''i've been driving since the year 1947, i've yet to have a car accident, that means i must be a extremly good driver, therefore i can point out who is a cr@p driver on the roads.''

did someone took their pet Bull in here, and let it took a cr@p?

[edit] no offence!

 

[equk]

no its still fine but if you want to get smoothest shooting and moving thoose framrates are the best but 80 + will suffice

for example the thompson shoots 3 x as fast at 333 than at 125 fps

Not sure about COD2, but most FPS games run at a certain network rate (quake3=snaps cs:s=cl_cmdrate/cl_updrate) so it doesn't matter what FPS you are running @ as the game will only sync at the rate set.

On quake3 125fps, 250fps & 333fps were used later by a lot of people and it did give a certain advantage in the mods built on the older netcode, giving people the ability to jump higher and changing their movement.

You will not fire 2x as many bullets on 250fps than you would on 125fps otherwise everyone would scale the graphics down and run at the highest fps possible.

Also, because of the way the netcode works (at a ticrate), people will not shoot 'faster' than other people because of their framerate ( maybe it would if it was clientside lol ).

 

[equk]

also if you have fps below the ticrate, there are sometimes problems & some people say on cs:s & cs 1.6, you can gain a advantage by doing this as your reg changes making it harder for people to hit you

 

[limqareb]

yep 333 is the best for jumps and movements yes its all about snaps and stuff , cod 2 has a very modified quake 3 engine

 

[Dav0s]

im pretty sure your eyes see 25fps, anything above is technically a waste

although most people can notice _something_ isnt right up until about 40fps, then it really is quite impossible to notice any difference. its all mental from there after.