What's an acceptable frame rate?

Acceptable frame rate?

  • 100+ FPS

    Votes: 23 4.4%

  • 60+ FPS, no dips below 60 FPS

    Votes: 109 20.7%

  • 60 FPS, occasionally below 60 FPS

    Votes: 122 23.2%

  • 45+ FPS, no dips below 45 FPS

    Votes: 82 15.6%

  • 45 FPS, occasionally below 45 FPS

    Votes: 77 14.6%

  • 30+ FPS, no dips below 30 FPS

    Votes: 113 21.5%
  • Total voters
    526
K

kick@ss

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
5,541
What do YOU find to be an acceptable framerate (not the minimum you can stand, but the minimum without losing any enjoyment)?
 
BUT TEH HUMAN EYEBALLZ CANNOT SEE ABOVE TEH 24 FPS ANYWAY!

I voted for 60. Playing below this is just not very enjoyable, especially in an online FPS where you need smooth movement and accuracy.
 
AcneBrain said:
BUT TEH HUMAN EYEBALLZ CANNOT SEE ABOVE TEH 24 FPS ANYWAY!

I voted for 60. Playing below this is just not very enjoyable, especially in an online FPS where you need smooth movement and accuracy.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I feel. When you lack the constant frame rate aiming can become more challenging.



While impressive graphics are nice, performance is the #1 factor for me.
 
Depends on the game. Fast action games are ok with me @ 45fps (avg) or higher, slower action games are fine as long as they don't dip below 20 for anything more than a short amount of time.

Didn't vote in the poll because it's too simplistic.
 
pxc said:
Depends on the game. Fast action games are ok with me @ 45fps (avg) or higher, slower action games are fine as long as they don't dip below 20 for anything more than a short amount of time.

Didn't vote in the poll because it's too simplistic.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to get a detailed single poll. There are differences between game types but only one poll per post is allowed.
 
anything above 30 ... but nothing below it either .. once its gets below 25FPS starts to bug me alot

Normaly like to play @ 1280x1024 , 4 AA / 8 AF with every setting maxed

I mainly play MMORPG's thou so I am a tad different than all ya twitchy fingered FPS people out there :p
 
If it's a really fast game like Quake3, I need it to be stuck at vsync and never going below it. Anything less annoys me to an imperceptible degree.
 
it totally depends on the game imo, anything above 85 constantly for call of duty, cs I play at 150hz and the fps is stuck at 100.
 
Loaded up UT2004 at max in game settings and at 1600x1200x4aax8af the other day.. was getting about 100fps average with dips down as low as mid 60's.... The game just didn't look right. There is just something about that game, you move so fast that even refreshing at very high rates doesn't keep the game from seeming jumpy. I still kick butt and all, but visually the game just seems too jumpy for some reason. I couldn't imagine playing that game at less than about 80fps average... It just wouldn't work for me.

Meanwhile in Farcry I play at all the same settings, (everything maxed in game, and 1600x1200x4aax8af) and get about 45-50fps average with dips as low as 30 and the game seems smooth as silk, even when moving quickly in vehicles...

I don't know what it is about UT, but it's just a really jumpy game visually for me so I think it's really game dependent. I couldn't imagine playing any game much below 45 average.. perhaps 35 in some games, but usually 45 is my minimum for an average, and in some games, as mentioned earlier, its more like 80+.
 
arentol said:
Loaded up UT2004 at max in game settings and at 1600x1200x4aax8af the other day.. was getting about 100fps average with dips down as low as mid 60's.... The game just didn't look right. There is just something about that game, you move so fast that even refreshing at very high rates doesn't keep the game from seeming jumpy. I still kick butt and all, but visually the game just seems to jumpy for some reason. I couldn't imagine playing that game at less than about 80fps average... It just wouldn't work for me.

Meanwhile in Farcry I play at all the same settings, (everything maxed in game, and 1600x1200x4aax8af) and get about 45-50fps average with dips as low as 30 and the game seems smooth as silk, even when moving quickly in vehicles...

I don't know what it is about UT, but it's just a really jumpy game visually for me so I think it's really game dependent. I couldn't imagine playing any game much below 45 average.. perhaps 35 in some games, but usually 45 is my minimum for an average, and in some games, as mentioned earlier, its more like 80+.
Click to expand...

I am glad i am not the only one whos noticed that, no matter which brand of video card Ati or Nvidia it "felt" laggy i think honestly that they sort of rushed that version because UT2003 seems smooth, i loaded it just to check and sure enough it was smooth as silk, loaded ut2004 and i got that laggy feeling... weird..
 
arentol said:
Loaded up UT2004 at max in game settings and at 1600x1200x4aax8af the other day.. was getting about 100fps average with dips down as low as mid 60's.... The game just didn't look right. There is just something about that game, you move so fast that even refreshing at very high rates doesn't keep the game from seeming jumpy. I still kick butt and all, but visually the game just seems to jumpy for some reason. I couldn't imagine playing that game at less than about 80fps average... It just wouldn't work for me.

Meanwhile in Farcry I play at all the same settings, (everything maxed in game, and 1600x1200x4aax8af) and get about 45-50fps average with dips as low as 30 and the game seems smooth as silk, even when moving quickly in vehicles...

I don't know what it is about UT, but it's just a really jumpy game visually for me so I think it's really game dependent. I couldn't imagine playing any game much below 45 average.. perhaps 35 in some games, but usually 45 is my minimum for an average, and in some games, as mentioned earlier, its more like 80+.
Click to expand...

You're so full of shit it pains me deeply. I hope you have a 6800Ultra or X800Xt PE with a healthy clock, maybe prommied to dip as "low as 30" from time to time in farcry at those settings. Bleh ok, maybe you've done just that and got a hell of a clock on a $500 VC. Total BS shananigans on 100fps being your average at those settings in UT2004 though. CPU bottlenecks that game into the eighties, without a ton of IQ. Got that FX59 already too? At the very least you are using the terms 'average' framerate and 'minimum' framerates very loosely. Use fraps and tell me you never get 2X fps in farcry or athat 100fps is a true average for a UT2004 gaming session.
 
give us more choices, you missed a lot of important figures between 60 and 100. like the difference between 60 and 85 is huge. 85 is what i prefer
 
texuspete00 said:
You're so full of shit it pains me deeply. I hope you have a 6800Ultra or X800Xt PE with a healthy clock, maybe prommied to dip as "low as 30" from time to time in farcry at those settings. Bleh ok, maybe you've done just that and got a hell of a clock on a $500 VC. Total BS shananigans on 100fps being your average at those settings in UT2004 though. CPU bottlenecks that game into the eighties, without a ton of IQ. Got that FX59 already too? At the very least you are using the terms 'average' framerate and 'minimum' framerates very loosely. Use fraps and tell me you never get 2X fps in farcry or athat 100fps is a true average for a UT2004 gaming session.
Click to expand...

Actually I am a little FoS... I do only set shadows to medium in Farcry since the game (it is a GAME issue too, not an ATI issue) doesn't render them properly in some places on x800's. In order to avoid the issue I just turn shadows, and ONLY shadows down to medium, which completely fixes the issue. Outside of shadows though EVERYTHING is turned to max, even the water is turned up to the highest possible settings and I only drop down to 32fps when looking at the tanker from a distance (which with my old CPU, AMD 2800+ knocked me down to about 22fps.

Anyway, I am running a AMD athlon 64 3000+ at 2320mhz (320mhz OC, effectively about a 3400+) and I am running an X800XT-PE at 552/570 (32mhz and 10mhz OC respectively) with catalyst 4.6 drivers. I hit 12189 in 3dmark 03 so far and I expect to get higher once I get some decent cooling for the CPU (currently running stock cooling) and mod my Videocard cooling a little more to get some more out of that as well.

I also am generalizing about my results, and if my numbers are a little high I will own up to it after I get a chance to run FRAPs tonight to verify in both games. However, I think that I will find my numbers to be off by no more than 5 FPS's, but we will see.
 
why are people even allowed to post these threads? It just ends up as a bunch of people arguing over what is smooth. Jesus, just play how you like it.

First, you get the people with shitty ass graphics cards telling everyone how at 10-15fps it feels smooth so they can make themselves feel better. Next, you get the bill gates out the ass rich people with their expensive video cards telling everyone that if it gets below 100fps, its no good. Then there is the whole arguement of whether the human eye can detect anything over 24 fps. Jesus. Thrown into this, you get the people who are "competitive" or "pro" gamers who just HAVE to have over 60fps so they "can nail people left and right". Man, you guys rule.

BTW, I DIDNT VOTE.

EDIT: I should have known. Kick@ass started the thread. You are so hardcore!
 
LeadMetal1402 said:
why are people even allowed to post these threads? It just ends up as a bunch of people arguing over what is smooth. Jesus, just play how you like it.

First, you get the people with shitty ass graphics cards telling everyone how at 10-15fps it feels smooth so they can make themselves feel better. Next, you get the bill gates out the ass rich people with their expensive video cards telling everyone that if it gets below 100fps, its no good. Then there is the whole arguement of whether the human eye can detect anything over 24 fps. Jesus. Thrown into this, you get the people who are "competitive" or "pro" gamers who just HAVE to have over 60fps so they "can nail people left and right". Man, you guys rule.

BTW, I DIDNT VOTE.

EDIT: I should have known. Kick@ass started the thread. You are so hardcore!
Click to expand...

LMAO :D

I'm sorry but i couldn't help but laugh at that.
 
Actually the human eye can detect more than 24FPS. Watch a movie at 24FPS and watch that same movie at 30FPS. Theres a difference. I have read somewhere that the limit is around 60ish. But I don't know shit about that, but it is the game that makes the difference. Farcry is very smooth at 45FPS and UT2004 isn't smooth unless over 80FPS. Weird but that's the way it is.

UT2004 is like a cartoon that skips frames to cut costs. It has that choppy feeling no matter what.

Whereas Farcry is great at 45FPS. In fact with AA and AF turned off, on my machine the FPS fluctuate from around 115 to about 40ish depending on what I'm looking at and where in the game I am at. Also the onscreen enemies and action have a huge bearing on that. However with suge a range of FPS going from 36-115 in about .5 seconds it feels jerky and irritating.

But with AA and AF turned on to a reasonable level, my machine doesn't seem to go much above 45-60 and never below about 36. So I get more consistance frame rates and the game feels smoother when played that way.
 
actually it depends, playing splinter cell or max payne in the 30s is perfectly fine, but in fps's especially one that Im competetive in(Like tfc, I know it doesn't take much, but the difference between 80 and 100 is definately noticeable to me)
 
On a brand new built system I like to be averaging around 85 fps at whatever resolution AA AF to match a good monitor which also tends to max out at 85hz. When games catch up to the point where the FPS start to dip below 30fps, then I consider it time to upgrade.

So, I would consider anytime a game dipping below 30fps, as unacceptable. But upon buying a new videocard or equipment, 85fps would be what I would consider acceptable.

Double and triple buffered games tends to feel more laggy, and I would say closer to 45FPS minimum is acceptable for those particular games.
 
arentol said:
Actually I am a little FoS... I do only set shadows to medium in Farcry since the game (it is a GAME issue too, not an ATI issue) doesn't render them properly in some places on x800's. In order to avoid the issue I just turn shadows, and ONLY shadows down to medium, which completely fixes the issue. Outside of shadows though EVERYTHING is turned to max, even the water is turned up to the highest possible settings and I only drop down to 32fps when looking at the tanker from a distance (which with my old CPU, AMD 2800+ knocked me down to about 22fps.

Anyway, I am running a AMD athlon 64 3000+ at 2320mhz (320mhz OC, effectively about a 3400+) and I am running an X800XT-PE at 552/570 (32mhz and 10mhz OC respectively) with catalyst 4.6 drivers. I hit 12189 in 3dmark 03 so far and I expect to get higher once I get some decent cooling for the CPU (currently running stock cooling) and mod my Videocard cooling a little more to get some more out of that as well.

I also am generalizing about my results, and if my numbers are a little high I will own up to it after I get a chance to run FRAPs tonight to verify in both games. However, I think that I will find my numbers to be off by no more than 5 FPS's, but we will see.
Click to expand...

well your system is slower than mine and i find your numbers a bit much.
 
the poll is missing some options. I played the entire game half-life with framerates from 12 to 30. how you ask? it's called linear interpolation. you move the mouse so far, and part way through you click. your mouse is probably faster than your video card at this point. i play ut2k4 (not competitively, not online) with an average on a medium sized map of about 22 fps. i have a radeon 9000aiw at stock, and a 2.4c at 3.0. if you can't play it slow then your system is playing, not you. it would be fun to have a low fps lan party where noone can go over 30 (as enforced by software of some sort). i would beat the tar out of y'all cause i have more practice. not to start a flamewar or anything. :rolleyes:

that doesn't mean i wouldn't upgrade in a heartbeat though. i wouldn't consider playing doom3 or farcry with this system. if i had an x800 tho... :cool:
 
I will pay my "bucks" to get 60+ or close, hate to go much lower. I suck in games anyway and need every edge. I won't play games with more than 100 ping (I get killed during the lag).
 
Below 30fps most games look choppy but anything above 30fps I don't notice any difference.

When playing on my dads faster computer 30fps and 100fps look the same.
 
qb4ever said:
Below 30fps most games look choppy but anything above 30fps I don't notice any difference.

When playing on my dads faster computer 30fps and 100fps look the same.
Click to expand...

i dont mean to be rude. but you may want to consider getting your eyes checked if you can't notice the difference between 30fps and 100fps.
 
Seeing the results of this poll, less than 1/2 of the respondants deem the benchmarks that [H] produces as having framerates that constitute acceptable gameplay (those being the 45FPS with dips and 30+ FPS). While it's nice to see how a game will run at max eye candy this is probably in no way indicates how a certain card will perform at what a majority consider to be a more acceptable framerate.

While VidCardA might be faster at max eye candy, VidCardB might be able to have a bit more eye candy at a more acceptable framerate than VidCardA. It's possible - but we don't know for certain.

I think providing benchmarks that appease the 60 FPS average crowd, apples to oranges, would add A LOT of value to the reviews.



** I'm mostly talking about FarCry.
 
I like to keep it above 40. Ideally I'd like to keep it at 70-80 but if it stays above 40 then I think it's okay.
 
I hope HardOCP is looking at this poll :)

Out of the 172 people that voted, only 21% agree with HardOCP's review criteria for acceptable framerate.
 
I voted 30+, but I'm used to playing games at low (10+) fps

my pc doesn't do that anymore, but when I had a crappy one, i was used to low fps all the time.
 
i like the framerate to stay above 30fps. but as long as it is a consistent framerate (no sudden drops, lagging, etc) then i can play on it. i play 2k4 at a pretty ~25 fps in linux, and it is easier to play there then it is to play in windows at ~45 fps, but with random drops.

so as long as it is smooth i can do it. (and not a slideshow)
 
AcneBrain said:
BUT TEH HUMAN EYEBALLZ CANNOT SEE ABOVE TEH 24 FPS ANYWAY!
Click to expand...
Sorry for replying late... but that 24-30 frame rate for the eye even smells like bullshit. If that was true, you wouln't be able to notice the difference in games running at 30 fps and games running at 100, right? Well, unless you're blind, you can notice a difference. Here is why:
30fps is considered by many as the normal FPS for games, because TV runs at around 30, movies, and stuff like that in the theater are about 30 as well. The reason we don't see choppiness at 30FPS is
MOTION BLUR!
Press pause at any point of action on your favorite DVD and see it for yourself, there is motion blur on practically any frame that contains action. Motion blur is a reduction of fine details, it happens in real-life as well. Take your hand and whizz it past your face, try to notice the 5 fingers on it... Can't? cool. Motion blur simply works to link frames seamlessly for your brain to easily assemble, when talking about video.
In 3D games, every damn frame is rendered at full quality, although we can't notice it when we do a quick turn in q3, but we can notice when it falls in FPS.
Now this is what I always thought the vid card companies should figure out... Realistic Motion Blur for in-games. then, they could keep it at about 30fps and let the rest of the beast work on rendering other things, e.g. IQ settings.
Plus, the human eye can, on average, detect frames at 200fps. Military example: eye test for fighter pilots... a projector runs 200 frames in a second, one of which is a picture of an enemy fighter jet... and to pass, you need to identify the aircraft. Wow!
 
For those of you who have unbelievable, unimaginable, and even unholy systems (I'd like to think I'm one... but...) who are still seeing choppiness in UT2k4:

Disable Voice Commands. ;)

I forget what the exact setting name is, and I can't check as I am at work, but it is the setting that allows you to command bots through the voice chat system. It takes a lot of processor time to process voice commands and everytime you say something in voice chat it will check to see if you're phrasing a command for a bot unless you turn this setting off.
The effect of leaving this setting on is a perfect framerate with sudden choppiness in the game and not the video card. :D
 
Like others have said 60 + is always best but anything over 40 or so seems nice to me most times.
For the people who say that the human eye can not see anything over 24 FPS WOW when will that wise tale die ? Tell you what you say with your system running 24 FPS and play some games with people running much more. Just see who kicks who's butt because they can just seem to move that much faster. They react faster, They move faster, They do every thing faster and win over you ever time unless they do something stupid and let you win.
How many of us remember the people who said no one would ever need a faster than 56 K internet connection ? They used to say it was a waste of money to have anything faster as no game would play any different with the faster speed. I am glad that died away and just wish this foolish 24 FPS thing would also.
We are not talking about watching a TV that is different and it does not matter with the higher frame rates to much. We are talking about computers and monitors and a few FPS more can make a big difference in the looks and reaction times.
 
I prefer to try and match my vsync at 85fps plus, but more often then not as long as I don't dip below 60 I'm fine, below 45 it starts to lag.

Except I'm the opposite in UT2k4 I've got all the eye candy on because I like it, i run 15-30fps in most large battles, and I've never felt it being "laggy"...unless I was online and actually lagging, which requires a ping over 200 in that game. So I dunnoo wtf everyone's talking about there.

Cstrike hasta run at 100+fps solid tho, anything less annoys the hell outa me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top