Would you notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps compared to 60 and 120 fps?

[RicoADF]

It's not being picky, some people notice thing like this more than others and are affected as such. The same way some people actually feel nauseous if playing first person games on sub-90 FOV on a pc monitor. And why is 30 the "required" FPS for you? Pretty much any argument you can make for that is one that can be made for 60.

Unless you specifically have a 120Hz monitor, anything on your PC is actually only showing you 60 frames anyway.

Film uses 24fps as that's the min before we notice an image as choppy/not being a smooth film. Games use 30fps as min due to most of them being US made where 30fps was the norm (different picture format when we had analog TVs). Now 30fps is just the general default, anything above that arguably makes the image smoother however I haven't noticed any difference except when it fluctuates. It's the inconsistent frame rate that causes the issue more than the frame rate itself, which is why 70-90fps works well on PC, gives some room to fluctuate without it being visible due to the 60hz monitor (yes I know the difference, I work in IT). I seriously doubt people can really see the difference, I think it's the fps fluctuating (as mentioned above) or other factors (placebo effect, medical condition etc).

 

[spartan231490]

I very much doubt it. It depends on what you're looking at, but there are limits to what the human eye can recognize, and it can be as high as 500 fps for super-high contrast, but there's a reason movies are analogous to 24 fps. I doubt that you could notice much above 60, frankly I'm highly suspect of the people who say something like "anything under 40 is slideshow" and the like. I mean, how do they watch movies for one.

 

[KazeAizen]

If it runs smooth and isn't choppy I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I'm the one guy from 90s that still doesn't have a point of comparison for HD games unless they are re-releases. Other then that I never saw the big deal about HD. So yeah if its not too low that the game is choppy then I probably won't see nor care.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

The change between 30 and 60 is usually the most noticeable difference. If your game fluctuates between, then you'll see it. Between 60 and 120, to my knowledge, depends on the refresh rate of your monitor. For example, a 60Hz monitor can only display frames at a maximum 60 per second, meaning any frame rate higher than 60 will have frames that aren't displayed.

Edit: I can only really tell the difference between 30 and 60 since my laptop is 60HZ. I'm sure if went to 120Hz I'd see a difference at anything higher than 60.

 

[Weaver]

I have a 120 hz monitor and I can notice the difference between 30 and 60, and 60 and 120.
I feel like my "detection" limit is somewhere around 90 - 100hz (I can't tell the difference between 100 and 120 for instance).

I can even tell just using the windows desktop what refresh rate (between 30, 60 and 120) the monitor is at just by moving the mouse around.

 

[Quadocky]

I am in the artsy fartsy camp that framerate doesn't really matter unless you are trying to invoke a certain feeling. 30 FPS is great for that Cinematic otherworldly feel, while 60FPS is great for that high action realism. I don't really understand why you would wanna go up to 120 FPS.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Interesting fact, while human reaction time is slower than this sight registers in the brain after light hits the eye every 80ms which a quick bit of math will show is 125fps

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I very much doubt it. It depends on what you're looking at, but there are limits to what the human eye can recognize, and it can be as high as 500 fps for super-high contrast, but there's a reason movies are analogous to 24 fps. I doubt that you could notice much above 60, frankly I'm highly suspect of the people who say something like "anything under 40 is slideshow" and the like. I mean, how do they watch movies for one.

People can watch movies at 24 fps because movies have motion blur. A lot of motion blur. That helps a lot in making things look fluid.

I am in the artsy fartsy camp that framerate doesn't really matter unless you are trying to invoke a certain feeling. 30 FPS is great for that Cinematic otherworldly feel, while 60FPS is great for that high action realism. I don't really understand why you would wanna go up to 120 FPS.

A lot of that is for competitive gaming. The higher your FPS, the faster you can react. Also, even if your monitor is lower than 120hz, you still have more control over a 120 fps game than a 60 fps one.

 

[Weaver]

I very much doubt it. It depends on what you're looking at, but there are limits to what the human eye can recognize, and it can be as high as 500 fps for super-high contrast, but there's a reason movies are analogous to 24 fps. I doubt that you could notice much above 60, frankly I'm highly suspect of the people who say something like "anything under 40 is slideshow" and the like. I mean, how do they watch movies for one.

People can watch movies at 24 fps because movies have motion blur. A lot of motion blur. That helps a lot in making things look fluid.

Also, movies are at 24 frames a second but each frame is displayed TWICE.
I'm not sure why no one seems to know how movie projectors work.

From wikipedia:

Shutter

A commonly held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source; this is not the case. If a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering. (See Frame rate and Flicker fusion threshold.) Higher rate shutters are less light efficient, requiring more powerful light sources for the same light on screen.

So it's still at 24 FPS, but the double flicker helps to give you that special "movie" feel. Quite frankly, monitors don't work like movie projectors so I've always felt the comparison is odd at best and wrong at worst.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Personally, I've never seen a 120Hz monitor, so I have no idea how noticeable it is.

As for lower framerates, anything below 50 is bothersome: the difference between 50-60 for me is negligible, but the minute it goes below 50, I get a bit annoyed.

I just got a new gpu, so anything below 60 is a bit bothersome, unless the game is incredibly demanding. Below 50 and it is a bit unacceptable.

 

[BartyMae]

Would you notice? Yes, I think so - or at least I did, not even realizing what it was when I first saw it that was different from normal. But the same difference? Eh...I don't really think so, but I never really got used to seeing it that way to begin with, so...

 

[thewatergamer]

Honestly never understood why people freak out if a game is "ONLY 30 FPS WTF OMG NEVR BUYING<<<<<<!"

IDK but personally I can barely notice a difference...

but maybe thats just me

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I think after 60FPS, the main difference the eye sees is more dependent on your monitor's refresh rate. Typically speaking, anything up to or around 120Hz is going to make a difference along with framerate.

Though a reason people are reaching for higher FPS is because they don't want to live 'on the edge' of acceptable. If a game stutters and drops 20FPS in a busy part, it's better to have 80FPS and have it drop to 60 than it is to have 60 FPS and have it drop to 40.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I've only ever used 60 Hz monitors, so I can't judge anything higher than that, but I can say that low framerates don't really bother me, as long as it's not insanely low. I can notice a side by side comparison, but if I'm just playing normally i wouldn't be able to tell you what framerate I'm running at without some third party software. I just don't care all that much, and this is coming from a pc gamer.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

From what I have read on tech forums regarding 120/144 hz (FPS) it will seem smoother and more life like. personally I haven't seen them but I notice a HUGE difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, so much in fact that I hate 30 fps and in a lot of games that require fast reflexes.

 

[Heronblade]

Frankly, no, and I do not particularly wish for that to change. Not least because I have no problem playing when the FPS drops as low as 20, (which inevitably happens eventually regardless of how much money you pour into your setup) while many other gamers are tearing their hair out over it.

Anything beyond 30 FPS is unnecessary, and is not in fact noticeable unless you train your eyes for it. The only argument for getting used to and using a higher FPS is in terms of twitch reactions in PVP, and even then your own personal skill and relative latency due to internet connections both have a much greater effect than the ~0.000-0.015 seconds of reaction time you can gain by shifting to 60 FPS, or the ~0.000-0.008 seconds gained going from 60 to 120.

 

[Fractral]

It's hard unless I've seen that particular game at both 30 and 60. Skyrim, for example, was a very noticeable jump when I played it on a friends PS3 compared to my PC, while Halo 4 on my Xbox felt fine. Though when it did start to slow down I noticed it far more than my friends. The difference was probably about 30 to 20 and I was complaining while my console-bound mates were wondering what I was on about.

 

[Yuuki]

If people are going to say "there's no difference between 60fps and 120fps", always add a "FOR ME" at the end of that, never imply as if it's some kind of wide-accepted fact. Because it's been fucking REPEATEDLY proven time and again that there is absolutely a difference, especially when competitive tournaments like MLG are endorsing 144hz monitors (think they are doing that for giggles?).

As for me, I've been using a 120hz monitor for the past year and now it feels like night and day compared to 60fps. As soon as the framerate dips down to 50-60fps (really intensive scenarios or something) I can immediately tell because it feels so damn choppy. I can tolerate it in games like MMO's during really big boss/world encounters with tons of players on screen (expected really), but can't tolerate it in more fast-paced games like 1st/3rd person shooters...and Audiosurf. 120fps in Audiosurf just feels awesome, period.

30 fps is not even an option at this point. I don't know how anyone can play competitively with that level of added input lag (33ms+) and slideshow-stile camera panning / movement. 50-60fps is my "absolute minimum", 80-90fps+ is my expectation, 110-130fps is my preference.

There is no going back. I am humbly awaiting monitor technology to improve, especially in regards to IPS panels (currently 120/144hz is TN-only @ 1080p). Something has to be done to lower IPS response times and increase refresh rates to 120-144hz while running at 2560x1440 and having splendid colors / viewing-angles.

 

[Lunar Templar]

so says you, but i have noticed the difference between 30 and 60. 30 FPS games might not bother me (don't waste my time in competitive multiplayer) but there is a difference.

 

[Hoplon]

big snip

Yeah i think they push what they are getting paid to.

Of course you notice 60fps drops, who couldn't but if it held at 60 FPS the whole time you wouldn't because the drops aren't there.

IPS already have the response time (mine are 3.4 ms GtG) the chips doing the refresh rate are kept cheap to keep prices down (and 90% of people will never notice)