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

[Yuuki]

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

Are...are you serious? MLG aren't getting paid to do anything. It's a mass-request from competitive gamers.

(impressions start at 6:38)

BenQ isn't exactly a huge company in a position to start handing out money to tournament organizers tournaments in order to get their monitors advertised. It's demand-driven.

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.

Been there done that, it's as simple as setting my monitor to 60hz (or hard-limiting ingame FPS to 60). Yes, the drops are less noticeable since I'm playing at 60fps the whole time, but it's still a rather unpleasant framerate to play any game where I'm rapidly rotating the camera or looking around, or moving fast. My beloved 120hz butter-smoothness is gone.

(and 90% of people will never notice)

I wish people stopped assuming this, especially pulling a statistic like 90% out of nowhere.

 

[Hoplon]

(and 90% of people will never notice)

I wish people stopped assuming this, especially pulling a statistic like 90% out of nowhere.

Not really, the gaming market is like 10% of PC sales.

 

[Ravage]

As long as I can run anything @ 60 FPS with high or ultra settings, I'm happy, anything higher is just being spoiled, haha. Anything lower and it irks me. Which is why it's time to upgrade from my 670 to a 780... Black Friday can't get here soon enough, haha.

 

[Yuuki]

(and 90% of people will never notice)

I wish people stopped assuming this, especially pulling a statistic like 90% out of nowhere.

Not really, the gaming market is like 10% of PC sales.

Look at the thread title. Nobody outside the gaming market even knows what framerates are, and the differences between framerates are completely irrelevant to them. Not because "they will never notice", but because they don't even play any games. So why are you bringing them up

As long as I can run anything @ 60 FPS with high or ultra settings, I'm happy, anything higher is just being spoiled, haha. Anything lower and it irks me. Which is why it's time to upgrade from my 670 to a 780... Black Friday can't get here soon enough, haha.

Thanks to AMD releasing 290X at such a competetive price it's really done some incredible things to nVidia's pricing, especially 780 which is looking to be a price/performance winner for $499-520. Especially considering that card has INSANE overclocking headroom, around +25-30% on average, I've got mine running at 1228mhz core / 7000mhz memory.

 

[Neyon]

You would see a difference yes but there are diminishing returns. Is 120fps better than 60fps? Hell yes. But what you have to decide is whether the lower image quality you will find on faster panels is worth sacrificing for smoother animation.

Just remember two things:

A) Increases in quality are harder to spot than decreases. If you are used to 60fps you won't immediately see a big difference moving up to 120fps(and hz). Once you get used to 120fps however 60fps seems to stutter. It is the same with moving up resolution.

B) Beware of people pulling "facts" out of their ass. This happens all the time in this type of discussion. People will start claiming "79% of people...", "The eye sees at 720p", "The brain can only perceive a maximum of [this number I just made up] FPS" etc. Higher refresh rate monitors exist because they do offer real benefits, they wouldn't otherwise.

 

[Hoplon]

(and 90% of people will never notice)

I wish people stopped assuming this, especially pulling a statistic like 90% out of nowhere.

Not really, the gaming market is like 10% of PC sales.

Look at the thread title. Nobody outside the gaming market even knows what framerates are, and the differences between framerates are completely irrelevant to them. Not because "they will never notice", but because they don't even play any games. So why are you bringing them up

Because it's why there has been no big push towards very fast refresh rates. Also you said i was making something up.

and as for even with in the gaming world, that 90% is still true since most people don't have 120hz capable monitors so they literally wouldn't be able to tell. You are seeing the fluctuation, not the absolute frame rate, that being the major reason lots of people use Vsync to eliminate it. variation free is preferable to high top end but low bottom end and flicking between it.

 

[loc978]

Depends on how good your eyes are. Personally, I can't see a difference between 40 and 75. 30 to 40 is noticeable, though. Never seen over 75Hz, but I don't think it would make a difference to me, since 40-75 doesn't.

 

[GundamSentinel]

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

Heh, I've enough experience playing on horrible PCs not to complain if my FPS drops. I can notice low FPS when I pay attention to it (which I don't). And I just don't care much. I'll happily play games even with under 30FPS. Around 20 is often enough for me.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Yes, there is a difference, and it is very noticeable, but only in certain ways. Some people have already mentioned that most monitors are only capable of putting out 60 frames a second anyway, so I'll just assume everyone is aware of this.

There is no "frame rate" limit in the eyes, though the brain itself has a "cap" on how fast it can perceive things. However, it perceives different types of change differently. For example, your brain will detect a moving object way faster than it will detect the finer details of its form. This gets even weirder when you add in the concept of closure and realize that the brain can often "fill in the gaps" on things it hasn't fully perceived yet. Ever had a situation where you were killed by an enemy that you swore was a friend? This is exactly why.

In my experience playing counter strike on a 144hz monitor as opposed to 60hz monitor, my reaction time improves only a very slight amount, but I'm far more likely to hit someone as they run across my crosshair. Furthermore, it makes a night and day difference for shooting people moving back and forth rapidly. Paying 300 dollars for a 24 inch monitor in order to have an easier time shooting at moving targets might not be worth it to a lot of people, but I certainly don't regret the purchase.

I think it's also worth mentioning that low frame rates can cause drastic effects in some multiplayer games. It has nothing to do with what the player can see and is an entirely different discussion, but it's another reason for wanting a high frame rate.

 

[Ritualist]

A 30 to 60 jump just looks prettier to me. Smoother movement and all, but nothing too outstanding. A 60 to 120 is god damned mind blowing when I look at it.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Maybe if the two were put next to each other and it was a side-by-side comparison. Probably not if I was just looking at it. I think I heard something like you eye can only send images to your brain at the speed of 30FPS, but I can notice an extremely slight difference between 30 and 60 if I look for it. Though I guess that could be because the 30 frames would have to be synced up perfectly with the rate that your eyes are sending the images to your brain, or that fact could just not be true.

 

[gsilver]

The biggest thing that always gets me in console gaming vs PC gaming isn't the detail or resolution, but the framerates. 30FPS feels decidedly clunky, while 60FPS feels much smoother.

I'm also the kind of person who cringes during pans while watching movies... I don't care what Hollywood says, 24FPS is an eyesore.


Now, 60FPS vs 120... I don't have a source that can playback 120hz, but my current monitor is running at 100hz. It is an improvement, but not immediately noticeable. The bigger deal when going from a 60FPS average frame rate to a 120FPS one is that it minimizes the drops (independent of your display). An area in a game that cuts your frame rate in half at 120FPS still leaves you at a perfectly acceptable 60FPS, while losing half of the frame rate at 60FPS drops to a janky 30FPS.

Now, I'm certainly happy to have a higher framerate monitor, but 100 -> 60FPS is by no means the deal breaker that 60FPS -> 30FPS is.

 

[ron1n]

For genres where there's less stuff going on and you don't have to react, then whatever.

But in an FPS, racing game, fighter, or anything remotely competitive, frame rate makes a huge difference. Honestly, if more people experienced these games on a 120hz monitor, they wouldn't even consider 30fps as an option.

Heck, the fact LCD's initially didn't have 120hz models available was one of the prime reasons CRT monitors survived for as long as they did. Moving from a 120hz CRT to a 60hz 2ms LCD felt like a downgrade in some ways.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I honestly can't feel a difference passed 30fps unless there is a sudden drop. I guess everyone is different though.
I know it means my HD7770 will last longer for me than it will some people. so im happy i don't notice.
Now 720 to 1080. That's a very different story

Captcha;
Got my mojo

Groovy Captcha

 

[Synthetica]

For me, it depends on the game. I'm so used to 300 fps in TF2, that 30 just feels completely unplayable, 60 feels... Okay, but annoying. 100 and higher is acceptable. Borderlands 2 on the other hand, 20 fps is passable. Not great, but playable.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Most people do not have monitors/screens with a refresh rate high enough to experience more than 60fps, so for most of us the answer is no.