Like a few others have said, it really does depend on a few other technical factors. Framerate smoothing for example might bump up your fps, but your input response might end up suffering anyway. Overall, I try to strike whatever balance I can depending on the game, sacrificing visual quality one iota at a time if I have to. It's definitely more painful cranking down the quality these days, given the increasingly beautiful (and yet costly) rendering processes.
Poll: Constant 30FPS or Variable 60FPS
- Thread starter Elvis Starburst
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As long as that 60fps drop doesn't make it extremely bad its better than constant 30fps.
We should already be aiming for 120fps.
We should already be aiming for 120fps.
It depends on how much of a variability we're talking about. If it's 60 and drops to 30 (like Inquisition did for its dialogue cutscenes), I would probably choose constant 30; though even that depends on the type of game. If the variable is between 45-60fps, I'll take variable 60. I find games both a lot more responsive and better looking at 60, even if it's not steady. I'll gladly drop settings to medium (or even low, sometimes), if that means getting higher fps. I made Witcher 3, one of the most beautiful games out there, look like an Etch-A-Sketch in my previous system just to get 50-60 fps in combat and I regret nothing.
It's also the game. WoW is characterized by a general sense of stillness and characters move like action figures, animations are kind of limited compared to newer games. The way the combat works also makes running at 60 mostly meaningless.deadish said:
Variable 60. There's a mind trick that happens at around 50FPS where the motion blur just stops and a game can trick your mind so that what's on screen looks real and physical. It's the same effect that The Hobbit had when it was shown in its higher FPS 3D format. For movies it's a bit eery and your mind is straining to keep up so some scenes seem to be running in fast forward. But for games, it's just an added level of clarity. So I'll take variable 60 over 30 flat any day. Besides, if it's PC, you can always drop one setting to make it constant 60.
Completely depends on the game, but given I'm on Xbox I'd settle for a rock solid 30, lest the delicate gubbins and retro specs MS shoved into it get antsy.
If variable means small increments then the higher FPS is always better, but with dogshit like V-synch you only get a high or low number and that is the most jarring thing.
And it is jarring because the low end is so fucking horrid in comparison.
And it is jarring because the low end is so fucking horrid in comparison.
TS should specify just how variable. Framerate at critical moments is what it's all about. Everything on top of that is a little nice extra.
If a game can run at around 60 Hz on average, it's dips should usually be less severe than when a game can manage only 30 fps, but there are exceptions.
I interpreted the question as choose between 30+ frames capped to 30 (and having variable AA and AF) or somewhere between 30 and 100 fps averaging about 60 fps (triple buffered and constant graphical fidelity).
If a game can run at around 60 Hz on average, it's dips should usually be less severe than when a game can manage only 30 fps, but there are exceptions.
I interpreted the question as choose between 30+ frames capped to 30 (and having variable AA and AF) or somewhere between 30 and 100 fps averaging about 60 fps (triple buffered and constant graphical fidelity).
Can't lie, I'm one of those a-holes who won't play a game that I can't run at a constant 60fps. Anything less and it feels too slow and delayed. That said, I did spend almost 8k on a gaming pc.
If I really had to choose between a constant 30fps and a variable rate (I assume higher than 30 but dipping less than 60?) then I'd have to go with the variable. 30 or less feels too sluggish and unresponsive to me.
If I really had to choose between a constant 30fps and a variable rate (I assume higher than 30 but dipping less than 60?) then I'd have to go with the variable. 30 or less feels too sluggish and unresponsive to me.
I mostly meant it as "The game can run at 60 FPS at points, but can and will drop to 30 in the much more frantic and intense moments, while lesser points will go between 30-60, depending on what's on screen." For example that I used in the OP, MH4U can handle 60 in a lot of areas on a New 3DS XL, but once a few enemies appear on screen, it drops below that slightly. Once you get a large enough monster, and/or a few extra hunters in the mix, it can drop to 30 quite easily. I hope that helps clarifyveloper said: