What happened to 90+ fps?

[ripdajacker]

Hey all

I have read a few articles/seen videos about the difference in 30 and 60fps.

I remember a time, maybe around Quake 3, where 60fps simply wasn't enough, and you'd want it to run at 90 or more. I usually capped it at 125 to aid me in strafejumping.

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

 

[cypher-raige]

What happened to those fps numbers?

Nothing happened.

Turn off v-sync and you will get hundreds of frames-per-second.

 

[Hazy992]

It's still there? Just buy a 120Hz monitor and go nuts (so long as your hardware is up for it).

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well we are talking about a time where PC gaming was top dog where FPS has no limit, for the most part that is also an enthusiast crowd that will do the extra work to make it happen, and during that time Q3 engine ruled supreme so 90+ was also a sneaky exploit that made you move faster in most games... if you played competitively at all you pretty much couldn't go without.

And after that era ended the industry went back to console + TV(which have real shit refresh rates) so things slowed down and devs got used to 30FPS, and now we have to drag them out of that cave kicking and screaming once more.

 

[chocolatekeith]

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

That is exactly why. The vast majority of LCD screens have always been 60 hz.

 

[Nitrogeneration]

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

That is exactly why. The vast majority of LCD screens have always been 60 hz.

Exactly. 99.8% (made up number) of LCD screens are 60 Hz, and now developers are targeting 60 fps, or half that, 30 fps. If you want to game at 90+ fps, get a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor. Please note that, to run the latest games on ultra with 90+ fps, a $1,500+ rig is required for 1920x1080 and an absolute BEAST of a rig for 2560x1600.. For example, the GTX 780 Ti ($700 for the graphics card alone) only averages 80 fps on BF4 ultra settings at 1920x1080, and 50 fps at 2560x1600. Some say that the human eye can not distinguish above 60 fps, and I'd say they are partially right. I can not distinguish much between 60 fps and 90 fps (I've tried it.)

 

[porpoise hork]

It's still there? Just buy a 120Hz monitor and go nuts (so long as your hardware is up for it).

What happened to those fps numbers?

Nothing happened.

Turn off v-sync and you will get hundreds of frames-per-second.

And watch the page tearing extravaganza too!

 

[Weaver]

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

That is exactly why. The vast majority of LCD screens have always been 60 hz.

Exactly. 99.8% (made up number) of LCD screens are 60 Hz, and now developers are targeting 60 fps, or half that, 30 fps. If you want to game at 90+ fps, get a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor. Please note that, to run the latest games on ultra with 90+ fps, a $1,500+ rig is required for 1920x1080 and an absolute BEAST of a rig for 2560x1600.. For example, the GTX 780 Ti ($700 for the graphics card alone) only averages 80 fps on BF4 ultra settings at 1920x1080, and 50 fps at 2560x1600. Some say that the human eye can not distinguish above 60 fps, and I'd say they are partially right. I can not distinguish much between 60 fps and 90 fps (I've tried it.)

Maybe your eyes can't distinguish it, but that doesn't mean your eyes speak for all humans. It's like claiming the human stomach can only hold 3 hot dogs because you can only eat 3 hot dogs.

I can very easily tell the difference between 60 and 120.

 

[AmberSword]

A note to anyone who can't even differentiate between 30fps and 120fps, try a rhythm game on PC, cap your framerate at various levels, play something reasonably fast. You probably WILL notice the difference, above something around 150 it starts getting negligible, but below 120 there's a world of difference, heck just google osu! and go nuts, its completely free anyway. High AND stable FPS is very important in these types of games, just turning on vsync (fps capped to 60) can totally wreck my speed and feel for the game, fluctuating fps does the same as well.

After playing these types of games for awhile you will start noticing inferior FPS in regular games. It's not really a matter of seeing the difference, but more in feeling the difference.

 

[Signa]

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

That is exactly why. The vast majority of LCD screens have always been 60 hz.

Exactly. 99.8% (made up number) of LCD screens are 60 Hz,

That number is incredibly incorrect in the context of the rest of the sentence. Most TVs sold these days are 120hz or 240hz. The problem is that they only accept 60hz input, so the rest of the flickers is hardware upscaling to make up missing frames. For TV viewers, it gets a best of both worlds result, because it does look like a higher framerate, but it doesn't require new hardware to push the higher framerate video feed.

When it comes to gaming though, it introduces a lot of lag, which makes a lot of things unplayable.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

console players are still too busy with the 30 vs 60 debacle, baby steps

 

[Charli]

Still an option but...I mean the human eye can only see so many frames a second anyway, I think the understanding is that any higher than 60 is a tad superfluous for the general public due to screens also. I mean there's a difference, but it's not eye blisteringly beautiful difference. 60 does it for me fine.


And yeah some console games are still hanging out in the 30 range, its a big step for them.

 

[Rozalia1]

More frames mean they can't push their top graphics as well/easily I suppose.
I play at 120+ frames myself on a couple games to cut down on grinding time as in them the overall speed is tied to the frame rate, so you can play at such frame rates if you wish to.

 

[Vigormortis]

Um...I routinely have my games running at well above 120 frames. CS:GO usually runs well above 200.

Not entirely sure what the OP is on about.

:/

 

[Phrozenflame500]

60 is generally considered "ok" by the majority of people. I mean, you can totally see more but the difference is less pronounced then from 30 to 60. Added to that 60hz is generally the standard for monitors nowadays and the fact consoles are struggling to hit locked 30 much less 60 there's less of a demand for 60+.

You still see it often in competitive circles though. Especially in Source/GoldSrc games where framerate is more directly tied to input and the engine then normal.

 

[DoPo]

I mean the human eye can only see so many frames a second anyway

The human eye does not work at neither 30 [http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html] nor 60 FPS. The human eye [http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html] does not work in frames at all. [http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm]

There, so can we please stop saying this sort of things? Thanks.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Monitors happened 60hz is the most common. If you have something to support 120+ you can go nuts with it. Uncapping tf 2 or Half life episode 2 I can hit 300 fps everything cranked up. Or in WoW if i drop some settings it'll go to 800+ but nothing will display that, heck idt an HDMI cable would do 1080 at 800fps lol.


Plus you hit massive diminishing returns pushing modern games over 60fps. for BF4 a midrange 760 will probably max everything (well maybe not full msaa or w/e fancy effect but still you could hit the preset ultra and hit 60fps) to go above a 100 fps your looking at an SLI system or a 780ti at minimum.

 

[BrotherRool]

FPS only matters at levels where the frames will actually show up on a monitor. The vast majority of people have monitors that can only show 60FPS, if 120hz becomes a thing then maybe we'll have people discuss 120FPS.


Incidentally, 90FPS results in a jerky inconsistent frame rate even with a 120FPS monitor. It means the game is displaying 60FPS for half the time and 120FPS the other half.

That's why no-one cares about 45FPS. 45FPS is sometimes 60 and sometimes 30. So the next big milestone isn't 90, but 120.

 

[Bad Jim]

What happened to those fps numbers?
Is it because we had CRT screens then, that ran at 85-140 hz, or is it something different?

CRT monitors flicker, and a lot of people got eyestrain on CRT monitors at 60Hz, especially office workers who had to stare at the screen all day. So most CRTs allowed higher refresh rates, as very few people notice flickering at 100Hz+. LCDs, on the other hand, do not flicker.

Another thing about LCDs is that there is a tradeoff between TN panels with fast response times and IPS panels that have better image quality but slower response times. You can basically have a 144Hz TN monitor or a 60Hz IPS monitor. And most people will pick image quality, so the IPS is cheaper due to economies of scale.

Also, cables have a limited data capacity so you can't have 4k resolution at 144Hz, even if your PC is somehow powerful enough.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Some say that the human eye can not distinguish above 60 fps, and I'd say they are partially right. I can not distinguish much between 60 fps and 90 fps (I've tried it.)

Unless you have a screen with 90+Hz refresh rate that accepts that input no you will likely not see any difference but there is a still a difference in feel which is the whole point of having high fps. Also some games as people said with Q3 engine had performance tied to fps so once you get past a certain mark the game plays by different rules for you than someone else. As in you move faster, jump higher, shoot quicker, etc. CoD 2 had some of this as well.