Your frame rate tolerance... (for those who don't have an 8800GTX).

We all experience that nowdays every new title has better and better graphics. With this comes higher system requirements. Those, who don't have the very latest hardware are in a dilema, whether to lower the graphics details(and not experience anything seen on screenshots) or to have low frame rates in some parts of the game (I am not taking into consideration those, who can buy new hardware when they buy a new game...)

So,what's the lowest frame rate you can still tolerate in a game? I can tolerate if the fps falls to 23-24 for a short period, but usually everything under 30 is weak... I mostly play strategy games... For shooters 23-24 is definetely too low...

For a RTS game, anything above 20 FPS is fine.

For a FPS anything above 25FPS is fine with me.

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

Normally i would turn off settings like AA and soft shadows to get a better frame rate.

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

dbowman

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

30+ for slower paced/non-twitch games

60+ for FPS game

Unlike what most people say i can easily tell the difference between 30, 60, 90, and 120 frames

im gettin 60fps in stalker

lost planet demo 30-40 720p medium-high settings

my system

a2m-sli deluxe - dualcore 6000+ - 570mhz 8800gts - 2gb ddr2 - sata2 hdd.

RTS i'm fine with 20. I can handle 15 ish but not a fan if it dips below.

FPS anything over 30. I like the game to have a stand still frame rate of about 60 because when things really kick off they dip down. So if your at 30fps and you start fighting it will dip some so now it's sluggish.

Pretty much most games i like at 30 or higher.

Just upgraded my rig to a very good setup so should be a while before i get back down to the 30fps or less margin in games

im gettin 60fps in stalker

lost planet demo 30-40 720p medium-high settings

my system

a2m-sli deluxe - dualcore 6000+ - 570mhz 8800gts - 2gb ddr2 - sata2 hdd.

sm0ke311

Okay...In my universe that is a high end system. This topic is mainly for those with medium systems, who do have trouble with frame rates sometimes...

Oh, and another question... Is it more important for you to have higher frame rates or cooler visual effects?varpad

30+ for slower paced/non-twitch games

60+ for FPS game

Unlike what most people say i can easily tell the difference between 30, 60, 90, and 120 frames

zero9167

I'm definitely with this guy. I wish I couldn't tell the difference from 30fps and up.

And I do prefer having nice visuals. If i can't have them I feel less motivated to play the game. so i will sacrifice some performance if i have to. but if i play online, anything below 60fps w/ v-sync is unacceptable.

Nice nice. 54fps in coh isnt' bad. My lowest is 60. The big game that i had to upgrade for was supreme commander. That game butchered my old gaming rig (p4 2.8ghz, 1gb pc3200 ram and a 7200rpm hdd).

Scary enough i have managed drop the frame rates pretty badly on my new rig

Intel QX6700 @ 2.66ghz

EVGA 8800GTX KO

2gb pc6400

WD Raptor 160gb

Supreme commander and putting too many characters on the screen on a custom built HL2 map i was toying around with.

Iall often sacrfice FPS for higher graphics settings, as i can easily play any game with as low as 25-30fps and it not really bother me all that much.

These topics make me laugh. Kids come in claiming what the human eye can and can't differentiate between like they are MD Professors who have been doing research and testing on the subject and their opinion actually matters. You can't even cite your source, which probably isn't credible anyways. I know for a fact when I boot up a game with my frame rates locked at 100Hz getting a steady 100FPS, as opposed to 60/60 or 85/85, or anything for the matter, I can see a difference. Not only that, but many factors of gameplay change depending on the game when your frame rates increase. I'm not farmiliar with to many games, but in CS for example you can't rock climb with less than 59FPS I think it is. In NS, at least way back in the day, your jet pack lasted longer the more FPS you had. So don't go bashing on frame whores when you seem to know NOTHING on the topic. :\

As for myself, I will play any brand spankin new game at a consistent 30FPS, and I will tolerate some frame loss ofcourse. Anything more then a year or two goes is more like...

FPS: 60fps ][ RPG: 30FPS ][ RTS: 20 FPS ][ Sim Racing : 50FPS

And ofcourse the older the game the steeper my demands get for frame rates. Obviously more twitch games require higher frame rates and smoother gameplay.

[QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

varpad

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

Wrong, I can see the difference easy as hell. There is no cap on what the human eye can see, it is uncertain.

[QUOTE="varpad"][QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

V4LENT1NE

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

Wrong, I can see the difference easy as hell. There is no cap on what the human eye can see, it is uncertain.

OK...Than I probably made a stupid point... I've heard it somewhere.But, I've read some articles now and there are people who claim that the eye can see the difference between 30, 60 or 200 fps... http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

FPS: 60(minimum)

RTS : 30

Thing is, it depends on the game. For example on CoD2 you need AT LEAST 125fps constant(on dx7 of course, dx9 = the suck)

RTS 30+FPS

Multiplayer FPS 60+FPS

Singleplayer FPS 30+FPS

I can really depend on which type of game I'm playing, but when playing multiplayer I will never go down 60FPS.

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"][QUOTE="varpad"][QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

varpad

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

Wrong, I can see the difference easy as hell. There is no cap on what the human eye can see, it is uncertain.

OK...Than I probably made a stupid point... I've heard it somewhere.But, I've read some articles now and there are people who claim that the eye can see the difference between 30, 60 or 200 fps... http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

I dunno, maybe it's because I drive an older rig, I've learned to tolerate lower frame rates. Generally, if a game will run at an average of 20FPS, or better, I'll give it a go. As for uber scores of 60+, I couldn't say whether my ol' eyes could see a difference, or not. It wouldn't be the point anyway. The point of having massive frame rates now, is future proofing your system against the more demanding games that are still to come. I think the more you can squeeze out of your rig the better, even if the increase is imperceptible.

The minimum for me would be 24 FPS. Trying to hit the "sweet spot" can be difficult. Its mostly a trial and error thing. The first options that I turn off are Anti-Aliasing, shadows and dynamic lightning (in that order). I always try to keep anisotropic filtering on because it has a great impact on the visual detail (and it doesnt have the same performance hit as AA).

RTS-30 FPS or more

FPS-60 FPS or more

RPG-25 FPS or more

for me 20FPS or is fine for all genre of games, 20 feels exactly the same as 30, 40,50, 60,70 for me.nohnaimer

I don't believe this... It's ok, if you can play at 20fps, but it isn't the same as the others (not even for you :) )...

i have a 7600 GT nvdia pcie and ran HL2 stress test on full everything on full even HD and averaged 24 fps :( that was a 128 v card, i want a 512 video card ....imagine the difference prop stabalizes at 60 fps or seomthing:) want one but dont want to ahve to pay 500 for it :P

30+ for FPS

20+ for RTS

30+ for Racing

FPS is 30, i play bf2142 with 30-40

and RTS is 30 too

It all depends on what game it is. It's strange when playing CS 1.6 you need to have at least 80-90fps to be able to play well, while in Counter-Strike Source 30-50fps is fine.

In online games i feel that the frame rate is much more important than having good visuals, at least if you're playing seriously. While in single-player I can stand some lower fps to get better graphics.

As long as the video is smooth, who cares about the number?

In Wolfenstein: ET I go from 80 to 400 fps depending on the server, so I have to cap it at 333 fps. The game lags if I get anything higher.

I only play shooters so.....60FPS is my threshold for Single Player and as high as possible for Multi-Player. Lag in MP = Death.

shooting=25+

adventure/rpg=15+

rts=15+

I always have GPU's that are sort of old. Right now I have a 7600GT and that's already becoming obsolete.(Well sine the 8600 series is absolute crap its longevity has been strengthened :D) In RTS games I can tolerate it going into the high teens and for FPS games 30FPS+ is a must no matter what.

For some reason my 7600GT performs very poorly at BF2. Maxed out I average within the low 20's and high teens which makes no sense as the 7600GT is better than a 6800 ultra which is supposed to be able to max out BF2 a 1600x1200 with 40FPS+. Maybe it's because I have a dual core CPU?(X2 3800+) The low framerate has really made me not enjoy BF2 as much as I want to.

And I really don't know how anyone can have expectations of an FPS running at 60FPS AVERAGE. It makes no sense as most of the time when FPS games come out the best cards can't max the game out at that sort of framerate.(I'm talking about averages here, not max FPS)

With my geforce 8800GTS 320MB + 1GB of RAM I get very unstable frame rate in stalker. It ranges from 18 to 70, depending on the scene. But I'm totally fine with 18 fps as long asthere are no hiccups, I mean, the hiccups totally kill me. Every 30 seconds the screen freezes for 1 second. I will add RAM and solve this problem, but anyway my point is very clear I hope:

18 FPS is goody goody for me but PLEASE no hiccups!!!

Unlike what most people say i can easily tell the difference between 30, 60, 90, and 120 frameszero9167

The hell you can, unless your eyes & brain capabilities are abnormally high compared to an average person. 30 vs 60, yes, but not 90 vs 120.

There was this little test I did to my friends. I let them listen to 2 audio files, one at 256kbs, the other at 384kbs. With the version being played made available to them, they all claimed they could tell the difference between the 2 files. When I kept the version info from them and played the files randomly, they went "ah...uh..." and guessed wrong half the times. It was just in their mind.

well for me it really depends what type of genre, and on top of that what GAME. for RTS's i have to have at least 25-30. for FPS's i MUST have 75 FPS min. i play CoD2 a lot and for that game i have to have at least 125 FPS Flat. (because that's the best jumping fps) but thankfully if i turn the gfx way down on cod2 i can get 300 fps flat :D0_Wii_Man_0

You guys are all wrong. The maximum number of frames per second you can "see" has absolutely nothing to do with what your brain can interpret. Your eyes and your brain can interpret far more information than any computer. Your perceived FPS is limited to the refresh rate (and NOT the response time) of your monitor, period. If your display is capped at 60Hz -- which isn't uncommon for LCD monitors -- you are only seeing 60FPS, even if your graphics card is pumping out 100+ frames per second. Know what the visual difference is between 60FPS and 100FPS on a 60Hz display? Tearing. That's right, visual artifacts created by discrepancies in the rate of communication between the graphics card and the monitor. Bottom line: your brain is amazing. 8)JN_Fenrir

If you're not BSing that, it's the smartist thing i've heard today...