80's kid here. I played so many games at less than 1fps growing up that I just cannot bring myself to care about 30+FPS.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I can't see 120HZ /FPS. How about you?
- Thread starter Feenix
- Start date
This was if for me. It's definitely more subtle than 30 to 60 jump but the general responsiveness makes it feel like there's no delay between what my hand is doing vs my fingers. It's a bit easier to notice with mouse movements as well. But playing halo at 120 FPS is quite incredible
I have a 144hz monitor and play some stuff at high Framerate. While I notice the difference it is pretty marginal to me. As someone who mostly plays SP games 60 fps is enough.
I can't even tell 30 from 60. Or 20 from 30 sometimes. It's gotta be really choppy before I notice.
I don't know what to tell you. I've had so many people try and show me comparisons. They look identical.
They don't look identical at all to me, 20 is not even that playable for any game that's fast paced! I played Crysis 1 at like 20fps in 2009 and I couldn't even play it properly. Had to wait until 2011 to get 30fps and above which felt so much better(though 30fps still wasn't perfectly ideal, glad I can do better with the game now).
I mean yes, judging from what I've read they don't look identical for most people. I just can't tell the difference when it comes to 30 vs 60. And unless it's dipping into the teens, when 30 dips into the 20s, I don't notice. The Zelda Musou thread had all these complaints about performance and I was baffled. Looked smooth to me.
I wish 60 would feel fluid. But the only thing that feels fluid is my TVs motion interpolation plus black screen insertion. I checked and it is slightly more fluid than 120hz with bsi. 60 compared to these feels like a powerpoint presentation (exaggaration).
Too bad modern games are barely playable at high framerates and high resolutions. I want a 4K120hz future.
But I also wish I wouldn't see the difference. Ignorance is bliss.
Too bad modern games are barely playable at high framerates and high resolutions. I want a 4K120hz future.
But I also wish I wouldn't see the difference. Ignorance is bliss.
I can accept 30fps, as long as it's locked. If it dips too far and often then it's a problem.
90-100hz is the limit for me. Above that and it looks the same to me
For me variable refresh rate is more important. Not having to "lock" a game to a certain frame rate on PC has been so liberating.
For me variable refresh rate is more important. Not having to "lock" a game to a certain frame rate on PC has been so liberating.
Scrolling though ResetEra posts at 240Hz, let me tell you. I can't go back.
There's only 216 posts in the thread, and they are several tens of thousands of members on this forum. I wouldn't say this thread represents a lot of people.
Picked up a 144hz IPS panel earlier this year (works with Gsync). I cannot go back, at least for games that require twitch aiming and fast reactions. I can game at anything 30 or above, obviously - especially if the gameplay is fine with that level of sluggishness. Drops below 30 though are very, very jarring. So are inconsistent frame times at lower frame rates. I have trouble telling a whole lot of a difference beyond 120 hz, but I can still tell a difference in terms of precieved fluidity (no tearing thanks to Gsync) if my game is swinging between say 90-120 fps. 120-144 I can't really notice. 60-90 is extremely noticable though. But for any FPS I aim to experience it at 100 fps or above anymore.
To the OP,
It will be less noticable on some games when using a controller, especially if you use slower aim speeds. Try Gears 5 with a Keyboard and Mouse, the difference can feel amazing if you notice it.
There's no way I know of to get an fps readout from gakes on PS5/XSX without special external equipment.
As for games that support 120fps, off the top of my head
Xbox Series X
- Ori and the Will of the Wisps
- Gears 5
- Halo Master Chief Collection
- Dirt 5
- Borderlands 3
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
- Call of Duty Warzone
- Call of Duty Modern Warfare?
- Devil May Cry V Special Edition
- Ranbow Six Seige (patch coming soon)
- The Falconeer
- The Touryst
- Cross code
- Star Wars Squadrons
- WRC 9
- Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
- Destiny 2 (on incoming patch?)
PS5
- Dirt 5
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
- Devil May Cry V Special Edition
- WRC 9
- Borderlands 3
- Ranbow Six Seige (patch coming soon)
- Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
- Destiny 2 (on incoming patch?)
- Ni-Oh Collection (coming soon?)
It will be less noticable on some games when using a controller, especially if you use slower aim speeds. Try Gears 5 with a Keyboard and Mouse, the difference can feel amazing if you notice it.
There's no way I know of to get an fps readout from gakes on PS5/XSX without special external equipment.
As for games that support 120fps, off the top of my head
Xbox Series X
- Ori and the Will of the Wisps
- Gears 5
- Halo Master Chief Collection
- Dirt 5
- Borderlands 3
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
- Call of Duty Warzone
- Call of Duty Modern Warfare?
- Devil May Cry V Special Edition
- Ranbow Six Seige (patch coming soon)
- The Falconeer
- The Touryst
- Cross code
- Star Wars Squadrons
- WRC 9
- Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
- Destiny 2 (on incoming patch?)
PS5
- Dirt 5
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
- Devil May Cry V Special Edition
- WRC 9
- Borderlands 3
- Ranbow Six Seige (patch coming soon)
- Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom
- Destiny 2 (on incoming patch?)
- Ni-Oh Collection (coming soon?)
Last edited:
I'm on PC but anything over 90Hz is a nice increase in framerate. 60 to 144Hz was a bigger jump than 144Hz to 240Hz for me but the biggest difference was 240Hz running with motion blur reduction. Biggest drawback to using it is the need for a high, consistent framerate. I think 480Hz might be good enough for a while but it's already hard to hit 120 fps on AAA games even at 1080p.
No worries, enjoy! Also, feel free to let us know what you think. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to get either console working at 120fps with my 4k monitor. I would love to get an LG CX one day.
Well I was until yesterday in the camp that I cant tell difference between 30 and 60
Now I have a 34" monitor running 1440p and my HDMI port cant handle 60fps so its stuck at 30. First time I see my mouse cursor is lagging, the faster I move there more cursors I see
Def. Need to get my monitor up to 60 fps xD
One day I shall witness 120/144
Now I have a 34" monitor running 1440p and my HDMI port cant handle 60fps so its stuck at 30. First time I see my mouse cursor is lagging, the faster I move there more cursors I see
Def. Need to get my monitor up to 60 fps xD
One day I shall witness 120/144
It will be glorious, I been there since last month and will never get a 60hz monitor for gaming ever again.
I've noticed games like Gears 5 still need 120fps turned on via an in-game menu. Just allowing 120hz from the console dashboard isn't enough. So you may think you're playing in 120fps when you're actually still at 60fps.
Last edited:
If I look at aide to side comparisons I notice a difference.
But if I'm not going back and forth the difference between 60 and 120 is almost non existent to me. Hell 30fps seems fine to me. As long as the frame rate is at least 30 and is consistent, it works for me.
But if I'm not going back and forth the difference between 60 and 120 is almost non existent to me. Hell 30fps seems fine to me. As long as the frame rate is at least 30 and is consistent, it works for me.
The biggest difference I can notice is the increased motion resolution, however that is more of an artifact of sample and hold display technology without black frame insertion than it is an inherent advantage of rendering 120fps. Enabling black frame insertion with 60hz content on my OLED gives me the same motion resolution and negates a lot of the benefits of 120fps rendering without the extreme cost in GPU and CPU resources (and the inevitably increased variability in frame rate).
BFI doesn't play nicely with HDR though (as it effectively halves peak brightness, which really needs to be maintained on an OLED in HDR) so there is the benefit that you can enjoy that increased motion resolution with HDR content
In SDR content I don't instantly notice a dramatic difference going between 120hz and 60hz + BFI but after an hour + playing at 120hz then 60hz will look more framey when I jump back.
For me, frametime consistency is my primary goal, especially given I'm using an OLED without VRR which also means 120hz is restricted to 1080p for me. There's just too many trade offs and not enough benefit and achieving a true locked 120fps (i.e. 0.1% frametime of 8.3ms) is incredibly demanding no matter what hardware you have, so I'll stick to 60hz. A genuine locked 60hz is still incredibly smooth and gives a great experience on a controller. 120hz that dips down to 100hz on a semi regular occasion is far more jarring on a display without VRR.
BFI doesn't play nicely with HDR though (as it effectively halves peak brightness, which really needs to be maintained on an OLED in HDR) so there is the benefit that you can enjoy that increased motion resolution with HDR content
In SDR content I don't instantly notice a dramatic difference going between 120hz and 60hz + BFI but after an hour + playing at 120hz then 60hz will look more framey when I jump back.
For me, frametime consistency is my primary goal, especially given I'm using an OLED without VRR which also means 120hz is restricted to 1080p for me. There's just too many trade offs and not enough benefit and achieving a true locked 120fps (i.e. 0.1% frametime of 8.3ms) is incredibly demanding no matter what hardware you have, so I'll stick to 60hz. A genuine locked 60hz is still incredibly smooth and gives a great experience on a controller. 120hz that dips down to 100hz on a semi regular occasion is far more jarring on a display without VRR.
I easily notice the change from 30 to 60 fps but I didn't notice any difference in the change from 60 to 120 fps. Days ago, I started to see it and it's spectacular. But what difference is that?
Let's go back in time, on the tube televisions. On these TVs the resolution is the same when you see a still or moving image. This gives incredible clarity to all elements of the game.
The technology changed and we went into the LCD era. We had a series of advantages such as higher resolution, smaller TVs but a series of disadvantages in relation to the tube as well and one of them is the so-called motion resolution.
when there is movement in the game, be it enemies or scenery, the resolution drops. I'm not talking about the "motion blur" effect that some games have to "blur" the scene and give that feeling of speed.
This loss of resolution of moving objects is a characteristic of LCD and similar technologies. "Okay, got it. What about 120 fps in this story?" That's it, in games that run at 120 fps the images are clear again, even those in motion, as it was in Tubes TV 15 years ago!
60 fps already improves that, but the image is still a little blurry in motion. But at 120 fps, everything is clear. Well, this is what I realized in the games I played at 120 fps:
Ori: you can change between 60 and 120 fps and as the game is 2D, it is very noticeable on the stage
Gears 5: the campaign is 60 fps and the multi is 120 fps, so you can see the difference well;
Halo (all of them)
The Touryst: very cute indie game!
I'am 43 years too and expect to play many years!
Let's go back in time, on the tube televisions. On these TVs the resolution is the same when you see a still or moving image. This gives incredible clarity to all elements of the game.
The technology changed and we went into the LCD era. We had a series of advantages such as higher resolution, smaller TVs but a series of disadvantages in relation to the tube as well and one of them is the so-called motion resolution.
when there is movement in the game, be it enemies or scenery, the resolution drops. I'm not talking about the "motion blur" effect that some games have to "blur" the scene and give that feeling of speed.
This loss of resolution of moving objects is a characteristic of LCD and similar technologies. "Okay, got it. What about 120 fps in this story?" That's it, in games that run at 120 fps the images are clear again, even those in motion, as it was in Tubes TV 15 years ago!
60 fps already improves that, but the image is still a little blurry in motion. But at 120 fps, everything is clear. Well, this is what I realized in the games I played at 120 fps:
Ori: you can change between 60 and 120 fps and as the game is 2D, it is very noticeable on the stage
Gears 5: the campaign is 60 fps and the multi is 120 fps, so you can see the difference well;
Halo (all of them)
The Touryst: very cute indie game!
I'am 43 years too and expect to play many years!
I think this is a factor that probably gets underplayed. Camera on pc typically moves faster than on consoles (cos of twitch mouse controllers) unless you turn your joystick sensitivity waaaay up. I'd barely notice 120 at all on Gears from 60, but maybe I would on pc?
You don't need to render twice as many frames to increase motion resolution though. What you're describing here is increased motion resolution which can be achieved while rendering at 60hz. Enabling black frame insertion or using a Plasma or CRT will give you the increased motion resolution that you're describing here.
I think it's important that we separate the limitations of bog standard sample and hold and the real benefits of rendering at 120fps. Reduced input latency and increased animation frames are inherent benefits of 120fps. Reducing the blur when spinning a camera produced from 60hz sample and hold is not, and it's something that can be remedied display side without increasing the rendering load of the console/PC.
That can happen once you've adjusted to 120hz. I tried going back to 60hz in Halo and it made me feel a little woozy even though that never happened before.
I have a 60 Hz monitor and a 120 Hz TV. I also have a RTX 3070 so I am able to play most older games at 120+ FPS even at 4K. Games feel much smoother on the TV although I percieve the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz to be smaller than the difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz. I am 30 years old btw.
I wouldn't say it's awful, but you notice it and it feels choppy. It's like experiencing 30fps, then going back to sub 20. Experiencing 60fps, then going back to 30. If you are used to double the FPS, going back will feel choppy.
Fifteen years ago, this post would read "So there are some elite people here saying 720p looks awful lmao." and complaining about 720p at that time would have certainly been lmao-worthy. But it's 2020 now, and everyone is used to 1080p, soon 4k. 720p feels very subpar now, even though we were fine with it not too long ago.
There's less people used to 120fps, but especially once VRR hits on PS5 people will get used to higher framerates and yes, become as jaded about 60fps as people are about 30fps.
That feeling of buttery smoothness with 120fps? You take it for granted easily and everything that was fine before becomes stuttery.
I can both feel it and see it. I have a 1440p gsync 144hz monitor and a 1080p 60hz on my desk and it pains me to use the second monitor honestly. Just moving the mouse around feels awful.
I console game on a LG B9 (occasionally plug my PC in too) and yea can notice it there - admittedly less so than with a mouse but it's still there
I console game on a LG B9 (occasionally plug my PC in too) and yea can notice it there - admittedly less so than with a mouse but it's still there
