Fortunately G-Sync / FreeSync, and the upcoming HDMI VRR, means that you no longer have to make that decision.
An unsteady 50-60 FPS on a Variable Refresh Rate display is almost as smooth as a locked 60 FPS on a 60Hz display.
-
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.
To the 30fps with better graphics crowd, is motion clarity not counted as "graphics"?
- Thread starter leng jai
- Start date
An unsteady 50-60 FPS on a Variable Refresh Rate display is almost as smooth as a locked 60 FPS on a 60Hz display.
It is kinda important. Everytime i turn on my ps4 after playing with my pc i get motion-sick. At the beginning it's just unbearable. After some time your eyes get used to the lower refresh though. I will always prefer a smoother frame rate over graphics.
Framerate > resolution (clarity) > graphics
Framerate > resolution (clarity) > graphics
Mark Rejhon of blurbusters mentions it a few times. It came up in a dicussion of combining both ULMB and gysnc together it's beyond what Nvidia is allowed to do within the driver as only the OS can do it. This is why I want some of these tech featrures to be built in to firmware/os level vs tvs. You mention as much with black frame insertion yes it's nice for a tv to do it but something within OS or engine would allow for even better support.
Better tv support or tech inside will not fix games or OS lacking what they should have to better support the technology in question. This is why HDR implementation is pissing me off MS is just slow on the pc side while on X1 its up despite them using the same base kernel of windows.
In no way does my post walk away from higher fps. My entire point is to counter points that say they aren't any benefits there clearly is with a research link to it. This has nothing to do with the response of your inputs but rather the motion of your screen, they aren't even the same factor being discussed. Rather even at 30fps at high refreshrate not equal the flicker of the screen is quicker thus the image comes up faster. Your monitor is not going to be making the stutter that is your machine.
I want good framepacing, syncing and almost no input lag good luck in your journey though.
No I'm not I'm clearly talking about the scanout speed or refresrate not how it's syncing or strobing, just the mere speed of the screen refreshing. That gives a benefit as well as what you mention, all I'm saying is that is benefit regardless of your fps, though people should be advised of the factor you mention. Left a link that goes in to it as well.
I think the balance has to go both ways hardware and software. It's completely silly to have 4 different screens with some support yet no single OS or console I use has it. Software can't evolve if it's never worked on to begin with. A lack hardware standards fuck us on TV's but no one wants to agree to anything as I'm sure you can tell from HDR companies don't always play nice.
Last edited:
i put framerate and motion clarity under "performance"
a 60 fps game perform better than a 30 but won't look as good. i'm talking about fixed settings here obviously
a 60 fps game perform better than a 30 but won't look as good. i'm talking about fixed settings here obviously
OP
OP
Not to mention that the percutaneous of people who own TVs that can display proper HDR and are calibrated properly is absolutely minuscule.
Playstation 5 is around the corner. This topic is more relevant than ever and needs attention.
So Borderlands 3 luckily has a 60fps mode on PS4 Pro. You can switch seamlessly between "resolution" and "performance" in the options menu, and after switching to "resolution" you will instantly notice the input lag while navigating the menu. Just moving the cursor makes a night and day difference.
Framerate is not just about motion clarity, which is perfectly described in this topic, but also about smooth controls. Games are interactive, moving images you control. For all of these aspects, interactive, moving, control, framerate is the most important factor. Games in higher framerates automatically control better, even when you're just navigating through the menu or sorting the inventory. High framerates make games not only look better (in motion), but also control and feel better.
Therefore, I hope 60fps becomes the new standard somewhere down the next console generation. The trend is looking good so far, with all the performance modes we get nowadays, and Phil Spencer saying with the next XBox they will put more focus on performance.
So Borderlands 3 luckily has a 60fps mode on PS4 Pro. You can switch seamlessly between "resolution" and "performance" in the options menu, and after switching to "resolution" you will instantly notice the input lag while navigating the menu. Just moving the cursor makes a night and day difference.
Framerate is not just about motion clarity, which is perfectly described in this topic, but also about smooth controls. Games are interactive, moving images you control. For all of these aspects, interactive, moving, control, framerate is the most important factor. Games in higher framerates automatically control better, even when you're just navigating through the menu or sorting the inventory. High framerates make games not only look better (in motion), but also control and feel better.
Therefore, I hope 60fps becomes the new standard somewhere down the next console generation. The trend is looking good so far, with all the performance modes we get nowadays, and Phil Spencer saying with the next XBox they will put more focus on performance.
Indeed.
The 30fps defense force is always acting like we A: We play static screenshots, and B: input responsiveness does not matter.
I still play a lot of games at 30 FPS and I find I adjust quite quickly, but having played a good deal of 60 FPS games this generation I'll say that I far and away prefer performance over IQ and that motion clarity is an integral part of overall presentation. Horses for courses, though, and games that build their design around their performance target can often eliminate a lot of the issues of lower frame rates.
Single player - 30fps with all graphical bells and whistles
MP - Solid 60fps with adjusted graphics
I just much prefer cinematic SP games. Obviously, if next generations of consoles get powerful enough to maintain that cinematic experience with 60fps+ that so be it (even though we would never know if/ how it could have looked better in 30fps - gears 5)
MP - Solid 60fps with adjusted graphics
I just much prefer cinematic SP games. Obviously, if next generations of consoles get powerful enough to maintain that cinematic experience with 60fps+ that so be it (even though we would never know if/ how it could have looked better in 30fps - gears 5)
Last edited:
This is like an audiophile asking someone listening to music with normal headphones "don't you care about having the best audio quality????"
My headphones are good enough and my frames are good enough.
60fps is not about "best quality". That would be 120fps or more. 60fps is the baseline, the standard that should be considered the absolute minimum when playing videogames.
We played games in 60fps 30 years ago, so why should 30fps suddenly be ok in 2019.
Seriously.
It's like talking about a pair of busted earbuds that have no treble or bass and everything sounds muddy vs a decent pair of cheap earbuds. Yeah, you can still make out what's being said, but it's not a good experience.
I want 30FPS with better graphics because I can't tell the difference between 30/60 in normal gameplay.
If I spin the camera round and round and round and round then yeah there's a difference, but...
If I spin the camera round and round and round and round then yeah there's a difference, but...
30fps is ~$60 Sennheiser headphones, 60fps is $120 headphones.
Motion interpolation works perfectly for me when a game is 30fps. No 31, no 29. The 30 works perfect.
It feels almost like 60 fps.
It feels almost like 60 fps.
It is about time to 60fps be the minimum standard.
When are graphics going to be enough?
If we keep things like this we will never improve the fps because there will be always some shiny effect to exchange for it.
But the average person doesn't even understand what fps, stutter and motion blur means.
They feel something is wrong but they have no clue, and blame the graphics.
When are graphics going to be enough?
If we keep things like this we will never improve the fps because there will be always some shiny effect to exchange for it.
But the average person doesn't even understand what fps, stutter and motion blur means.
They feel something is wrong but they have no clue, and blame the graphics.
Last edited:
60fps is ~$15 - $30 generic headphones, 120fps is $60 Sennheiser, 200+ fps is $120 headphones.
30fps are the headphones in a clearance rack for $5 at Walgreens.
60FPS looks so weird even in gameplay it sometimes make me stop and go man that looks strange. Overwatch would make me do it while playing . The most recent Jedi Fallen order trailer did that to me to. While it helps gameplay feel smoother I think 60fps looks so bad it actually makes games look worse.
I am on your team.
It is shocking how most gamers don't even know or believe this.
And there are even some new TVs today with interpolation made just for gaming.
I'm not saying that I don't believe it but it truly amazes me when people say they can't see the difference between 30 fps and 60+fps. I play on both PC and PS4 and higher fps makes the game both feel and look better IMO. God of War was gorgeous but I absolutely had to play it on the performance mode, it wasn't even 60 fps consistently but it just felt so much better to play and it still looked amazing. One thing I've found I'm sensitive to is motion blur, I hate it and I feel it makes overall IQ worse.
Give me 1080/1440p @ 144 over 4K @ 30 every day of the week.
Once you leave screenshot mode, there's a game to be played.
Once you leave screenshot mode, there's a game to be played.
Exactly. So if they can improve even more MI on the next TVs, I am really ok with 30 fps. On some games, I really can't tell the difference between 60 vs 30 with MI.
examples: Crash Bandicoot, R&C, Uncharted 4 and every pro version that has 30fps option.
So I have graphics and smoothness. Win win.
I believe it.
If you started playing games on the original PS1 and stuck with Sony since then (which is probably the majority of gamers) the only time you got majority 60 FPS gaming was on the PS2. Most of the big games on all of the other gens were primarily 30 FPS. And thats probably true across all platforms.
If you play PC games or any 2D console you have a lot of experience with really responsive controls. But that is probably a minority of gamers at this point.
At least thats my theory.
Any display is at least 60 fps capable, for decades.
I actually never saw a 30hz display in real life.
True but LCD displays are way slower for inputs than CRT. At least in my experience.
And if the game is 60fps some TVs turn it into 120fps with interpolation.
It is such a fascinating technology. Instead of using SLI and buying 2 GPUs to gain more power, you are just using a TV algorithm to solve the problem...
WIth faster chips and possibly AI, the interpolation could be a game changer even for PCs.
Context is important.
One of the most amazing trends over the past few years has been the return of retro-shooters.
Dusk, Amid Evil and Ion Fury have completely reinvigorated my passion for the genre.
While none of these tiles are as technically complex on the visual side as modern AAA titles like CoD or Battlefield, being able to play them on Max settings, high-resolution and at a buttery smooth 120fps w/Gsync is a complete game-changer.
Same goes for less-demanding indie titles in other genres, the recent gem 10 Miles To Safety being another example.
None of this "ruins" locked 30fps gameplay by any means, but boy does it make a noticeable difference and dramatically enhanced gaming experience nonetheless.
I tried it out on my LG OLED and even though it makes 30 look/ feel more like 60, the brightness takes a hit and it introduces flicker. Hopefully future models will improve on it.
Last edited:
Any TV, LCD or CRT is constantly running at 60 fps (HZ) or 120fps, the game or movie does not matter.
TVs have input lag, and it is affected by the TV model and image processing algorithms.
When you turn on Game Mode on a TV you turn off some algorithms and get a lower input lag.
But your TV is always running at 60fps or more.
Lol, exactly. That's what I meant with 60fps should be considered the baseline.
Completely agreed. 30fps is the reason non-gamers tend to complain about feeling sick or getting headaches whenever the image is moving too fast when watching me play in 30fps. Because your eyes can't focus on a moving 30fps image. When the image starts moving, everything on screen gets blurry. In movies we have professional camera work. In games you take control of the image yourself, hence: The higher the framerate, the better.
EXACTLY. This is what I'm trying to describe above. Absolutely right.
Exactly.
Lol. Indeed.
Last edited:
30 fps games would look on par, in terms of image clarity in motion with 60 fps games if only our modern day contemporary tv's had an optional 30 hz refresh rate you could select. The 'judder' or 'frame doubling', or 'blurry hot mess' wouldn't be a thing with a monitor or television capable of 30 hz refresh rate. It's the asyncrouncous connection, the disharmony between a 30 fps game and a 60 hz monitor refresh rate that makes the game look attrocious, especially at the perpirary of the game world when you move the camera beyond a snails pace.
If i stare at a 30fps game with the same kind of keen eyeball fixity - out in the world - that i do with 60 fps games ( borderlands 2, halo MCC, Gears Multiplayer, DMC5 ) - the blurring will literally start to give me a headache. To play 30 hz games i when i want to turn the camera, which is often, i either unfocus my eyes from the oncomming nastiness out in the world, or put my eyeball focus on the player character ( who doesn't stutter and shimmey at all when you turn the camera at any rate ) and then once i've protected my eyes, i quickly, in a whirl, turn the camera where i want it set, and once the camera is where i want it, i tend to play in that field without moving the camera much, and if i do move the camera i try to move it very slowly so as not to induce the shimeyjudderblurr.
30 fps sucks.
If i stare at a 30fps game with the same kind of keen eyeball fixity - out in the world - that i do with 60 fps games ( borderlands 2, halo MCC, Gears Multiplayer, DMC5 ) - the blurring will literally start to give me a headache. To play 30 hz games i when i want to turn the camera, which is often, i either unfocus my eyes from the oncomming nastiness out in the world, or put my eyeball focus on the player character ( who doesn't stutter and shimmey at all when you turn the camera at any rate ) and then once i've protected my eyes, i quickly, in a whirl, turn the camera where i want it set, and once the camera is where i want it, i tend to play in that field without moving the camera much, and if i do move the camera i try to move it very slowly so as not to induce the shimeyjudderblurr.
30 fps sucks.
Last edited:
But the input lag is noticeable compared to a CRT. I just think that most games today are designed around it so you have to play something older to really notice it.
Though the framerate difference is noticeable, it's something that I quickly get used to and forget all about, especially with single player games where I'm not too concerned about being 'optimal'
I have a midrange PC so while I can run many games on high settings, with some I need to choose graphics or framerate, and usually I'll go for graphics with a 30fps lock. I just notice the nicer graphics more consistently than I do the framerate, which is something that I don't pay much attention to after I start playing (unless it's dropping lower than 30 of course)
I have a midrange PC so while I can run many games on high settings, with some I need to choose graphics or framerate, and usually I'll go for graphics with a 30fps lock. I just notice the nicer graphics more consistently than I do the framerate, which is something that I don't pay much attention to after I start playing (unless it's dropping lower than 30 of course)
(isn't this topic about fps? lol)
It is true CRT usually had less input lag.
With LCD and OLED you need to look for the TV model input lag before buying it.
Bad TVs can have even something like 100ms of input lag.
The good ones are around 20ms, and this is almost perfect.
You should always play games in game mode too, to get the lowest input lag.
Monitors are different.
Most of them have somewhere around 1ms of input lag. You just can't notice it.
This is why I always prefer playing competitive fighting games on the PC.
The bottom line is: never buy a TV if you don't know it's input lag numbers. Always play on Game Mode. And if you want 0 input lag, buy a monitor.
No.
The equivalent is the audiophile telling that person to stop using mp3s now that storage is abundant in handhelds.
Spider-Man and Horizon are great examples of near 4k image quality at 30fps with a solid framerate, perfect frame pacing and fantastic controller response.
60fps is of course preferable especially in competitive multiplayer games but there are a lot of 60fps console games this gen even with the awful Jaguar architecture so I'm very hopeful of 60fps options with lower resolution on the next gen consoles due to Ryzen especially with 80% of games being cross gen for the first couple of years.
60fps is of course preferable especially in competitive multiplayer games but there are a lot of 60fps console games this gen even with the awful Jaguar architecture so I'm very hopeful of 60fps options with lower resolution on the next gen consoles due to Ryzen especially with 80% of games being cross gen for the first couple of years.
And a normal person would tell them "lol why should I care stop bugging me".
I had a theory that most gamers started playing with the PS1 and afterwards and if they did not experience gaming beforehand or on PC they would be used to 30 fps gaming and generally less responsive gaming in general so 60ps and super responsive gameplay wouldn't be as important to them. So I put in the television as well as old ass gamers remember gaming on a CRT tvs and monitors where the gameplay and input responses were lightening quick.
Games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Spider-Man are games that look both graphically amazing and run at a solid and smooth 30fps. They are pleasing to the eye also in motion. Playing those games I don't spend a single second thinking about framerate and how they'd look even better/smoother in 60fps. So 30fps is perfectly fine for them.
