Whats your comfort level for fps?

Do you like to sacrifice graphics for fps or do you not mind walking the line and hanging around 20 fps?

Me I like to have my games run at around 30 fps. It's not too high a number and I still have nice visuals.

Fro example, my computer runs Just Cause 2 at around an average of 30fps with everything on high/no AA/16x A-filtering/and all those belss and whistles on @ 1600x900 resolution.

The Optimal Settings were higher and had 4x AA on but I was getting around 20fps on average.

Both because I can with my current rig, but If I had to choose I would choose performance over pure quality.

When i get lag in games it doesn't bother me but i definitely notice it. Thankfully with the pc i have, i can run anything that's out there right now on full detail so i can't complain much.

If it's a first person shooter, it has to be at 60 frames per second. Shooters that don't run so well, such as Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are added to my "ignore till hardware catches up" list. I only once made an exception for Crysis: Warhead, mostly because it looks smooth with the blur. All around, I still desire 60 fps, but now and then I have to make exceptions if the game is decent. However, I will under no circumstance tollerate a game that runs bellow, or borderline 30 fps. Basically, I need my games smooth as butter, or I'll vomit all over my monitor. Oh, and I do not like sacrificing graphics. It's both or none, for me.

I try to V-Sync my games, I have a 75 Hz monitor so that means I need 38 F/s minimum. More demanding games like Crysis or Metro 2033 I can live without V-Sync and just aim for a solid 30 F/s.

I try to V-Sync my games, I have a 75 Hz monitor so that means I need 38 F/s minimum. More demanding games like Crysis or Metro 2033 I can live without V-Sync and just aim for a solid 30 F/s.

D1zzyCriminal

Anything above 35 fps is fine for me. I can manage with 30, but when it drops to 25 or lower I get really annoyed.

It depends a bit on the game. If there's lots of walking/travelling, and not too many firefights, I don't mind having like 23fps. But with intense firefights, having 30fps is pretty much required if I actually want to do well.

An average of 30 is fine for me, as long as it doesn't drop into the teens more than a couple of times.

Usually I'll consider 30fps to be a comfortable minimum, but anything less than 20fps unplayable.

There are exceptions. Most notably Crysis, where I can put up with the occasional dip into sub-20fps territory.

If it's a first person shooter, it has to be at 60 frames per second. Shooters that don't run so well, such as Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are added to my "ignore till hardware catches up" list. I only once made an exception for Crysis: Warhead, mostly because it looks smooth with the blur. All around, I still desire 60 fps, but now and then I have to make exceptions if the game is decent. However, I will under no circumstance tollerate a game that runs bellow, or borderline 30 fps. Basically, I need my games smooth as butter, or I'll vomit all over my monitor. Oh, and I do not like sacrificing graphics. It's both or none, for me.

Animatronic64

I pretty much can't stand any noticable stutter. But unlike you I'm sometimes willing to sacrifice some graphics for gameplay. I've noted that some times when things are hot and heavy I don't pay close attention to detail. I also see you don't list your system specs so it's hard to give credibility/clarity to you statement. They would help me understand where you set before I see where you stand.:)

Multiplayer I need 60+, otherwise everything just seems very sluggish and unresponsive. I can deal with 25-30 when playing single player games...

I am happy with 40+ FPS.

On single player anything above 30 is fine, on a competitive online such as CS 60+ is necessary but preferably over 100. Deffinetly performance over graphics.

depends on the game, most SP games I tend to crank up the graphics, and effects, I can live with something in the 30's of fps there.

MP? I tend to adjust for better fps.

To be completely honest graphics matter very little to me, nomatter the genre, so it does not hit me that hard to lower settings.

I'm a whore wen it comes to frames per second in FPSs. I can't stand a FPS that is below 25, so i'l always lower the visual settings to accomodate my preferance.

And wen it comes to online FPSs, that's a no brainer. Lag/Stuttering = unplayable.

If I can't have constant 60+ fps, 1920x1080, and 2x aa, I won't play the game.ChampionoChumps

How much does that cost you in hardware then? Or do you not mind sacrificing details?

I prefer 40+ but i can live with 20-30

I'll only play at 1920x1080 with max settings and fps of 30+ no less, if I can't, the game is poorly optimized... or my computer is showing it's age and it's time to build a new one. But, only when quality titles are out, something like Crysis2 wouldn't be worth upgrading for, but Mass Effect 3 would be (not that there's any chance in hell that I'll need to upgrade for that...)

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]If I can't have constant 60+ fps, 1920x1080, and 2x aa, I won't play the game.D1zzyCriminal

How much does that cost you in hardware then? Or do you not mind sacrificing details?

I need 60fps+

Frame rate >>>> graphics

single player 25-30 is okay, multi 40< 8)

40 fps is my most comfortable frame rate to play at visually.

Anything else feels laggy and I lower settings to meet my fps requirement.

Do you like to sacrifice graphics for fps or do you not mind walking the line and hanging around 20 fps?

Me I like to have my games run at around 30 fps. It's not too high a number and I still have nice visuals.

Fro example, my computer runs Just Cause 2 at around an average of 30fps with everything on high/no AA/16x A-filtering/and all those belss and whistles on @ 1600x900 resolution.

The Optimal Settings were higher and had 4x AA on but I was getting around 20fps on average.

DudeNtheRoom

I find it hard to settle for anything less than a minimum of 40 FPS. If I can't get that I will usually shelve a game until I have a betetr PC.

[QUOTE="D1zzyCriminal"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]If I can't have constant 60+ fps, 1920x1080, and 2x aa, I won't play the game.ChampionoChumps

How much does that cost you in hardware then? Or do you not mind sacrificing details?

That makes sence, Ive just seen people who refuse to lower settings ever. They have rigs that must cost $3000 and all ways have the bleeding edge of the PC tech. It leaves me bewildered. They must spend more time benchmarking games than playing them.

But thats different being ticked off by a low framerate and aliasing. I understand that, I just think Im more tollerant to it than others.

Forty.

My monitor is 50/60 Hz and I want my games V-synced so it's an absolutele minimum of 30 but my comfort zone is more like 50.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

If it's a first person shooter, it has to be at 60 frames per second. Shooters that don't run so well, such as Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are added to my "ignore till hardware catches up" list. I only once made an exception for Crysis: Warhead, mostly because it looks smooth with the blur. All around, I still desire 60 fps, but now and then I have to make exceptions if the game is decent. However, I will under no circumstance tollerate a game that runs bellow, or borderline 30 fps. Basically, I need my games smooth as butter, or I'll vomit all over my monitor. Oh, and I do not like sacrificing graphics. It's both or none, for me.

Rickylee

I pretty much can't stand any noticable stutter. But unlike you I'm sometimes willing to sacrifice some graphics for gameplay. I've noted that some times when things are hot and heavy I don't pay close attention to detail. I also see you don't list your system specs so it's hard to give credibility/clarity to you statement. They would help me understand where you set before I see where you stand.:)

But that's not to say that I always max out a game completely. I've been known to turn off a few graphical options depending on the game. For example, the physx and ambient occlusion in Mafia II.

As long as its mostly steady, I'll go for graphics. Ofcourse, I don't go crazy on AA and such, so I normally have most other graphics opitions maxed out, and still get a steady framerate.

I never check my fps in games, but I always have the highest graphics possible with as smooth framerate as possible. Games like Crysis and Metro 2033 has to be played on medium (some things on high) and games like Dead Space and Batman: AA are maxed without any problems.

Pretty good performance for my 8800GTX, 2GB RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz, I'd say..

It needs to be at least 30 for me to enjoy.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="D1zzyCriminal"]

How much does that cost you in hardware then? Or do you not mind sacrificing details?

D1zzyCriminal

That makes sence, Ive just seen people who refuse to lower settings ever. They have rigs that must cost $3000 and all ways have the bleeding edge of the PC tech. It leaves me bewildered. They must spend more time benchmarking games than playing them.

But thats different being ticked off by a low framerate and aliasing. I understand that, I just think Im more tollerant to it than others.

:lol: Yeah I'm not one to fork over 10k a year on my PC, I just prefer to have a enjoyable fps and graphics when I play through the game.

[QUOTE="Rickylee"]

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

If it's a first person shooter, it has to be at 60 frames per second. Shooters that don't run so well, such as Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are added to my "ignore till hardware catches up" list. I only once made an exception for Crysis: Warhead, mostly because it looks smooth with the blur. All around, I still desire 60 fps, but now and then I have to make exceptions if the game is decent. However, I will under no circumstance tollerate a game that runs bellow, or borderline 30 fps. Basically, I need my games smooth as butter, or I'll vomit all over my monitor. Oh, and I do not like sacrificing graphics. It's both or none, for me.

Animatronic64

I pretty much can't stand any noticable stutter. But unlike you I'm sometimes willing to sacrifice some graphics for gameplay. I've noted that some times when things are hot and heavy I don't pay close attention to detail. I also see you don't list your system specs so it's hard to give credibility/clarity to you statement. They would help me understand where you set before I see where you stand.:)

But that's not to say that I always max out a game completely. I've been known to turn off a few graphical options depending on the game. For example, the physx and ambient occlusion in Mafia II.

Thanks for that. You definitely have me out horse powered on hardware. I reread your original post and noticed your unwillingness to play Metro 2033 until hardware catches up. Is that because you'll only play it with DX11 and all bells and whistles? Because that's one of the games I refer to when looking to turn things down because stuff happens so fast (or through a broken mask) I have little time for the sights if I'm going to survive.

All that said I remember playing HL2 with a DX8 card the first time through and the game was a blast but when I got a DX9 card and saw the difference my jaw dropped so I understand what your saying about graphics. I have to stop myself cause I could easily afford all the best stuff all the time but then I would end up with a pile of unused parts and a guilty conscious cause I have a wife and son. So I guess it's like the difference when asked by the politician what do you want or by the economist what do you want most. There are always tradeoffs.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="Rickylee"]

I pretty much can't stand any noticable stutter. But unlike you I'm sometimes willing to sacrifice some graphics for gameplay. I've noted that some times when things are hot and heavy I don't pay close attention to detail. I also see you don't list your system specs so it's hard to give credibility/clarity to you statement. They would help me understand where you set before I see where you stand.:)

Rickylee

But that's not to say that I always max out a game completely. I've been known to turn off a few graphical options depending on the game. For example, the physx and ambient occlusion in Mafia II.

Thanks for that. You definitely have me out horse powered on hardware. I reread your original post and noticed your unwillingness to play Metro 2033 until hardware catches up. Is that because you'll only play it with DX11 and all bells and whistles? Because that's one of the games I refer to when looking to turn things down because stuff happens so fast (or through a broken mask) I have little time for the sights if I'm going to survive.

All that said I remember playing HL2 with a DX8 card the first time through and the game was a blast but when I got a DX9 card and saw the difference my jaw dropped so I understand what your saying about graphics. I have to stop myself cause I could easily afford all the best stuff all the time but then I would end up with a pile of unused parts and a guilty conscious cause I have a wife and son. So I guess it's like the difference when asked by the politician what do you want or by the economist what do you want most. There are always tradeoffs.

30 for me is comfortable. but with racing and bsketball games i need 60.

I need 60 constant fps, fluctating from 60-64 if it drops to 59 i get **** angry, and buy new computer

RPG/MMO 30fps+
FPS 60fps
RTS 40-60fps

my comfortable range is 30-40. anything below 30 bothers me greatly.