Can you see the difference between 30 and 60 fps?

  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by edinsftw (4225 posts) -

So can you? I find that alot of console players say they cant tell a difference between 30 and 60 fps. I rather find that the difference just isnt as great as say 15 fps compared to 30 fps. Keep in mind you need to have a 60 hz monitor or tv to see 60 fps on your screen regardless of what your console or computer are rendering at.

Here is a link where you can see animations rendered at different fps. So..can you see a difference?

#2 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Yes, it's a world of difference, and makes thing so much smooth and more playable, which is why I game on PC.

#3 Posted by CwlHeddwyn (5314 posts) -

yes.

#4 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

I can see it. I don't understand how anyone couldn't. Hell I can tell the difference between 120 Hz too.

#5 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17572 posts) -
They way I can't tell a difference in that specific example is by focusing on one of the corners of the square. In 60 fps you can follow the corner all the way around until the square stops spinning. 30 and 15 it's almost impossible. For me at least.
#6 Posted by funsohng (27563 posts) -
Yes, but it's not all that important except for some games.
#7 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -
Yes, it's extremely obvious, especially w/o motionblur, but even with that, it's still obvious. Also "Keep in mind you need to have a 60 hz monitor" I don't know when dedicated monitors Weren't 60hz+..
#8 Posted by edinsftw (4225 posts) -

Yes, it's extremely obvious, especially w/o motionblur, but even with that, it's still obvious. Also "Keep in mind you need to have a 60 hz monitor" I don't know when dedicated monitors Weren't 60hz+..Inconsistancy

Some tvs are 30hz so i dont know if people are using a tv as a monitor or something.

#9 Posted by heytheredarlin (869 posts) -

Yes. It's a huge difference.

#10 Posted by vashkey (33712 posts) -

Yeah, although the difference is more noticeable going to 30FPS after being at 60 rather than vice versa.

30FPS isn't bad though.

#11 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]Yes, it's extremely obvious, especially w/o motionblur, but even with that, it's still obvious. Also "Keep in mind you need to have a 60 hz monitor" I don't know when dedicated monitors Weren't 60hz+..edinsftw

Some tvs are 30hz so i dont know if people are using a tv as a monitor or something.

But that's not a dedicated monitor, technically they're 60hz interlaced(30fps), 30hz would be absurdly painful to look at.

#12 Posted by foxhound_fox (87379 posts) -
Yep. I've played enough PC games at sub-24fps to be able to see the difference between "a little better" and "a lot better."
#13 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

Definitely. The Call of Duty series are pretty great at this which keeps everything fast paced, so its hard to play other shooter campaigns stuck at 30fps.

#14 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
I can see a huge difference, but I would still like the option to use 3DVision with 60Hz monitors...
#15 Posted by SapSacPrime (8735 posts) -

Its a big difference and I've always noticed it since the DC launched (all our games were capped at 50 interlaced prior to that and I didn't pc game much). It doesn't matter for every game though.

#16 Posted by magnax1 (4605 posts) -

Really really really minor difference between 60 and 30. Not enough for me to actually notice if I was into the game.

#17 Posted by Tezcatlipoca666 (7241 posts) -

I prefer to say that I can "feel it". I couldn't look at the monitor and tell you if I am seeing 30 fps or 60 fps however when playing 60 fps is much smoother than 30.

#18 Posted by ManicAce (3267 posts) -
I can see it easily, but even more importantly I can feel it, 60fps is more responsive, easier to control. Easiest way to see it is on PC just switching the settings in a game, looking at a video or someone else playing isn't the same, and on consoles you'd have to play a whole different game to see the difference.
#19 Posted by ShyGuy0504 (1121 posts) -

Yes. There is a very big difference between the two.

#20 Posted by Microsoft1234 (7674 posts) -
No I can't see it, but it is very noticeable online and why reach and halo 3 feel so slow in comparison to other fpses. they're 30 fps
#21 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -
Yes very clearly. Console gamers can tell, they just don't know that the difference they "feel" is the framerate. Remember when BF BC2 beta came out, and all the COD fanboys reactions... well they were referring to framerate I am sure.
#22 Posted by Microsoft1234 (7674 posts) -
Yes very clearly. Console gamers can tell, they just don't know that the difference they "feel" is the framerate. Remember when BF BC2 beta came out, and all the COD fanboys reactions... well they were referring to framerate I am sure.SaltyMeatballs
yea when people say this game "feels so slow" they probably don't realize the frame rate is also a big part why. There's alot of stuff in gaming that people don't notice that affect gameplay immensely especially multiplayer. It's unfortunate that people still don't realize the difference between hitscan and bullet travel.
#23 Posted by i5750at4Ghz (5839 posts) -
No so much that I see it, it's more I feel it.
#24 Posted by MrSelf-Destruct (13112 posts) -
Yes. See for yourself. This demonstration involves a little blue block jumping up and down. The quality of the animation is very noticeable. If you throw in full scale 3d environments and a bunch of moving characters you'll notice the same quality (or lack there of) in everything on screen.
#25 Posted by Doolz2024 (9604 posts) -
Yes, I can tell a difference easily between both. It's very noticeable.
#26 Posted by AnnoyedDragon (9948 posts) -

It's easier for PC gamers to pick up on the difference, as console gamers largely deal with fixed frame rate games. I know I've messed with settings to achieve the desired high frame rate, and noted the difference in motion.

#27 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Yes very clearly. Console gamers can tell, they just don't know that the difference they "feel" is the framerate. Remember when BF BC2 beta came out, and all the COD fanboys reactions... well they were referring to framerate I am sure.Microsoft1234
yea when people say this game "feels so slow" they probably don't realize the frame rate is also a big part why. There's alot of stuff in gaming that people don't notice that affect gameplay immensely especially multiplayer. It's unfortunate that people still don't realize the difference between hitscan and bullet travel.

Speaking of which, I think all games should use bullet travel (is that the official term?).
#28 Posted by Wasdie (49561 posts) -

It's a night and day difference.

#29 Posted by catfishmoon23 (5197 posts) -

Yes. It's actually very noticeable to me.

#30 Posted by anotherone10 (1557 posts) -

Yes. Noticable difference.

#31 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17572 posts) -
Yes. See for yourself. This demonstration involves a little blue block jumping up and down. The quality of the animation is very noticeable. If you throw in full scale 3d environments and a bunch of moving characters you'll notice the same quality (or lack there of) in everything on screen. MrSelf-Destruct
That's the example TC gave :P
#32 Posted by dontshackzmii (6026 posts) -

yeah but i am not really blown away by it

#33 Posted by Nintendo_Ownes7 (30917 posts) -

It is very noticable. I love having my games at 60 FPS that is one reason I like Nintendo games because they are mainly at 60 FPS. Most of their games this gen are at 60 FPS last gen they only had 3 games at 60 FPS (Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, and F-Zero GX) On the N64 they had one game at 60 FPS (F-Zero X)

#34 Posted by MrSelf-Destruct (13112 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"]Yes. See for yourself. This demonstration involves a little blue block jumping up and down. The quality of the animation is very noticeable. If you throw in full scale 3d environments and a bunch of moving characters you'll notice the same quality (or lack there of) in everything on screen. mrmusicman247
That's the example TC gave :P

Haha. Well, damn. That's what I get for not reading the OP. Well, if anyone else was stupid enough to skip it then maybe they can still check my link. :P
#35 Posted by XVision84 (13626 posts) -

I can see the difference for sure, but 30fps isn't "unplayable" and I find that I have no problem with games like Killzone 3 that run at 30fps. Uncharted also runs at 30fps yet seems to look so smooth and run smoothly. 60 fps is obviously much better though, and I'm definitely surprised that RAGE, with all of its features, open world, and amazing graphics, can run at a constant 60fps.

#36 Posted by lostfan132 (1078 posts) -

yes, play call of duty then play all other shooters, one of the main reasons cod is so successful.

#37 Posted by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

The differences are not that noticable on the examples in your link, but in videogames, it is noticable.

#38 Posted by kidcool189 (4307 posts) -
Absolutely. I may sound rude, but anyone that cant see the difference either hasn't seen/played a proper example of them or is just flat out crazy. Im suprised no one has come into to this thread yet to blurt out "the human eye can only see up to 30fps" shenanigans. :P
#39 Posted by wapahala (6276 posts) -

I can't BELIEVE people actually think the human eye can't see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. IT ANGERS ME SO!

Oh, and there's also a huge difference between 60 fps and 120 fps.

#40 Posted by coltgames (2120 posts) -

COD it just feels so smooth and faster

#41 Posted by kidcool189 (4307 posts) -

I can't BELIEVE people actually think the human eye can't see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. IT ANGERS ME SO!

Oh, and there's also a huge difference between 60 fps and 120 fps.

wapahala


Assuming you're using a true 120+hz capable display of course, which are only available on crts and very few newer availble lcd monitors unfortunately.

#42 Posted by wapahala (6276 posts) -

[QUOTE="wapahala"]

I can't BELIEVE people actually think the human eye can't see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. IT ANGERS ME SO!

Oh, and there's also a huge difference between 60 fps and 120 fps.

kidcool189


Assuming you're using a true 120+hz capable display of course, which are only available on crts and very few newer availble lcd monitors unfortunately.

Of course. (I have the LG W2363D)

#43 Posted by Nintendo_Ownes7 (30917 posts) -

I can't BELIEVE people actually think the human eye can't see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. IT ANGERS ME SO!

Oh, and there's also a huge difference between 60 fps and 120 fps.

wapahala

In real life you I don't think you can; but on a monitor or TV you can definitely see the difference.

#44 Posted by el3m2tigre (4232 posts) -

Yes i can see the difference.

#45 Posted by SilverChimera (9256 posts) -
Yes it's a pretty ****ing big difference.
#46 Posted by osan0 (12599 posts) -
just looking....yeah a bit. seems smoother. however its more the feel of a game where it makes the difference i find. its hard to explain exactly but in trackmania say the game feels like its more responsive to my input when its running at 60FPS. its not something i obsess over though. as long as its smooth and playable for me then im happy.
#47 Posted by CB4McGusto (2644 posts) -
It's obvious that you can see a difference, the question you should have asked was is it worth the money to play games at no less than 60fps and higher. How much does it cost to run Crysis at no less than 60fps on max settings at 1920x1080?
#48 Posted by millerlight89 (18346 posts) -
It's obvious that you can see a difference, the question you should have asked was is it worth the money to play games at no less than 60fps and higher. How much does it cost to run Crysis at no less than 60fps on max settings at 1920x1080? CB4McGusto
What does it matter :? If people have the money, then they can get the best. You get what you pay for.
#49 Posted by kidcool189 (4307 posts) -

Of course. (I have the LG W2363D)

wapahala


Nice. :D I wish these monitors would pick up a little more popularity for their true benefits, so we can get some newer, bigger, better less expensive models. But it seems like too many modern pc gamers just dont know how nice high refresh rates are for gaming with these monitors, since its been so long since crt's were the mainstream. Rather, most people think the only benefit is being able to play in 3d.
[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]It's obvious that you can see a difference, the question you should have asked was is it worth the money to play games at no less than 60fps and higher. How much does it cost to run Crysis at no less than 60fps on max settings at 1920x1080? millerlight89
What does it matter :? If people have the money, then they can get the best. You get what you pay for.

Simple as that.^
Some people find it worth it, some dont. Different strokes for different folks.

#50 Posted by racing1750 (14560 posts) -
Definitely, yes.