Reality Check - Do we need 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox One?

Cam investigates frame rates and wonders if the next generation truly needs 60 fps.

Discussion

1607 comments
0o-saxon
0o-saxon

A lot of electronic engineers, computer software engineers must be commenting seeing all the heavily understood and researched facts. 

jlwilliams1981
jlwilliams1981

60 FPS is expected. I'm getting to the point in my gaming life where if it's not 60, it looks like garbage. Similar to the way that people got used to 720p (well, upscaled 720 to 1080p to be accurate) during this console generation and to go back to xbox one (not the new xbox one, the original xbox one)

saren_dredd
saren_dredd

I don't want to come off as pompous or privileged, I'm not. But my passion is gaming, and as such I've always saved up to get the absolute best in hardware. I game on my TV with my PC through Steam, so you know the method. My TV is capable of 240FPS, 3D, ultra HD (it's pretty much 4k, but it's not. When I tested them side by side, the 4k didn't have any noticeable advantage over the one I chose -- and yes, I brought my laptop into the store because this is what I was using it for). My question is twofold:

Since there was no visual or performance difference between my TV (Which is NOT 4k, but did just as well as a brand new Sony 4K set -- my TV is also made by Sony) and the "higher resolution" TV, does that mean my eye just couldn't detect the difference, and thus and response on the "better" TV was just entirely ignored and therefore superfluous? 


Also, are there ANY games that take advantage and actually USE all of the hardware that we put all this money into obtaining? Will there ever be? (<<<-- main question)

I've played Crysis 1-3 and use them as my graphics testers, I've maxed out Skyrim and added UltraHD mods and SMIM, etc. Neither of them, I feel, truly take advantage of everything I have and I do NOT have the best GPU. I have an ASUS Republic  of Gamers laptop with an ATI 6800HD graphics (I upgraded from the 5870HD) card. The 5870 did the same job as the 6xxx and they are vastly different in terms of rendering. I haven't upgraded since, because no game out even challenges what I have. This is 2011-2012  technology I'm talking about, and much better has come out since. My real question is why upgrade when what I have now does the trick? I don't understand why companies tout specs and performance enhancements like it's so important, but the games don't take advantage of it. I've heard the argument about the eye not detecting over a certain FPS, I used to both build AND sell the TVs and GPUs/CPUs that made these enhancements possible and I heard those things everyday. I know how they work. What I don't know is why they're made when nothing seems to be able to take advantage of it. I'm not talking about "next gen" (which let's face it, is really just a mid-powered PC), I'm talking about everything as a whole. I'm sorry this has run on so long, but this is pretty heady stuff to talk about. I've heard there is no difference between 120FPS-240, and I've reviewed both and there doesn't seem to be a difference at all. Even from 60 to 120, there's is a negligible difference. The problem is NOT the hardware, the problem is the sources using the hardware. Since we don't have the sources compatible with the hardware (movies are shot at 24fps, meaning the 60-240fps rendering is done by the machine and is artificial), what is the point in all the advances? If we don't change our source, how is the machine (source: video recorder, machine: your TV) ever truly tested to its limits and used?

perphektxero
perphektxero

This needs to be re-addressed, with the drawbacks to 60fps.

x2rufff4u
x2rufff4u

30 FPS is all you need. 60 FPS starts to make me feel sick with too much motion. After a while it will catch on to you.

vincelongman
vincelongman

It's quite an interesting topic

If you monitor/TV is 60 Hz, it shows 60 frames per a second.

This means a frame is on for 1/60 s, which is ~17 ms

For 30 fps a frame is on for 1/30 s, which is ~34 ms

For 120 fps a frame is on for 1/120 s, which is ~8 ms

So the latency basically halves going from 30 fps to 60 fps to 120 fps

Which is why increasing the frame make the game much smoother


Also there is also the monitor/TVs response time to take into account

Your average monitors/TV would add another 5-10 ms, a gaming monitor would be about 1 ms.


Was the difference is much more noticeable in first person shooters, where slow reactions get you killed


http://30vs60.com/

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://gfycat.com/MerrySpiritedBass

http://gfycat.com/OblongTautDragonfly

cristi1990an
cristi1990an

Lol! Did anybody noticed any difference at 3:45?... No?... Well, that's good, because there isn't any! AC4 on the PS4 runs at 30fps all the time!!! 

Bryjoered07
Bryjoered07

Honestly, there is a difference, but not DRASTIC. 30fps looks smooth to me and 60fps looks perfectly smooth. I think as long as you can maintain a constant 40fps that's good enough, actually Nvidia states that if you're framerate is always above 40 you're in the most optimal zone. If you're framerate is always at 40, then it probably is at 60 most of the time and maybe dips to 40. Geforce Experience is actually pretty good at giving you settings that are a great balance between quality and performance.

wowwow27
wowwow27

my mongaloid brain only can perceive 8 fps,... no one can perceive anything greater....   errrrrr........  but seriously, the refresh comparison is just semantics.  higher frame rate is just smoother,... period, end of story.  120fps max.  probably anything more is overkill.

wowwow27
wowwow27

definitely,  anyone who ever tinkered with a pc should agree.

leonstrydom1
leonstrydom1

HELL YEAH 60FPS MAKES A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!

I am totally blown-the-F-away by the fact that some people can apparently not see the difference...it's night and day, man! 30fps looks like slow-mo in comparison. 60fps adds so much to the overall experience...BF4 on PS4 is amaaaaaaazing....BF3 on ps3 sucked ass!..and for me the biggest and most glaring difference, if there was ever only one difference, is the framerate.

It should be STANDARD! If a gamedeveloper can make its game run at 60fps, then SPARE NO EXPENSIVE!!!! -- That's (mainly) addressed to you, Respawn Entertainment!

socialistsmurf
socialistsmurf

Higher FPS makes a big different in First Person Shooters.

FPS for FPS

DAP2010
DAP2010

Hey can anyone please please let me know what the song/instrumental at 5:16 is? it really was beautiful...

holidaysins
holidaysins

my brain just exploded with knowledge

terumikami68
terumikami68

would be nice if the video actually ran at more than 2fps... player sucks...

AboAlwe
AboAlwe

Having 60 FPS is a minimum requirement for any gamer. More is a luxury I think.

adon_cabre
adon_cabre

@jlwilliams1981


Not every genre favors that high frame rate. Racing sure. Simulators sure. MMO's perhaps. But characters on screen, like in AC or other 3rd POV titles, appear to look so fake, like really bad movie CGI because there are no small nuances -- muscle and facial reactions -- that a developer can capture with just coding.


Not to mention how jerky they feel, almost as if the characters have been sped up. I'd say 30 frame rate is perfect. Maybe 45 would be better, but 60 is too high. It's like movies captured at 48 frame rate; it might better render vast landscapes, but between close camera character interaction, it feels unnaturally quick, almost sped up.

quazar87
quazar87

@saren_dredd Dude, there is no current cable standard capable of passing 4k content faster than 60fps.  DisplayPort 1.2, or HDMI 2.0, it doesn't matter.

moaznasr
moaznasr

@x2rufff4u So you get sick from a more responsive and smooth gameplay experience? Also, do you get sick when you're not gaming because real life is more than 60FPS? I think you didn't even watch the video.

moaznasr
moaznasr

@cristi1990an That's your browser struggling to run 60FPS on your bad PC. There's a huge huge huge difference.

berserkker
berserkker

@cristi1990an it clearly shows the difference... if you cant see it you're blind or your computer is a crap that cant play smooth videos. but you can test how many frames it has :P download the video and go into a video editing program and go frame by frame. if it moves than there you have your 60 fps

ESPM400
ESPM400

@cristi1990an  Although I'm not saying that's the case here, you can hook a PS3 or 4 controller up to your PC.


Also, as someone who started gaming on PC, switched to consoles in '07, then about six months ago built a fairly high-end gaming rig (http://pcpartpicker.com/b/EII) and ditched my 360, I can tell you that there's a very noticeable difference between 30 and 60 fps. 

masaaki_hosoi
masaaki_hosoi

@Bryjoered07  It's better to aim above 60 FPS. Reason being, typically you want to employ VSync to get rid of screen tearing (which I find incredibly distracting). If you're running at 40 FPS, then maybe you'll be mostly 60 FPS but when it dips even slightly below it will basically hard crash down to 30 FPS and look incredibly stuttery.

But, if you aim *above* 60 FPS, VSync will basically just cap you to 60 FPS.


This could all change with NVidia's GSync technology, as that adapts the monitor's refresh rate to the GFX card, so the game can leave VSync off without suffering from annoying screen tear.

junoh315
junoh315

@wowwow27  We can keep going higher.  240fps is possible and would be ideal for a game that's moving extremely fast.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@leonstrydom1 pc gamers knew this for years, glad the consoles are catching up.  i love my consoles!

kamikazeespleen
kamikazeespleen

@AboAlwe I completely disagree with that. 30FPS is perfectly playable in my eyes and I'm a PC gamer so obviously I would like at least 60 but that is definitely not the minimum requirement for any gamer.

0o-saxon
0o-saxon

@quazar87 @saren_dredd like to see your proof of that. 240htz Sony tv?. 60htz max cable speed? Frequency is not limited to 60htz.  Research boys... guessing and limited understanding of hardware and software have hurt you logic

cristi1990an
cristi1990an

@ESPM400 @cristi1990an Even if you do that, you won't see the controller's normal buttons in the game. The game will see it like a X360 controller! 

RevLux
RevLux

@ESPM400 @cristi1990an  Yep, we perceive games to run much smoother in higher frame rates. You also needn't have a giant t.v. or sit very close in to get the benefits of higher fps. (Of course you may not get the full effect depending on monitor size and/or viewing distance.)

bwillb
bwillb

@x2rufff4u @wowwow27 If you honestly think that there's no difference, you should see a doctor. Something is wrong with your eyes or brain.

leonstrydom1
leonstrydom1

@kamikazeespleen @AboAlwe That's a matter of opinion (as is everything on every thread i suppose, lol)....60fps enhances the whole experience sooo much...it's one step closer to reality...your eyes don't "see" in slow motion, c'mon. But i stiull, i hear ya, 30fps, the game remains playable at least...but it will be twice the game at 60fps, that's wassup!

moaznasr
moaznasr

@Fireblader70 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u I don't think you know how motionsickness works. It occurs when you have a delay in your input, so you press a button but the guy won't move instantly. That was the problem in Oculus Rift DK1. So if anything, you get more motionsick the less framerate you have. That's why Oculus is trying to get the highest FPS possible, around 120 FPS.

moaznasr
moaznasr

@cristi1990an @moaznasr You said :"Lol! Did anybody noticed any difference at 3:45?"


At 3:45 is when the 60fps start's playing, and there's a difference. AC4 running at 30fps on ps4 isn't relevant, what part of that don't you understand?

Fireblader70
Fireblader70

@moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u Motion sickness can happen at any frame rate. Not just due to input lag, but also as simple as seeing motion on screen that doesn't match up with what your body is telling you. And FOV.

moaznasr
moaznasr

@Fireblader70 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u Yeah, sure that's true, so going with what you said, 60FPS eliminates most motionsickness because the motion you see on the screen is exactly what you told the game to do as a result of the smoother input.

Fireblader70
Fireblader70

@moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u I'm not saying it doesn't alleviate it, but my point is that it can indeed happen at that frame rate. It isn't just about input, it's about the visuals and your inner balance telling you different things.