Can't see a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

I have heard this so much from so many different people...even the IT guy at work who is not even a gamer. Where does this craziness come from?

30fps to me is absolutely unacceptable unless it's like...Myst. Still I'm curious where this ridiculous mtyh came from.

There is a difference, it's the people who are in denial or never truly seen the difference. the myth comes from the old 30hz tube tv's everyone used for their consoles, and even some using the reason why movies/film is around 30 frames per second.

Good examples to show the difference can be used to show

http://30vs60.com/bf4running.php

Fact is 30 fps on 60 hz screen looks choppy, and creates latency with your reaction time.

30 FPS looks like a movie, 60 FPS looks like a camera man following you around.

30fps is lol

60fps is acceptable, especially for certain games like fighting games. This applies more to consoles though, there is no reason to have a fps cap for most pc games.

120fps+ is good

Of course if the game is not combat oriented (e.g pokemon, roguelike, etc) then I don't care what the framerate is.

You would have to be blind to not be able to instantly tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. The same applies for 60fps and 120fps.

fixed

I agree

I can tell the difference, but when you get into like 120FPS etc I cannot tell then...

looks like someone hasnt tried 144hz

Have you ever used a 120hz/144hz monitor or are you just throwing an argument out?

Do you actually have a 120HZ Monitor? Of course if your monitor is only 60HZ it can only display 60fps.

@DJ_Headshot: Yeah I do not have a 120HZ monitor, so that would be the case...

I guess I'm blind. I can "feel" 60 fps rather than see it. It's a good feeling.

Two things I've learned to keep in mind

1) Most people don't know a lot about technology - so it's likely they don't have a lot of experience playing games at both 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Even people who often are insistent about knowing a lot often happen to know the least. Example: I met another PC gamer over the summer, who always joked about being a "master race PC gamer", said he built his own gaming PC, but when I visited him and checked out his setup and how he plays his games - turned out his computer was barely powerful enough to get 720P and 30 FPS on anything he played. He didn't even play games at his native rez. I asked the guy "Sheeh, you don't like playing on native resolution?", and he insisted "Naw it looks about the same but runs a lot better". I didn't insult him or his rig or anything, but I just don't really see the point in PC gaming if you aren't going to turn the settings up past what a console would offer.

2) A lot of people lack visual analytical capability. I've met tons of people who claim they can't see the difference between 720P and 1080P, or even 480i and 720P. For these people, there could be 20+ dead pixels on the screen and they likely wouldn't notice - and if they did notice, they definitely wouldn't care. At a distance of 10ft away from the screen, my mom nor my girlfriend can't even tell if they're watching an HD program or something 4:3 SD that's stretched to 16:9 HD.

As for 60+ Hz, I can see the difference, but I don't really find it particularly beneficial to my game experience, probably because I don't live my life around Quake 3. Given the option between a lower-IQ 120Hz panel and a higher-IQ 60Hz, I'd take the higher quality image quality every time. Even popular 144Hz monitors (ROG Swift) have somewhat weak IQ unless you fork over $150+ for a calibration, but even then, you're limited to really bad viewing angles. There's absolutely no hindrance for me having 60 FPS, but there's certainly a hindrance from me having to be 100% perfectly centered and eye-level with my screen just to have an okay picture quality. Or I could always just ditch all my friends and family and be perfectly content with a TN panel. I suppose how much screen tearing bothers you could factor into things a bit, but with the right settings (so the FPS floats between 55-65), screen tearing is 99% eliminated. I can't really even remember the last time I saw annoyingly noticeable screen tearing.

Honestly, I don't think 30 FPS is that bad. Consistent 30 FPS played with a controller feels near-identical to 60 FPS with a controller - so for many console games, 30 FPS makes perfect sense. I wouldn't play a game at 30 FPS on my PC setup, but you can really feel the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS with a mouse, and how it feels is a lot more important than how it looks.

Someone should play NFS Rivals (30) and then move NFS Most Wanted (60).

Yes, I have. But, some people can't perceive anything meaningfully different between 30 and 60 or it's not big enough for them to care. When it goes from 60-120... we're talking subtle improvements IMO. You can see the improvement from 60-120? Great. I agree with pretty much everything KHandAnime said - it's a lot to do with experience, individual differences, etc. I can absolutely tell when my framerates drop from 60, but a rock solid 30 feels good for most games and circumstances except FPS and racing (rock solid 60 feels better, yes).

*edited because I misread*

Unless I am misreading, the op can see the difference between 30fps and 60. He just has met people who said they can't tell the difference.

Also no, 30fps does not feel good in most games. It's why most nintendo first party games run at 60fps and that's on pretty low end hardware.

You're right, I misread.

I never said 30fps was preferable or anything, just that it is "fine" in most situations (and still that 60fps is preferable), and I clearly acknowledged the two main situations where I don't find 30fps to be good enough. But outside of FPS and Racing games - yeah, MY opinion is that it's not that huge a deal. You disagree/have a different opinion, and that's fine. Anyway, I'm well aware that people want the best of the best when it comes to PC gaming, so I'll never convince you (nor is it my intent) to settle for 30fps.

The point of PC gaming without maxing everything out is to be able to buy games for a fraction of the price of their console counterparts, and if you are a laptop gamer like me, then you also get the added benefit of being able to carry your games with you everywhere you go. PC gaming has more benefits than just superior graphics

@pook99: I'm not sure if I'll ever agree with the "fraction of the price" argument. As a life-long PC gamer, I play games on PC because of superior input and customizability. That customizability bit alludes to what you mentioned - which is saving money by not purchasing the most high end hardware to attempt to max out everything. But at the end of the day, PC gaming, even at the mid-range level, is just not cheaper than console gaming. Not when you compare the 'effective gaming lifetime' of a PC versus a console and factor in the total cost of hardware in PC gaming.

Because they are pissed they cannot get 60fps most of the time,and rather than admit they are pissed they try to convince themselves that 30 is somehow better and more cinematic or that it is exactly the same, and another idiotic excuse is that 30 fps is more "life like"..... why? ,because fanboy's gonna fanboy.

Only in the gaming world can a smoother more responsive experience be considered worse by some of these numpty's

I disagree. Console games are dirt-cheap if bought used and there are often tons of great sales (Target and their buy 2 games get 1 free at any price, for example). Sure, PC games might be cheaper in the long run, but I honestly don't feel like it's enough to make a huge deal over. For me, PC gaming has always been about having the potential for more power and using it to enjoy games at a higher fidelity with more playability (due to higher framerate). Mouse and keyboard is a great reason too.

I'm not saying it has to be about graphics for everyone, but one of the major reasons I enjoy PC gaming is because it looks hell of a lot better than console gaming and runs a more more fluidly. It's night and day.

Most people are clueless. They don't know enough or care enough to notice differences in graphics or feel. I was visiting a relative over the holidays and they had their kid playing 360 on an HDTV with a composite cable. This whole time the kid was playing 480i. I set him up with an HDMI cable and he was so happy. Their living room TV had terrible motion smoothing on and stretched aspect ratio. To them this was normal. People are just clueless. I notice everything. Framerate judder, motion blur, flickering, screen tearing, jaggies, input lag, etc. That is why I play at 1440p 144hz Gsync.

Its not as big as a difference as with a mouse and keyboard but I defiantly wouldn't call it nearly identical between 30 and 60fps especially for shooters and other fast paced games.

I think most console gamers would be hard-pressed to tell much of a difference. At least I doubt it'd impact their play experience. I mean, I can plainly see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS no matter what game, but I think 30 FPS handles pretty close to 60 FPS on a controller (assuming the frame rate is perfectly steady). For me it's much for noticeable visually than it is input-wise.

TOTALLY depends on the game but I can tell the difference pretty much 99% of the time. Even more so when you use something like a 120Hz monitor.

Games like FIFA or turn based games are fine playing at 30fps.... but shooters and racing games, 60fps makes a world of difference.

if you know where to shop for deals, no physical store will come close to the deals you can get on pc. Just as an example, last month I bought shadow of mordor, evil within, and thief for about 40 dollars total, nothing physical comes close to that. Then you factor in the massive number of older games which go on sale for dirt cheap, as well as the massive catalog of awesome, dirt cheap indie games that you can't even buy in stores and there really is no comparison to the selection and value of PC games vs. console games.

I get the graphics and customization aspect is important to many people, and I am cool with that. To me, those things are meaningless, but the beauty of PC gaming is it has so many appealing traits that 2 people can love pc gaming for totally different reasons. For me and my extremely busy schedule, being able to game on the go with my laptop is more important than anything, combine that with the massive sales and catalog of games, and I cannot see myself going back to consoles, and this is coming from someone who has been a console gamer for about 30 years.

60fps is bare minimum these days. You want 120 or more fps now if your monitor can support it. 120hz-144hz. My current monitors a 60hz IPS so i get not much benefit from going over 60fps in most games. But games below 60fps usually give me a bad headache. A lot of people who have 120hz or higher monitors say the same thing with 60hz, they can't go back after going 120hz or more.

if you think 30fps is not noticeable your probably a console peasant, or you've never gamed on a decent pc and monitor.

I can notice in an instant if a games locked at 30 fps, and usually its because its a bad console port.

It's called ignorance.

I've had the experience of having gamed in CRT (aperture grill) monitors from the late 90's to the early 2000's where the refresh rates can reach 85 Hz (1600x1200) -120 Hz (1024x768). During the late 90's, I also had a 3dfx Voodoo 2 SLI setup which allowed me to reach 100+ fps in Quake 2. I used those same CRT monitors when I switched to BF1942 and BF2. In 2006, I finally switched to 60 Hz LCD and to be frank, I didn't notice much visually. Just like now, it was more of feel. I happily "downgraded" myself to 60 HZ and haven't been to 120 Hz since although that may change in the near future

Perhaps it was because I was so focused on what's going on at the crosshairs. I had no time to notice what's going around it. It's the same thing with that BF4 30fps vs 60 fps example in 04dcarraher's post. I automatically keyed in on the crosshairs.

To me higher framerates are more about the feel than how it looks. 60+fps makes the game more responsive. In an FPS 30fps feels like the game can't keep up with me.

This depends on the game.

Games with high motion like FPS (first person shooters), need 60FPS. You will see huge difference with everything below 60FPS.

On the contrary some other games can be played with 30FPS like pokemon which someone else said.

One of the greatest RPGs of all time Final Fantasy 7's battles are locked at 15FPS!!!. (Ubisoft, you never, ever read that... -.-).

TLDR: In most games nowadays which they use heavy motion, you will see huge difference from 30 to 60FPS...

@wis3boi: Im gaming on a 144hz Gsync monitor. Yeah it looks nice and smooth and it is noticeable, but i can just as easily switch to any one of my consoles and play something like Forza Horizon 2 or Drive Club on my 60hz HDTV without gagging over the 30 frames per second at 60 HZ.. In fact i still find them to be beautiful games.

I can tell the difference and can only really take 60 fps now. 60 fps is like real time. You dont get that with 30 fps.

V-Sync at 60fps feels disgusting in shooters. Completely unplayable with the input lag. Triple buffering improves it somewhat but it's still not great.

@KHAndAnime: I definitely agree. Although there are people who really can't see the difference simply because "their" eyes can't catch it. Probably 1 out of every 5 viewers will totally dismiss what we all enjoy because they physically can't see it. I have a friend who swears he can't tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS visually, but he can definitely feel the response time.

How do you find the motion blur in FH2? I find it ruins the game for me. Even just idling and panning the camera turns into a blurfest. I would rather deal with the 30 fps judder and be able to see the environment. They really messed up the motion blur on FH2. I don't have a problem with motion blur on Driveclub though.

@BassMan: I dunno, i guess i never even noticed the motion blur. Im gaming on a 65 in Sony LED 120 hz hdtv with my consoles.

I also have a 60" Sony (W850B). However, the motion blur is not related to the TV. It is the post-processing used by the game to try and hide the judder from the slow frame-rate. They do this to try and create the illusion of smoothness, but it results in a blurry mess and looks terrible.

To be perfectly frank, when the framerate is smooth and steady, you can't really tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. It's the moment it starts dropping below or raising above 30 like crazy you start to notice. Everybody saying otherwise is simply delusional and probably has to have 60fps to feel better about themselves because PC Master Race n' stuff.

I hope you are joking. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is huge. Obviously, when the framerate fluctuates it is very noticeable and distracting. When you are used to playing 60fps+, and you are forced to play a game at 30fps, it is painful. The consoles are underpowered and they are holding back developers. Don't be fooled by BS excuses like cinematic feel for lack of 60fps. The consoles struggle to do 1080p@60fps with high fidelity graphics and the developers have to compromise.

Those are ridiculous people that need to stop that BS as there's a hell of a difference between them. I'm surprised this is still going on after all this time.

system wars is that way ---> for all your false information needs

There is a difference and to me it is rather noticeable. I do play shooters with high end mice so It's even more noticeable, like 40 even feels lesser then 60, not so responsive. Just out of curiosity TC what monitor or tv are you using?

Ehhh thats because consoles are limited to thumbsticks which turns as slow as tanks. While mouse can snap 180 then back in a second with precision. The difference is being able to see your foes every footstep a fraction of second ahead.

People are generally able to feel the difference alot more than they can actually see it. They can sense that its smooth (or different) despite not understanding the technical term of 'FPS'. This even applies to anyone that doesnt even own a gaming PC, or play many games at all -- From using a 'responsive' smartphone UI, to watching The Hobbit or even playing the last Call of Duty games on console (which traditionally floated around 60fps).

People that cant are just idiots.

there is no fukin difference, ive played titanfall at 60fps on xbox and 30fps on my pc and its the same shit. i dont feel a difference between playing halo 4 or halo 5 beta either. 60fps is a marketing gimmick

@

I'm using a Dell U2713HM at 60 hz. The thing is I have gotten used 60fps or close to it. So 30 to me is extremely obvious. I'm fine with 50fps as well...but anything lower than that stands out to me.

Interesting that you can't see a difference. Maybe you're just used to 30fps idk but to say there is no difference is completely untrue.