Your frame rate tolerance... (for those who don't have an 8800GTX).

[QUOTE="JN_Fenrir"]You guys are all wrong. The maximum number of frames per second you can "see" has absolutely nothing to do with what your brain can interpret. Your eyes and your brain can interpret far more information than any computer. Your perceived FPS is limited to the refresh rate (and NOT the response time) of your monitor, period. If your display is capped at 60Hz -- which isn't uncommon for LCD monitors -- you are only seeing 60FPS, even if your graphics card is pumping out 100+ frames per second. Know what the visual difference is between 60FPS and 100FPS on a 60Hz display? Tearing. That's right, visual artifacts created by discrepancies in the rate of communication between the graphics card and the monitor. Bottom line: your brain is amazing. 8)GANGSTA287

If you're not BSing that, it's the smartist thing i've heard today...

I think hes right, at least about the tearing.

They used to think a while back that the most a Person could differenciate between was around 25, but they eventually figured out that was wrong. Apparently after 25, you can no longer see individual frames, but seem them all sort of molded toghether. Nobody knows the true max though, they aer still arguing about it.

[QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

varpad

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

Oh there's a significant difference...lemme tell ya. If you're playing a first person shooter online, then you must have an FPS at least 60 if you want to do remotely good against the big dogs. Call of Duty 2 on 30 FPS won't get you anywhere unless you're playing with sucky players.

But I got a new computer, so that isn't a problem for me anymore. Radeon x1950 Pro baby 8)

I don't think you can honestly just generalize a genre with a tolerance.

For example, if you look at a slow FPS like Operation flashpoint, there is no need to go over 30 FPS. There isn't anything intense and what have you. Then you look at a game like F.E.A.R or HL2 and sure its nice to have 60+ in them for all the intense moments that require those frames. However, you also have games like Quake 3. Vets of that game very well know that it is most important that you run over 120+ or else every trick of the trade is nearly impossible.

So what I'm trying to say is that it really depends on the individual game then the genre.

You guys are all wrong. The maximum number of frames per second you can "see" has absolutely nothing to do with what your brain can interpret. Your eyes and your brain can interpret far more information than any computer. Your perceived FPS is limited to the refresh rate (and NOT the response time) of your monitor, period. If your display is capped at 60Hz -- which isn't uncommon for LCD monitors -- you are only seeing 60FPS, even if your graphics card is pumping out 100+ frames per second. Know what the visual difference is between 60FPS and 100FPS on a 60Hz display? Tearing. That's right, visual artifacts created by discrepancies in the rate of communication between the graphics card and the monitor. Bottom line: your brain is amazing. 8)JN_Fenrir

I was talking about the principle here. Your input is useful, but out of place. Just because the FPS is restricted by the refresh rate doesn't mean there isn't a limit to what your eyes/brains can perceive. How far more is it supposed to be? 500FPS? 10000FPS? Unlimited?

I like all my games 50 FPS+

[QUOTE="JN_Fenrir"]You guys are all wrong. The maximum number of frames per second you can "see" has absolutely nothing to do with what your brain can interpret. Your eyes and your brain can interpret far more information than any computer. Your perceived FPS is limited to the refresh rate (and NOT the response time) of your monitor, period. If your display is capped at 60Hz -- which isn't uncommon for LCD monitors -- you are only seeing 60FPS, even if your graphics card is pumping out 100+ frames per second. Know what the visual difference is between 60FPS and 100FPS on a 60Hz display? Tearing. That's right, visual artifacts created by discrepancies in the rate of communication between the graphics card and the monitor. Bottom line: your brain is amazing. 8)GANGSTA287

If you're not BSing that, it's the smartist thing i've heard today...

He's not BSing it.

I'm extremely happy with 35 FPS. I will not tolerate any less, but don't really care if it's more.

I also perfer truly high resolutions over heavy anti-aliasing. Even if I can easily max out a game, I will keep the anti-aliasing low, because I hate the blur.

RTS - 20fps

FPS - 35fps

OTHER - 40fps

games like oblivion i can tolerate 15 fps, 30 or higher i would cream my pants

games like cs i dont like it to go below my refreshrate(75hz)

games like bf2 i can handle 50 dipping down to 20s in high action scenes

free games usually are ugly and i can run them at ubove 300 fps so yea

oh and racing games i can play happily at 25-30 fps aslong as it looks good

[QUOTE="JN_Fenrir"]You guys are all wrong. The maximum number of frames per second you can "see" has absolutely nothing to do with what your brain can interpret. Your eyes and your brain can interpret far more information than any computer. Your perceived FPS is limited to the refresh rate (and NOT the response time) of your monitor, period. If your display is capped at 60Hz -- which isn't uncommon for LCD monitors -- you are only seeing 60FPS, even if your graphics card is pumping out 100+ frames per second. Know what the visual difference is between 60FPS and 100FPS on a 60Hz display? Tearing. That's right, visual artifacts created by discrepancies in the rate of communication between the graphics card and the monitor. Bottom line: your brain is amazing. 8)Erlkoenig

I was talking about the principle here. Your input is useful, but out of place. Just because the FPS is restricted by the refresh rate doesn't mean there isn't a limit to what your eyes/brains can perceive. How far more is it supposed to be? 500FPS? 10000FPS? Unlimited?

Oh, and another question... Is it more important for you to have higher frame rates or cooler visual effects?varpad

BOTH :lol:

I want to get as many FPS as I can because I like to have something to fall back on incase I hit lag or some other random occurance, it also shows the capabilities of my rig for playing future games....If I start hitting like 20 fps on newer games that tells me I need to start tweaking the clocks or I may need to get ready to upgrade a component or two.I prefer getting40+ fps with everything maxed because it sets my mind at ease knowing I don't need to upgrade anything to get the best possible quality (performance and visual) out of the game.No, the human mind cant really notice a difference after a certain point but who cares, it makes some of us (or maybe just me) feel better :).

Isn't TV only like 30 FPS? People do not NEED 60 fps..MTBare

This guys is so right.

When you watch TV you don't think "WOW there is so much slow-down in this TV show" or "OMG Lag!"

[QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

varpad

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

Yeah but your eye can tell a difference betwen mouse lag and no mouse lag. (40-60)

[QUOTE="dbowman"]

I really can't understand people who demand frame-rates of 60+

varpad

Yeah...I mean the human eye can't see the difference between like 40 and 60 fps...

oh yes it can, at least I noticed a HUGE amount of slowdown when a game went from 70 to 40 fps, it was quite shocking. I cna live with anything above 30, but 60 is much preferred, it looks so much more fluid.

100+FPS for MMOs, FPS, RTS's

and i dont know how many FPS the eye can SEE but i can FEEL the defference from 40-60-100FPS

Isn't TV only like 30 FPS? People do not NEED 60 fps..MTBare

You should read this: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

I don't get too into the details personally. Here's my own personal standard:

If I NOTICE it, the framerate is too low.

If I DON'T NOTICE it, the framerate is fine.

That's about how deep I get into graphical details. I buy the game, tweak the details and if it runs fine without looking like Play-Dough - I'm happy.

I dont get why people cant tolerate 25-30 in FPSs, its really fine for me, since my system is utter crap, in fact i have all my life played shooters at 16-18 FPS (singleplayer and MP) with really ease, i dont want 60 FPs, i dont think they are necessary.

P.S: I finished Hitman Blood Money in a week, playing it at 5-6 FPS

And for the ones talking about that you dont need 60 Fps in an TV

That's because tv programs and movies use a technique called motion blur (not the one you see in games) this creates an illusion of much smoother results, even though theyre running at a maximum of 24Fps