POLL: Can you see the difference past 60fps (gaming/other)

[Chomiq]

Yes I can see the difference but you can have 200+ fps and it won't matter if frame pacing is all over the place or you're hitting 90%+ GPU utilization and running into render latency penalty area.

 

[QuietBob]

What factors would those be?

There are a few dozen of those, this Nvidia slide sums up the major ones quite nicely:

And there are others, both in hardware and software. Memory latency/bandwidth, the game engine itself, server tick rate for MP games, the number of concurrent tasks and background processes the OS is running, etc.

Ultimately, I would say equal frame pacing is critical to how smooth/responsive the game "feels". And I'd encourage everyone to do their own in-game testing to draw conclusions. CapFrameX/PresentMon are great tools to help analyze how a particular title performs on given hardware in terms of render latency.

 

[Waldorf]

the problem is, fps is not Hz and the other way around,
ignoring for moment that "motion clarity" refers to processing, not the native refresh rate of a screen.

i hate the 50/60Hz flicker on some tvs (like plasmas), while i have no problem gaming at synced 30fps on my 120Hz lcd.

and most that i know (personally) that game at above 60Hz, do so to reduce input lag, not for better motion.
outside of input lag, only if there is fast motion involved, will above 60Hz make any difference, visually speaking.

@faye
not for all, but most might just have a mismatch on settings (bit rate/shutter speed). or wrong settings on tv
(e.g. to get the content's "native" motion, most tvs require all motion related procession to be turned off completely).

once i started shooting 2/4K on drones, i saw the same even when just flying at slow speeds.
using recommendations from other to increase shutter speed to double that of the used fps 24/30),
and using the highest bitrate allowed at that res, made it go away.

 

[P4-630]

Well , you're really have good to see the difference in a point-and-click game.


I'd say, depends on the game as well.

 

[Frizz]

Yes, ever since I was a child watching those 60hz CRT arcade machines in the 90s were so appealing, the 2D fighting games looked amazing and looked so fluid.

60fps - 144fps for me is the difference between smooth and lifelike, have not tried above this.

 

[P4-630]

I'd say, depends on the game as well.

Example, I play Forza Horizon 5 @ 1440p 60fps, now to my eyes that game looks running much smoother than GTA V @ 60fps....

 

[Chomiq]

Example, I play Forza Horizon 5 @ 1440p 60fps, now to my eyes that game looks running much smoother than GTA V @ 60fps....

Do you have motion blur enabled in FH5?

 

[P4-630]

Do you have motion blur enabled in FH5?

I usually disable such.

 

[QuietBob]

Example, I play Forza Horizon 5 @ 1440p 60fps, now to my eyes that game looks running much smoother than GTA V @ 60fps....

Your eyes are not deceiving you. The two games run on different engines -- GTA5 is CPU bottlenecked even in 4K with maximum settings, while FH5 will make the most of the GPU already in 1080p. The resulting frame time variance is evident in how each game feels.

Here, both titles were tested @ 4K60, but because of its uneven frame pacing GTA5 has a more juddery feel, with visible stutter. As expected, both games show the same average frame rate, but FH5 has much better percentile lows:

 

[P4-630]

Your eyes are not deceiving you. The two games run on different engines -- GTA5 is CPU bottlenecked even in 4K with maximum settings, while FH5 will make the most of the GPU already in 1080p. The resulting frame time variance is evident in how each game feels.

Here, both titles were tested @ 4K60, but because of its uneven frame pacing GTA5 has a more juddery feel, with visible stutter. As expected, both games show the same average frame rate, but FH5 has much better percentile lows:

View attachment 346583

That's why I said, it also depends on the game.

BTW I play GTA V at 130~158fps (NV low-latency Ultra)@ 1440p G-Sync+V-Sync.

GTA V @ 60 fps looks horrible...

 

[Vayra86]

Your eyes are not deceiving you. The two games run on different engines -- GTA5 is CPU bottlenecked even in 4K with maximum settings, while FH5 will make the most of the GPU already in 1080p. The resulting frame time variance is evident in how each game feels.

Here, both titles were tested @ 4K60, but because of its uneven frame pacing GTA5 has a more juddery feel, with visible stutter. As expected, both games show the same average frame rate, but FH5 has much better percentile lows:

View attachment 346583

It underlines what I've always been convinced of.

Consistency > FPS number.
But there is a bottom line you don't want to dive under. I think 50 FPS is that line. 60 FPS the preference target, and higher is bonus UNLESS it harms consistency. Part of the reason for this, is what we've grown used to. We all grew up with TV at either 50 or 60 Hz, and movies at give or take 25 / 30 FPS/Hz. We're programmed for it and its very hard to delete what you learn in your early years.

Additionally, we assume the refresh rate (hz) of the monitor is always equal to the FPS presented. In other words, VRR is active.
If VRR is not active, you will never have the same perceived smoothness even at 60 FPS locked, because you'll either have increased latency from vsync, or you'll have inconsistency from tearing.

I think most people will eventually conclude that stability & consistency > FPS. And lacking stability, yes, you can do patchwork with higher FPS targets so your chance of diving under a bottom line is lower - but that's ye olde way of gaming: using the FPS to improve smoothness and experience, or combat a latency hit.

Clearly we're now in a gaming era where not the FPS, but the consistency and stability between FPS, Hz, frametimes, nets us a bigger advantage, quite simply because we technically can now and its a much more refined approach than just brute forcing more FPS. Additionally, we know higher FPS directly puts more load on the entire pipeline, which directly threatens consistency.

 

[faye]

@faye
not for all, but most might just have a mismatch on settings (bit rate/shutter speed). or wrong settings on tv
(e.g. to get the content's "native" motion, most tvs require all motion related procession to be turned off completely).

once i started shooting 2/4K on drones, i saw the same even when just flying at slow speeds.
using recommendations from other to increase shutter speed to double that of the used fps 24/30),
and using the highest bitrate allowed at that res, made it go away.

I know what you're referring to, but I see it primarily in theaters, dealing with commercial projector setups that are THX certified and similar, so I don't think it's an equipment or setup issue. Even saw it in Dune Part 2.

 

[chrcoluk]

I will vote on the poll if wording is fixed, remove the word performance, clarity or fluidity probably should be the standard word.

Ultimately higher frame rates increase chance of juddering which for sure interrupts the flow of smoothness, to me smooth is sustained constant frame time, so e.g. a steady 30 fps is smoother than a stuttery 120 fps.

Essentially I can tell the difference from say 60 to 120, but its not a difference I consider beneficial, it feels less immersive, and I feel its basically just adding heat, power usage, and a potential performance loss for no practical benefit, I suspect this puts me in the yes to some extent category, but wouldnt mind a "yes but is a negative experience" option.

When the framerate is consistent for long enough a period of time, I feel like it all "feels" the same when my body "gets used to it". Therefore, I chose 'Uncertain'. I can definitely feel bad dips and feel the difference in framerate between 60 FPS and 120 FPS if it transitions, but after a bit, it's hard to tell if I can tell a difference other than a perceived belief that input delay is affecting my performance.

Reading this actually applies to me to some extent, like if I switch to 60 when I have been playing 30, it initially feels weird, but then I will adjust, and likewise in the other direction. Although with 120, I feel like its change offers no benefit as 60 offers enough clarity. I prefer 60 for menus, sports games, beat em ups, but 30fps is preferred by me for RPGs (not menu screens though). I am also not sensitive to things like input latency, so that to me is not a metric that matters. Thanks for your answer.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

No one will say 30 and 120 look the same.

I had a severe head injury and for a couple weeks after it, I couldn't tell anything beyond ~12 FPS apart. Today, I'm a recovered person, can totally distinguish up to 180 Hz (maybe more but don't have monitors faster than that).

 

[Waldorf]

@faye
ahh, miss the time i worked at the first multiplex in germany.

i meant as in recording equipment, (film) projectors just broadcast whatever was recorded,
outside of home equipment..

@chrcoluk
yeah, it needs to be "connected" to the type of game.
big difference if its a shooter/similar or not..
i play fleet command (1998) at 30fps, anything above will not make any difference in any form.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Essentially I can tell the difference from say 60 to 120, but its not a difference I consider beneficial, it feels less immersive

In games like Fallout and TES which are hard bound to 60 FPS, going beyond that can result in broken physics, animations et cetera on top of said unstable frametime. Some games just become ridiculously fast. Some games become impossible because AI thinks way too fast and becomes unarsable.

100+ FPS are only good if you know what you're doing. And if your PC can deliver it with ease.

 

[dirtyferret]

How would one test this? Video games would be an awful way to do it since gamers use input devices like keyboard, mouse, controller, etc., You would have to use cut scenes or even better real life video to "see" the difference.

​

 

[A Computer Guy]

Something no one has mentioned yet - florescent lighting. For example my sensitivity to monitor refresh rate in the presence of fluorescent lighting was much greater especially in the office.

 

[Turmeric]

i had all kinds of refresh rate monitors, up to 240hz.
and the benefits scales well up to 240hz.
but i do not know if the poll was just about the visuals, that is the least of the important part of high fps.
but i can adjust for that and view movies at any fps so only the visible(see) part is tested.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

fluorescent lighting

I work from home for a decade already and I completely forgot about this as a concept. Gotta breach some facility and test monitors there, perhaps you're onto something.

 

[Dragam1337]

I am sensitive to inconsistent frametimes (aka stuttering), but not at all to framerate.

I would be able to tell a consistent 30 fps from a consistent 60 fps, but i wouldn't be able to tell a consistent 50 fps from a consistent 60 fps at all, let alone higher.

 

[chrcoluk]

In games like Fallout and TES which are hard bound to 60 FPS, going beyond that can result in broken physics, animations et cetera on top of said unstable frametime. Some games just become ridiculously fast. Some games become impossible because AI thinks way too fast and becomes unarsable.

100+ FPS are only good if you know what you're doing. And if your PC can deliver it with ease.

Yeah FF15 has people falling through the floor when game is played at a frame rate it wasnt originally tested with.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Something no one has mentioned yet - florescent lighting. For example my sensitivity to monitor refresh rate in the presence of fluorescent lighting was much greater especially in the office.

Fluorescent lighting is not the issue here...it's constructive and destructive interference.

The light source in question is basically created when gas is charged up, and is allowed to emit photons to decrease its energy level. Because this is controlled by the flow of electricity, it happens at the line frequency or a multiple thereof (if you've got a transformer). This means every 1/60th of a second or 1/50th of a second the charge peaks in one direction, causing a burst of light, which if it comes to the same frequency of your monitor can cause issues with sensitivity. It's also how we generate stop motion like video....which is another bit of fun.
"Stop" Motion pictures


If you want some real fun, ask how modern LED strips deal with this. A hint, doubling the frequency by having a bridge rectifier. By decreasing the peaks, but having more of them, people suddenly are less likely to develop the dreaded Fluorescent lighting and computer monitor headaches. It's beautiful when problems fix themselves.

 

[tabascosauz]

Yes I can see the difference but you can have 200+ fps and it won't matter if frame pacing is all over the place or you're hitting 90%+ GPU utilization and running into render latency penalty area.

I think it fair to say that a blind test of refresh rate/fps in games is a lot harder than in the OS, due to all the various factors that can make lower fps feel good or higher fps feel like dogshit.

But specifically in general OS use, I'd say that unless one has personal characteristics that just render eyes unable to perceive smooth motion, it's next to impossible not to immediately tell 60Hz from 120Hz. You can have the laggiest possible mouse cursor as to input lag, and 120Hz should still be blindingly obvious as to mouse movement, scrolling and animations.

 

[GerKNG]

i can tell the difference between 144, 165, 240 and 360Hz without any problems. (i have monitors with these refreshrates)