# fps needed for smooth game play



## Darkgundam111 (May 13, 2009)

So how much fps is really needed to play a game smoothly?

I understand the fact that more fps = better, but really what is the point at which more fps is not noticeable for game play?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (May 13, 2009)

In most games the magic FPS number is 60.  That's both at min and max.


----------



## reverze (May 13, 2009)

I would say I begin to notice the slow down around 25-30FPS.. 

You would want to stay around 60 on AVG though.


----------



## kylzer (May 13, 2009)

40+ is good for most games.


----------



## enaher (May 13, 2009)

*Over 30*

in my particular case  i dont notice any stutter over 30 anything under that i notice, i really dont care much about max fps... like in the last remnant i got 130FPS MAX and like 16 Min and it looked awfull, after catalyst 9.3 my frames went down to 98 but my min went up to 36 and the game felt so much better, so actually consider that improved FPS...


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 13, 2009)

depends on the game but 60+ seems to be a good number

there are certain games that dont need fps that high, CnC3 25+ is perfectly playable, GTA4 

just to name a few.


as for not noticeable anymore, id say 100+ is when it would become undetectable. unless ur playing cs with ur epic skillz.


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 13, 2009)

I would say 60 is enough


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 13, 2009)

Max doesn't matter, min is what matters. And if there is a big flux from something like 60 to 25 you will notice it. But if it's a smaller drop 20's will play just fine (not under 25) and teens is a no go. 30 though is going to be the most common min that you will see around, this is what alot of console are set to run at.


----------



## Studabaker (May 13, 2009)

30 is playable, it definitely helps to have higher FPS though as it speeds up the reaction time and whatnot.


----------



## pbmaster (May 13, 2009)

60 is a good number, but some games are picky. Like Call of Duty 2, the optimal number was 125. Anything less affected game play negatively. Given, that was for CAL multiplayer. Also, with 333 you could go unusual places.


----------



## phanbuey (May 13, 2009)

40+ for smoothness... 60 for reaction time (my monitor is at 60hz anyways so anything over that i cant see).

this would be a good thread for a poll.


----------



## Studabaker (May 13, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> (my monitor is at 60hz anyways so anything over that i cant see)



only because you're using v-sync.  i recently turned off vsync in COD4 and realized i could be getting over 100FPS, sometimes close to up to 200FPS even!

i just wish there was a way to eliminate tearing.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 13, 2009)

im pritty sure he ment, your monitor will only show 60FPS even if your game does 100fps.

your monitor wont show evey frame.


----------



## Darkgundam111 (May 13, 2009)

ah i see. speaking of monitor, should it be set to 75mhz refresh rate or 60?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 13, 2009)

Yeah if your monitor is capable set it to 75hz refresh Most games don't go any higher and watch your marvelous video card struggle. In catalyst i set that to let applications decide,and i usually go for 60hz under the applications options.The higher the refresh rate the more crisp the picture is and sadly for me slower game play, but i do only have a 4830 
But 60fps works great but no less than 33fps min


----------



## Studabaker (May 13, 2009)

i never noticed running 60hz gave me any performance difference.  set it to 75hz if you want to run vsync and get 75fps, or what i'm about to do, just set the maxfps to 75, because vsync takes up too many resources.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 13, 2009)

if you are using a CRT monitor you should set the refresh rate as high as it will go for your resolution, it will stop eyestrain and headaches.

you will also see more frames thus making the game seem smoother if your video card can keep up.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 13, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> In most games the magic FPS number is 60.  That's both at min and max.



60 too much , over 35 FPS any game run smooth


----------



## icon1 (May 13, 2009)

60+ fps is smooth, 30fps should be average for gaming


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 13, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> 30 is playable, it definitely helps to have higher FPS though as it speeds up the reaction time and whatnot.



not all games , i see worst game run in FPS is far cry2 , so farcry2 look not really run smooth at 30FPS , so we say 35 depend on game engine , some game look smooth 25 like crysis


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2009)

Your FPS should be locked to your monitor's refresh rate (vsync) for smooth gameplay and should never deviate from that - any dropped frames will result in judder. There are no exceptions to this.

I run my CRT monitor at 85Hz and it looks liquid smooth.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 13, 2009)

> I run my CRT monitor at 85Hz and it looks liquid smooth.


So your running at what 1024x768 that's kinda easy to do! when video cards move above 1368x768 (widescreen lcd) they struggle!
My monitor is a 22" widescreen set at 1680x1050 at 75hz max(application decided usually 60)goes to 85hz. 
Crysis set at 1024x768 with my setup i can set it to 85hz and let it go and i get max frame rates
now at 1440x900  getting kinda choppy 
now at 1680x1050 85hz  playable but choppy!! hmmm i guess if i was playing on 1024x768 i would be just fine but im not and i like to see higher detail on my screen


----------



## DrPepper (May 13, 2009)

Each game and person is different. Some people can't stand anything lower than 60 some people can. I used to have a crap pc and before I knew what lag was it never ever bothered me.


----------



## AllHopeIsGone1 (May 13, 2009)

40+ is fine.


----------



## Homeless (May 13, 2009)

For most games i'd say 60 minumum


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> So your running at what 1024x768 that's kinda easy to do! when video cards move above 1368x768 (widescreen lcd) they struggle!
> My monitor is a 22" widescreen set at 1680x1050 at 75hz max(application decided usually 60)goes to 85hz.
> Crysis set at 1024x768 with my setup i can set it to 85hz and let it go and i get max frame rates
> now at 1440x900  getting kinda choppy
> now at 1680x1050 85hz  playable but choppy!! hmmm i guess if i was playing on 1024x768 i would be just fine but im not and i like to see higher detail on my screen



Game at 1024x768? I certainly do not! lol Modern high-end cards certainly don't struggle above 1368x768 - only if the game is very demanding.

For example, with my new system (see specs) I can play UT3 at 2048x1536 @ 60Hz vsync locked and max details with no dropped frames.  If I let the card freewheel, the system will do anywhere between 70-120fps, depending on what it's doing.

Note that my monitor won't do more than 60Hz at this resolution.


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2009)

Homeless said:


> For most games i'd say 60 minumum



+1


----------



## a_ump (May 13, 2009)

eh like someone mentioned before 35+ for most enjoyable imo. but only exception has been crysis where 23+ felt smooth. Like in css if i drop to 30 fps i lag, 45 jittery not till 60 does it feel smooth, so 60+ for css. games likes EE2 i can play comfortably at 21fps. just depends


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 13, 2009)

IMO 30+ is adequet
my 8600GT struggles to get 40


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2009)

a_ump said:


> Like in css if i drop to 30 fps i lag, *45 jittery not till 60 does it feel smooth, so 60+ for css.*



Indeed it would do. As the monitor is likely to be working at 60Hz, then this is the rate that your game should be rendering at. It should be locked to vsync too, to prevent motion artifacts, to produce that truly smooth animation.


----------



## Evo85 (May 13, 2009)

You have to take a realistic look at the game. 

 WoW for example. I can get 100+ in most areas. But in Dalaran I am lucky to see 40. 

 If you are getting 40+, that should be good enough for most games.

 Anything over 60 you wont be able to tell by looking anyways. Well, except for the screen tearing.


----------



## 3870x2 (May 13, 2009)

20+ is good, so long as it doesn't go below that.  The problem is the deviation from the min and max on that number.  As enthusiasts, we assume that 60 is the starting point, when on the contrary, 60 is the max.  If a game were to run at exactly 20FPS the entire time, no more no less (ive tested it with limited frames) it would be very playable and quite smooth.  Did you know (in america) that movies are only at 25 FPS?


----------



## Cheeseball (May 13, 2009)

But remember, in the movies, you're viewing it on a giant screen, so you can't really see any sort of page flipping.


----------



## OnBoard (May 13, 2009)

60FPS for shooters and racing, 30FPS+ for others.

Anyways, I put settings as high as I can while still getting 30FPS average; Crysis/Cryostasis come to mind. Online is a different story again to get smooth.


----------



## Bitolas (May 13, 2009)

I'd say 60 FPS


----------



## Darkgundam111 (May 14, 2009)

hmm, lots of opinions here. Guess there is no real magic number, just as long as the game works well XD.


----------



## jamupnorth (May 14, 2009)

sorry for being so stupid ! but how do you tell what frames you are getting ?

what recording software is used ? 

i just go with the feel/look etc ?

I am getting old i know ,  Cough..


----------



## a_ump (May 14, 2009)

most games have an in-game command that will display your fps, but if you don't want to find out if a specific game does, we just use Fraps. download and install it, then just run it before playing a game and it'll show you your fps in the top right corner, though which corner can also be changed.


----------



## jamupnorth (May 14, 2009)

a_ump said:


> most games have an in-game command that will display your fps, but if you don't want to find out if a specific game does, we just use Fraps. download and install it, then just run it before playing a game and it'll show you your fps in the top right corner, though which corner can also be changed.



Interesting ? i will have  go mmm


----------



## MadClown (May 14, 2009)

It really depends on the game and person, but some games are terrible below 60 fps, like Quake and Call of Duty which, as stated before were made for 125 fps.

But you dont want to go to far below 30 fps in games that require reaction times, a lower framerate can also affect the amount of on screen input delay.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> 20+ is good, so long as it doesn't go below that.  The problem is the deviation from the min and max on that number. As enthusiasts, we assume that 60 is the starting point, when on the contrary, 60 is the max.  If a game were to run at exactly 20FPS the entire time, no more no less (ive tested it with limited frames) it would be very playable and quite smooth.  Did you know (in america) that movies are only at 25 FPS?



20 fps would look horribly juddery the whole time. The fact that it's constant doesn't make it any better. For smooth motion, you need to be locked at vsync, regardless of the screen refresh rate. I've had a monitor refresh at 120Hz and the game at 60fps and you could see the judder very obviously. However, refresh the monitor at 60Hz and the judder is eliminated.

You see the judder, because the frame is being displayed twice - the picture literally moves one frame and stops for two.

And yes, the movies are at 25fps and I can see motion judder all the time; it's very unpleasant. It's immediately obvious when you're watching video as it's at 50Hz and looks way better.

Of course running your screen at 60Hz and your game at 120fps would still look perfectly smooth - but be twice as hard on your system...


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2009)

MadClown said:


> It really depends on the game and person, but some games are terrible below 60 fps, like Quake and Call of Duty which, as stated before were made for 125 fps.



125Hz - how so? They look fine at my usual rate of 85Hz/fps, same as any other game.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 14, 2009)

For me, it's 50fps or I don't play. Period.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2009)

Darkgundam111 said:


> hmm, lots of opinions here. Guess there is no real magic number, just as long as the game works well XD.



Yes, there is a magic number: it's the one where fps = screen refresh rate. Period.


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

qubit said:


> Yes, there is a magic number: it's the one where fps = screen refresh rate. Period.



I think its not a specific number or formula but whatever the user finds acceptable. After playing GTAIV on the pc at 60fps then playing it on the xbox its very slow and crappy even on the same monitor but to others they dont notice any lag.


----------



## Mussels (May 14, 2009)

qubit said:


> 125Hz - how so? They look fine at my usual rate of 85Hz/fps, same as any other game.



I too would like to know where this magic number of 125Hz came from. it sounds completely made up.



DrPepper said:


> I think its not a specific number or formula but whatever the user finds acceptable. After playing GTAIV on the pc at 60fps then playing it on the xbox its very slow and crappy even on the same monitor but to others they dont notice any lag.



Consoles and movies use motion blur to trick your eyes into thinking its a more fluid image. if your eyes/brain can identify the blurring, you dont see it as a smooth image like other people.


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

Mussels said:


> I too would like to know where this magic number of 125Hz came from. it sounds completely made up.
> 
> 
> 
> Consoles and movies use motion blur to trick your eyes into thinking its a more fluid image. if your eyes/brain can identify the blurring, you dont see it as a smooth image like other people.



Isn't motion blur caused by the fact your eyes can't respond fast enough to the moving object so your brain tries to create an image of where it would be at that time hence the blurring. TheMailMan had an excellent link to the blue man group who explained it perfectly.♦


----------



## Mussels (May 14, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Isn't motion blur caused by the fact your eyes can't respond fast enough to the moving object so your brain tries to create an image of where it would be at that time hence the blurring. TheMailMan had an excellent link to the blue man group who explained it perfectly.♦



motion blur is an open term. it can describe a few things.

Start up a DVD movie, and pause it on a scene where things are moving. you'll notice the blurring right away. by having each frame contain bits of the frame before and after itself, it smooths the transition making it less of a sudden jump between frames.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 14, 2009)

> Game at 1024x768? I certainly do not! lol Modern high-end cards certainly don't struggle above 1368x768 - only if the game is very demanding.


Ok my bad on your resolution, however the point was made with Crysis, witch is demanding and so is just about every game i play Farcry,Cod 4-5


----------



## Jeffredo (May 14, 2009)

On most games I play 40+ does it.  30-40 I notice its slowing and 20-30 it starts getting that slide show type effect.  Considering my hardware less than 35 FPS is happening more and more.


----------



## _33 (May 14, 2009)

An average of 60 fps is pretty good.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I think its not a specific number or formula but whatever the user finds acceptable. After playing GTAIV on the pc at 60fps then playing it on the xbox its very slow and crappy even on the same monitor but to others they dont notice any lag.



It's not the lag I'm thinking about, but the motion judder. If the two aren't perfectly locked together, then you see it and it never looks nice.

Ironically, a game can feel more laggy if locked to vsync, depending on how the game engine is written.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Ok my bad on your resolution, however the point was made with Crysis, witch is demanding and so is just about every game i play Farcry,Cod 4-5



Yes, Crysis is a killer, isn't it?


----------



## Studabaker (May 14, 2009)

qubit said:


> Yes, Crysis is a killer, isn't it?



yes, because of piss poor programming.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 14, 2009)

Troll^
Crysis has bad gameplay but it's eye pleasing....


----------



## AsRock (May 14, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> only because you're using v-sync.  i recently turned off vsync in COD4 and realized i could be getting over 100FPS, sometimes close to up to 200FPS even!
> 
> i just wish there was a way to eliminate tearing.



There is turn vsync back on lol.



hayder.master said:


> 60 too much , over 35 FPS any game run smooth



35FPS will do you good as a min. And below 30FPS is were your going to start seeing problems more with FPS's.



h3llb3nd4 said:


> Troll^
> Crysis has bad gameplay but it's eye pleasing....



Crysis had gameplay ?  LOL..


----------



## twicksisted (May 14, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Each game and person is different. Some people can't stand anything lower than 60 some people can. I used to have a crap pc and before I knew what lag was it never ever bothered me.



yeah thats true in my case too... i remember having an ancient pc years ago and i diddnt realise how much lag and low fps i was getting as i thought it was just part of the game 

So i guess if you dont know what it is... then dont read this thread or youll end up spending loads of $$$ in the years ahead


----------



## Darkgundam111 (May 14, 2009)

this makes me a bit curious. What video card(s) is needed to play crysis at all max out?


----------



## twicksisted (May 14, 2009)

Darkgundam111 said:


> this makes me a bit curious. What video card(s) is needed to play crysis at all max out?



depends on the resolution... and if maxxed out includes AA and at what level


----------



## Darkgundam111 (May 15, 2009)

lets say highest resolution and highest lvl of AA.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 15, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102831 that one can
so can this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143165
well with a cpu that can keep up!


----------



## iandh (May 15, 2009)

Playable starts at 30, although the closer to 60 the better.


----------



## Mussels (May 15, 2009)

Darkgundam111 said:


> lets say highest resolution and highest lvl of AA.



2x GTX 295's on an overclocked i7. you might get 60 FPS minimum.

crysis sucks on higher settings. takes far too much graphical power, for little visual gain.


----------



## jamupnorth (May 16, 2009)

My GTX275 cant really play Far Cry 2 without the odd shudder (and thats why i bought the card to play thi game properly) It does look good but i dont even think a 285 would be much better ? Someone tell me different !

So do we all nee x2 cards ?


----------



## phanbuey (May 16, 2009)

jamupnorth said:


> My GTX275 cant really play Far Cry 2 without the odd shudder (and thats why i bought the card to play thi game properly) It does look good but i dont even think a 285 would be much better ? Someone tell me different !
> 
> So do we all nee x2 cards ?



Well it depends on the odd stutter... if its smooth smooth and then stutters randomly for a few seconds, while youre just dorking around traveling to and from  the cities - then its system.  If it only stutters in graphically intense situations and always in the same way, then it might be the 275...


----------



## DaveK (May 16, 2009)

30FPS is my minimum, I'm fine with 30FPS as long as it never drops below it during play. I could max out Crysis on my rig, but me, like 99.999% of the population, don't find 5FPS playable like somebody...


----------



## Sylvester (May 16, 2009)

I am with qubit on the CRT. My 21" Dell P1110 trinitron is flawless at 85 refresh but tolerable at 75 refresh and anything lower I see flicker even on 2D, in fact especially 2D.

Gaming FPS I find certainly needs to be better than 30 depending on the type of game, if its an overhead view RTS then 35+ will do but if its a FirstPersonShooter where you can rotate the view angle rapidly then preferrably higher like 50+.

Also depending if its CPU or GPU limited then it can change gameplay. If you have limited CPU capacity slowing down the frame rate then you will lose out in multiplayer as you wont get instructions into the game as fast or reliably through your chosen interface as someone with a better CPU. IMHO


----------



## largon (May 16, 2009)

Now where's that certain someone special that runs Crysis on a 8400GS / HD2400 PCI and claims it's playable?


----------



## MilkyWay (May 16, 2009)

i think 35fps above is playable but really you want 60fps

lol yeah he claims on his pentium 3 it was playable at decent settings
yet he couldnt play left 4 dead


----------



## DaveK (May 16, 2009)

Yeah, 60FPS is good because if there's a frame dip at 30FPS it gets crappy lol


----------



## BumbleBee (May 16, 2009)

anything under 20 is unplayable, 60 is max. human eye cannot see over 60 frames a second however you can "feel" above 60 when you turn around in a first person shooter for example.


----------



## qubit (May 16, 2009)

BumbleBee said:


> anything under 20 is unplayable, 60 is max. *human eye cannot see over 60 frames a second however you can "feel" above 60 when you turn around in a first person shooter for example.*



You can, in that flicker is eliminated at 85Hz and above. Also, very fast movement is rendered more accurately at high refresh ie better temporal resolution and that is also visible. As I've said in previous comments though, the system must be able to keep up with the monitor refresh or smooth, accurate rendering is lost and judder results, ruining the experience.


----------



## BumbleBee (May 16, 2009)

my monitor is a Dell Ultrascan P992 19" (also have a Samsung 226BW 22" S Panel) has a max refresh rate of 120hz but only 75hz at 1920x1200


----------



## qubit (May 16, 2009)

BumbleBee said:


> my monitor is a Dell Ultrascan P992 19" has a max refresh rate of 120hz but only 75hz at 1920x1200



But on the plus side, it will still look liquid smooth.  And better still, us CRT owners have a leg up on LCD owners on ghosting and other general motion artifacts.  Oh and on being able to switch resolutions without blurring, of course.

I actually choose to use a quality CRT monitor specifically for gaming, because of this advantage. For boring 2D desktop duties at work though, LCD is king and I choose those.


----------



## BumbleBee (May 16, 2009)

oh I know. not like gamers care about electricity if they did they wouldn't be using 1200 Watt Power Supplies and Quad SLI lol I use my Samsung 226BW 22" ironically for Web, Chat, Music, etc on my other computer even though it's considered one of the best gaming lcd in it's size catagory. I use my Dell for Gaming and Movies paid $30 cdn for it still had that new monitor smell you can get a Mitsubishi/NEC Diamondtron or Diamond Pro for $30 in the classifieds almost brand new. I was thinking of buying a 24" CRT so I can go higher.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 16, 2009)

qubit said:


> But on the plus side, it will still look liquid smooth.  And better still, us CRT owners have a leg up on LCD owners on ghosting and other general motion artifacts.  Oh and on being able to switch resolutions without blurring, of course.
> 
> I actually choose to use a quality CRT monitor specifically for gaming, because of this advantage. For boring 2D desktop duties at work though, LCD is king and I choose those.



sigh you're making me mis my old viewsonic g810


----------



## qubit (May 16, 2009)

BumbleBee said:


> oh I know. not like gamers care about electricity if they did they wouldn't be using 1200 Watt Power Supplies and Quad SLI lol I use my Samsung 226BW 22" ironically for Web, Chat, Music, etc on my other computer even though it's considered one of the best gaming lcd in it's size catagory. I use my Dell for Gaming and Movies paid $30 cdn for it still had that new monitor smell you can get a Mitsubishi/NEC Diamondtron or Diamond Pro for $30 in the classifieds almost brand new. *I was thinking of buying a 24" CRT so I can go higher.*



+1 about gamers not worrying to much about power directly or so-called 'green' issues. We do care about how much heat is dumped in the case though, which is of course caused by greater power usage.

My CRT monitor is a 19" model and a while ago, I was gonna supplement it with a freebie Iiyama (22" I think, beautiful super hi-res picture) from work, but unfortunately I didn't, because it was just too heavy to carry. Also, my boss said it was likely not to even work once I got it home, because those were easily damaged in transit, especially now that it's old. Apparently, just moving it around a few times could damage it, would you believe. <shame>


----------



## qubit (May 17, 2009)

yogurt_21 said:


> sigh you're making me mis my old viewsonic g810



They're a good brand. I tell you which monitor I'd still like to have though: the Sony GDM-F500 CRT. Awesome display and seriously expensive in it heydey, about £600 or so. I've had a quick google and actually found one on eBay, currently going for £55.


----------



## Wolfdale (May 17, 2009)

Just get GTX295 and you will not care about fps so far


----------



## Sylvester (May 17, 2009)

only issues with CRT are weight and bulk

power is not that bad, I do care about power, just I care more about being able to see what I play without it looking like its made of lego and shmearing all across the screen, plus there is a display lag for many LCD types upto 32ms, I still make sure I dont leave it on standby.

On the other side of the LCD/CRT pro&con debate I reckon that LCD will support lower refresh without visible flicker because of the pixel persistance that causes the ghost trails.

Personally I am waiting for OLED (and I dont mean LED backlighting) before I will take another look at flat displays.


----------



## Mussels (May 17, 2009)

BumbleBee said:


> oh I know. not like gamers care about electricity if they did they wouldn't be using 1200 Watt Power Supplies and Quad SLI lol I use my Samsung 226BW 22" ironically for Web, Chat, Music, etc



i had one of those  samsung 22" screens, they're great.

Many of us high end gamers here on TPU have secondary machines (laptops, HTPC's) that we use for internet use, to save power.


----------

