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

[wheresmycar]

86 respondents...

90%(ish) can perceive the difference beyond 60fps, with a significantly larger portion (73%) seeing the difference clearly. There's me thinking i'm one of the fewer overclocked-FPS-eyeball prodigies but judging by these numbers, just another ordinary JOE.

To think of it, reflecting on the ~6% who said "no", providing they're getting butter smooth gaming experience, i wouldn't mind being in the 60fps-crew... rather than throwing large chunks of money at expensive GPUs to meet the desired visual performance target. Which begs the question, those who voted "no" - or more specifically those who play fast paced competitive titles and voted "no", would you consider your visual experience being smooth as butter or simply good enough for anything better being needless? In my experience, 60 leads to more noticeable motion blur (reduced visual clarity), especially with camera panning, fast movements or action-packed sequences. I also suspect occasional reduced responsiveness (possibly external latency factors at play too) especially identifying enemies/objects in huge multiplayer maps which adds to input delay (or age is getting the better of me).

Anyway its nice to finally see some numbers.

 

[cvaldes]

It’s more noticeable in some usage cases than others. Simulation games (like auto racing) are a well known category.

Framerates and display refresh rates are a VERY BIG deal for VR HMDs as well as latency. This has been accepted for decades.

My Oculus Rift S has an 80Hz refresh rate which many think is very near the lower threshold of user comfort and satisfaction for VR. If you ever put a smartphone with a 60Hz display in a Google Cardboard viewer you’d agree. That 20Hz difference is B-I-G.

 

[tommesfps]

People are still confused about the 30-60 Hz critical flicker fusion study and the totally different topic regarding LCD LED-backlit monitor with different refresh rates.

Guys, your monitors a 95% models with "flicker-free" LED backlight. Even if you run a rar model with dimmed pwm backlight the frequency is way different from 60Hz (multiple of it).

Please dont get confused.

 

[Dragam1337]

86 respondents...

90%(ish) can perceive the difference beyond 60fps, with a significantly larger portion (73%) seeing the difference clearly. There's me thinking i'm one of the fewer overclocked-FPS-eyeball prodigies but judging by these numbers, just another ordinary JOE.

To think of it, reflecting on the ~6% who said "no", providing they're getting butter smooth gaming experience, i wouldn't mind being in the 60fps-crew... rather than throwing large chunks of money at expensive GPUs to meet the desired visual performance target. Which begs the question, those who voted "no" - or more specifically those who play fast paced competitive titles and voted "no", would you consider your visual experience being smooth as butter or simply good enough for anything better being needless? In my experience, 60 leads to more noticeable motion blur (reduced visual clarity), especially with camera panning, fast movements or action-packed sequences. I also suspect occasional reduced responsiveness (possibly external latency factors at play too) especially identifying enemies/objects in huge multiplayer maps which adds to input delay (or age is getting the better of me).

Anyway its nice to finally see some numbers.

Gotta consider where the poll is done (tech enthusiast forum) - if a blind test was done on the average non-techie, i'd wager that the percentages would be the other way around.

As for the latter part of your post, i voted no, but i do not play competitive games. I play graphically demanding singleplayer games at 8k60.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

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.

I don't think that applies to everyone though I don't mind in single player games if the fps varies from 90-174fps as long as they don't dip below let's say 80 on the flip side if it's 30 or 60 like let's say on a console game it better be rock solid 99% of the time with no stutter or I'm not playing it. I have a hard time at 30fps regardless and couldn't stomach 60fps till I switched to Oled though.

Interestingly in call of duty I prefer an uncapped framerate it feels better to me than locking it at an arbitrary number.

Disclaimer the weakest hardware I have access to is a 6700XT/4070 (1080p) and I mostly game on a 4090 at 1440p UW usually downsampled from a higher resolution with DLDSR so framerates are almost always high and consistent.

 

[Chicken Patty]

I have a 75Hz monitor and a 144Mhz. I can definitely tell the difference between both 100%. I know it's not 60, but that would just be a more drastic change if anything.

 

[GreiverBlade]

i only perceive differences between 60 and up to 100hz beyond that : pure gimmick ... well ... i will say "imho" to let the special one feel special (joke joke, don't worry, special ones, you are indeed special)
it's a bit like resolution to me ... 1620p on 32" is the perfect sweetspot, so is 75hz (since my current screen only can do 1440p75 or 1620p60, but i tested higher refresh/resolutions tho ... )

nonetheless : 30fps is unacceptable for me nowadays #pcgmr


remove the exclusive title ... because right now ... i want Stellar Blade ... and it's a PS exclusive ... raaaaaaaaaahhhhh
and replace 1080p with 1440p minima

 

[Lew Zealand]

60Hz is fine for many games and everyday work but do I like 120-144Hz for even text scrolling? Yes, it's better. My monitor has 100Hz HDMI connections and when I use those inputs, 100Hz is still noticeable and appreciably better than 60Hz.

For e-Sports, the difference from even 60-100Hz is huge. From 100-144Hz is noticeable and welcome but not huge. I'd probably notice a 144-240Hz jump but it's probably well into diminishing returns.

For RPG games, 60Hz is enough but I really try to hit 80-100Hz as it makes a difference in smoothness. Not necessary but appreciated. Above 80-100Hz in RPG seems like placebo and wasted power.

Some low-poly graphics games (Slime Rancher and similar) seem to have very little difference even from 60-100Hz though they're also low-demand on a GPU so I'll go for 80Hz. 100Hz looks identical to 80Hz and 80 is smooth.

So it's situation dependent and if I use the wrong refresh rate for the game it's immediately noticeable, especially for e-Sports.

Edit: on the other end if I'm playing a demanding game at 60fps which is dipping lower, 50 fps is fine but I start to notice the choppiness at about 45fps. Have I played action scenes lower than that? Sure, cleared the first Corruptor out in HZD on a Ryzen 3 1200 dipping down to ~28fps but of course it was noticeable and unwelcome. Still playable though it seems…

 

[wheresmycar]

Gotta consider where the poll is done (tech enthusiast forum) - if a blind test was done on the average non-techie, i'd wager that the percentages would be the other way around.

As for the latter part of your post, i voted no, but i do not play competitive games. I play graphically demanding singleplayer games at 8k60.

I can understand tech enthusiasts better appreciating the benefits of higher refresh rate gaming (same applies to digital artists/editors/CAD eng/etc) or even some attention-to-detail non-tekkie casual user for some of that buttery smooth browsing/scrolling/etc. But that doesn't mean tech enthusiasts (and co) are more prone to developing a discerning eye for higher refresh rates. I agree though, some shifting variation in %'s is always probable on a broader scale but i don't believe the end result would shift the balance. Who knows, maybe you're right... maybe people who spend less time with screens, elderly, casual users, etc either haven't developed the same level of visual perception over time or maybe the 86 respondent results is the norm across the board with no process involved to sway from one extreme to the next. It would be nice to see a more universally conducted test and see what those results look like.

8K60 I only got as far as 1440p, even 4K won't be possible now - not when you've stolen all the pixels (hehe). That must be some insane level of eye candy and i'm assuming the 4090 is consistently procuring 60fps in the titles you play @ high quality settings?

 

[Dragam1337]

I can understand tech enthusiasts better appreciating the benefits of higher refresh rate gaming (same applies to digital artists/editors/CAD eng/etc) or even some attention-to-detail non-tekkie casual user for some of that buttery smooth browsing/scrolling/etc. But that doesn't mean tech enthusiasts (and co) are more prone to developing a discerning eye for higher refresh rates. I agree though, some shifting variation in %'s is always probable on a broader scale but i don't believe the end result would shift the balance. Who knows, maybe you're right... maybe people who spend less time with screens, elderly, casual users, etc either haven't developed the same level of visual perception over time or maybe the 86 respondent results is the norm across the board with no process involved to sway from one extreme to the next. It would be nice to see a more universally conducted test and see what those results look like.

8K60 I only got as far as 1440p, even 4K won't be possible now - not when you've stolen all the pixels (hehe). That must be some insane level of eye candy and i'm assuming the 4090 is consistently procuring 60fps in the titles you play @ high quality settings?

Consider this - if the average person was allergic to 60 hz, would consoles running 30 even be a thing ?
Tpu userbase is not representative of the average person, and that's really all there is to say about it.

It is indeed insane levels of eye-candy

Spoiler

 

[Desktopstu]

Ive played on 60Hz monitors for years without issue, and before that with 30Hz CRTs. For years I wondered what a high refresh rate monitor would be like, saw lots of videos about the advantages of high refresh rates and I bought into it.

I recently upgraded my monitors from 2 x 60Hz, keeping one a 4K 60Hz and the new one is a 1080 165Hz. Is there a huge difference to my 54yr old eyes? not as much as I was expecting after hearing all the hype. Playing my current favourite game, World of Tanks, my Arc A770 graphics card hits the 165 fps cap at ultra settings on the 1080. If i switch to the 4K I hit the 60 fps cap. Both feel smooth. But I dont play many different games so maybe thats it.

Am I dissapointed with my purchase? probably too early to say. I was at first but ive grown to enjoy the 1080 and play on that more than the 4K.

 

[SPARSTE96]

Yes, to me the difference is as clear as day. I find 60 fps almost unplayable.

 

[AusWolf]

It depends.

• While scrolling in a web browser, I see some slight difference, but not enough for it to matter.
• In games, I don't see any difference at all, as long as my FPS is above 50 and there are no excessive dips. My tolerance level is around 30-40 FPS minimum.

I have to add, I'm using a 144 Hz VRR monitor.

So I voted no.

 

[mesaprotector]

30 vs 60 fps is a pretty big difference. I notice it immediately, whether I'm in a game or watching a video.

60 vs 120 fps is a small difference. I'm unlikely to notice it, but I can tell if I look for it specifically. The exception is games using a mouse where you can sharply move the camera, then I do notice it.

I think most people can tell the difference but there's definitely a placebo effect at play too. It's very hard to find blind tests for this. The only attempt I can find of a comparison (other than that UFO website, which is useless) is this Youtube video. You play it at double speed. In my browser, Youtube will drop a bunch of frames unless it's full screen.

 

[mesaprotector]

In case anyone wants to test it out, I took the 120 fps video from the Blurbusters website (not the UFO one, the Battlefield gameplay one), and had ffmpeg drop its framerate to 60 fps, as well as 30 fps and 15 fps for good measure. I don't know how you'd do a blind test on Windows (presumably some video players can do random shuffle with repeats), but I can provide the command I used to do it from the shell in Linux: if (( RANDOM % 2 == 0 )); then mpv battlefield120.mp4 --fs; else mpv battlefield60.mp4 --fs; fi

I ran the test 20 times and got 18 right, which I think is forgivable considering my RNG decided to torture me by starting out with the 60 fps version seven times in a row.

Here is the link to a folder with all four versions of the video. Would rather have uploaded it straight to the forum but I understand that 112 MB of bandwidth isn't nothing xD

 

[wheresmycar]

In case anyone wants to test it out, I took the 120 fps video from the Blurbusters website (not the UFO one, the Battlefield gameplay one), and had ffmpeg drop its framerate to 60 fps, as well as 30 fps and 15 fps for good measure. I don't know how you'd do a blind test on Windows (presumably some video players can do random shuffle with repeats), but I can provide the command I used to do it from the shell in Linux: if (( RANDOM % 2 == 0 )); then mpv battlefield120.mp4 --fs; else mpv battlefield60.mp4 --fs; fi

I ran the test 20 times and got 18 right, which I think is forgivable considering my RNG decided to torture me by starting out with the 60 fps version seven times in a row.

Here is the link to a folder with all four versions of the video. Would rather have uploaded it straight to the forum but I understand that 112 MB of bandwidth isn't nothing xD

Thanks for the uploads

You did 20, we did 20.

Only comparing 60 vs 120: 20/20 i got it right every single time. In-fact, i didn't even have to watch the entire vid each time. Right at the start when turning towards the stairs was enough to pick out the huge difference 120fps makes for motion clarity.

Some of my games dip somewhere in 60-80 region in dense environments or infrequent intense action scenes... i can easily live with that. At 60fps games still look good.