Since when became 60fps gaming a must

[P4-630]

I remember in 2006 I started my first own desktop PC with a ATi x300SE GPU, at that time I was happy I could play GTA SA.
Lateron I did an upgrade to ATi X1600XT, playing NFS games and GTA SA, Farcry and don't remember what else I was playing.
Later on some more GPU upgrades and so on.
I wasn't really focusing on fps at the time, I even could play Crysis at one moment.

When did people start with saying/wanting you need 60 fps for gaming. (probably 60 @ 1280x1024 at that time)

Were you able to play at 60fps gaming on your first PC.

 

[freeagent]

I still aim for 60fps

But this time @ 4K.. sometimes I have to drop to 2560x1440.. I think that's what this card was made for.. 2K not 4K.

 

[plastiscɧ]

the human eye perceives about 29 pictures as fluent. below that it becomes a slideshow.
especially in MMORPG and large groups it is essential to have fps up to get-no. because in these groups the frames drop into the abyss. this ensures that it remains fluid.

i play at 4k about 100fps in groups. everything on ultra. but i don't have all the spells displayed because it's just colorful and cluttered, you can't even see the boss mechanics anymore.

frames win games

 

[AusWolf]

A very good question that I wonder about myself.

I remember gaming magazines in the early 2000s used to call 25 fps "playable" and 30 fps "good". I'm still on this opinion, to be honest, with one addition: 40 fps is "excellent". I can't tell the difference above that.

I think the high refresh rate mania is just an artificial creation to sell 6900 XTs and 3090s and crappy TN panel monitors, and for Intel to be able to label their products "the best gaming CPU". Nothing more.

Edit: DOS games didn't run anywhere near 60 fps, but we still enjoyed the heck out of them. Youngsters of this day and age don't know what gaming meant back then.

 

[plastiscɧ]

it came up ca. 2013/2014

i found something from this website to translate it:

https://wiki.delphigl.com/index.php/Framerate

Spoiler: frames

No screen can display any number of frames per second. A common refresh rate for flat panel displays is 60 Hz (meaning the image is refreshed 60 times per second). But there are also some with 120 Hz (for stereoscopy) or 200 Hz. Since 60 Hz on CRT screens flickers a lot, these old boxes can often also do 75, 85, or 100 Hz. No matter how often a monitor can refresh its image per second - there is no reason (apart from exceptional cases like benchmarking) to let the graphics card calculate more images, especially since this leads to unwanted artifacts (tearing).

Therefore, there is a technique called V-Sync. Here, the graphics card waits until the new image has been transferred to the screen before starting the next one. It is highly recommended to turn on V-Sync if the computer can render more frames per second than the screen is capable of displaying anyway. But what happens when V-Sync is turned on and the computer can't match the screen's native frame rate?
Let's say the screen refreshes 60 times per second, but the GPU can only manage 50 frames per second. As soon as the graphics card receives the synchronization signal, it copies the backbuffer contents into the front buffer and renders the next frame into the backbuffer. 16.67ms later, the next synchronization signal arrives, but the graphics card is not yet ready. So nothing is copied into the front buffer. Instead, the screen displays the same image twice in succession. Only another 3.33ms later does the graphics chip finish the picture and must now wait 13.34ms (!) for the next sync signal. Until this comes, a total of 33.33ms has passed - in other words, we have a frame rate of only 30 fps, although the computer would manage 50 fps!
Triple buffering
The problem here is that the graphics card does nothing while waiting for the sync signal. But there is a solution for this: Since we are not allowed to write into the backbuffer yet, we just write into another backbuffer! While we write into the second backbuffer, the first one is copied into the frontbuffer as soon as the sync signal comes again. In the next frame we write into the first backbuffer again, while the second one waits to be copied. Thus we achieve the same performance as without V-Sync, but at the same time we got rid of the tearing.
A disadvantage of this method is that we need a bit more video memory. However, the additional consumption is kept within limits, because only one additional color buffer is needed - we don't need the Z and stencil buffers again. Of course, you also get more micro-stutters - but let's be honest: 50 fps with micro-stutters is still better than 30 fps without.

OpenGL itself does not offer the possibility to switch triple buffering on or off. This is up to the driver. You can emulate triple buffering using an FBO, but then you actually have quadruple buffering if the driver already takes care of it. (source: [1])

Variable screen frequency
Currently (2014) there are efforts in the industry to develop displays with variable refresh rate. Names for this are Adaptive Sync (DisplayPort standard), G-Sync (Nvidia) or FreeSync (AMD). The problem of synchronization between screen and graphics card is to be approached from the other side than before: It is no longer the screen that dictates the clock rate at which the graphics card should deliver image data, but the graphics card signals the screen when it is done with the calculations. It then transmits the new image to the screen, which then displays it immediately.
The advantage: The latency (time between user input and image output) is reduced, triple buffering becomes unnecessary and the micro-stutters caused by the latter disappear. Tearing is also not seen, since synchronization still takes place.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

A very good question that I wonder about myself.

I remember gaming magazines in the early 2000s used to call 25 fps "playable" and 30 fps "good". I'm still on this opinion, to be honest, with one addition: 40 fps is "excellent". I can't tell the difference above that.

I think the high refresh rate mania is just an artificial creation to sell 6900 XTs and 3090s and crappy TN panel monitors, and for Intel to be able to label their products "the best gaming CPU". Nothing more.

While I get you and agree with your points regarding low FPS being fine for most game's especially single player game's I do have a laptop with said crappy tn panel that does 144Hz and to be honest in some games it is a game changer, I mostly go for racing game's and the fluidity, responsiveness and frame pacing make it more enjoyable and easier on the eye's, even at 60Hz I always noted slight stepping of frames on background scenery, it annoyed me as much as jiggling textures due to aliasing so I think they have their place.

I am happy at low FPS in the right type of game though and always try to crank fx features rather than gain FPS except for racing game's where I balance the other way.

 

[caroline!]

I finished Half-Life 2 with DX7 rendering and so much ini tweaks the game had no skybox, the characters looked out of a N64 and the whole thing was running at 240P and 10FPS, max. Best game of the decade.

Now that you mention GTA:SA I also modded it following early YT tutorials and forum posts, oh and I had a friend in school who knew a lot about the engine somehow and he used to come to my place just to mod the game, apply models and change stuff in order to have a better framerate... the skybox was also pitch black, there were no cars or pedestrians and the textures looked like Minecraft when Minecraft wasn't even a thing yet. Second best game of the decade.
Still have both modded builds in discs, most of what's applied to them is deep obscure knowledge nowadays.

Today's spoiled brats will cry if the framerate goes below 60 on their $2000 latest gen RGB builds, smh.

 

[Ruru]

Hard to say. Maybe it was a good thing to not have a FPS counter as a teen since definitely everything didn't run at 60fps.

 

[Bomby569]

I think i remember everyone aiming for 30fps in the past, consoles and pc's. We were all more focused on image quality improvements.
With the dedicated gpu's it kind of become inevitable, it was just a matter of getting a high image fidelity first then there was finally headroom to focuse on more fps. I would say it came when we abandoned the CRTs as i remenber it.

 

[natr0n]

I play at 120 or 240 now.

60 feels slow sometimes depends on game engine though.

 

[Audioave10]

Things began to change when DOOM hit the PC as it was made for up to 70FPS. You could still get by, but the fast pace could take advantage
of higher frames. Then, Online Doom & Quake really started to show a difference and the best players could really "see" the difference.
You can thank John Romero for that!

 

[Bomby569]

In my time we played Crisys with whatever frames the gpu gods allowed us. And don't explode shit or you get it to 1fps. You kids are spoiled

 

[Ruru]

Things began to change when DOOM hit the PC as it was made for up to 70FPS. You could still get by, but the fast pace could take advantage
of higher frames. Then, Online Doom & Quake really started to show a difference and the best players could really "see" the difference.
You can thank John Romero for that!

Hold on... didn't Doom have a 35fps cap?

In my time we played Crisys with whatever frames the gpu gods allowed us. And don't explode shit or you get it to 1fps. You kids are spoiled

I completed it with a 6800 GS..

 

[Audioave10]

Hold on... didn't Doom have a 35fps cap?


I completed it with a 6800 GS..

Doom might have been DOOM II on PC.

 

[Bomby569]

does anyone have another answer to the initial question?

my tv (AQUOS, LCD from Sharp) already had 100Hz 15 years ago. i played super mario kart on it....

He had tvs/monitors that did 50/60hz for a long time, that was not the problem.

 

[AusWolf]

my tv (AQUOS, LCD from Sharp) already had 100Hz 15 years ago. i played super mario kart on it....

My new phone can do 90 Hz. I've never owned another device that can do above 60. Oh wait, I had a CRT monitor in the early 2000s that could do 75. No game ran at 75 fps on my PC, though.

 

[dirtyferret]

I'm too old to care about FPS, either the game feels smooth or it doesn't. If you need a FPS counter to see if you are having fun, you are running a benchmark not playing a game.

 

[Ruru]

Doom might have been DOOM II on PC.

I have a faint memory that Doom II is the first PC game I've ever played...

 

[SpittinFax]

I'm too old to care about FPS, either the game feels smooth or it doesn't. If you need a FPS counter to see if you are having fun, you are running a benchmark not playing a game.

It's the same in the world of audio. Regular listeners use their equipment to listen to music, audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

As soon as you start getting focussed on running benchmarks, it takes away from the enjoyment of the game. Either it runs smoothly or it doesn't.

 

[plastiscɧ]

actually, any normal person can perceive up to 100 FPS (black). A casual gamer (gray) could achieve better results with a 144 Hz monitor - of course, only if his system can handle 144 FPS. Pro gamers (green) are at a level where a 240 Hz monitor can achieve better results. Of course, the jump from 60 Hz to 144 Hz or FPS is much higher in perception than from 144 FPS to 240 FPS.


So far, only US Air Force pilots who have perceived 220 FPS in tests (orange) have been shown to exceed this.


How can I find and train my own FPS perception limit?

Unfortunately, there is no test you can do at home. However, since all monitors today run at least 60 Hz, you can find tests that can give you an idea of the perceptual change at 30 vs. 60 FPS.

With medical tests, like those used by US Air Force jet pilots, you could show the maximum FPS you can see in shooter games - but no one will test you. Okay, with enough money and the right doctor... well.

So, what to do?

Assume that you can reach a maximum of 250 FPS through training, and usually your perception limit is between 100-150 FPS. If you now raise your computer system to a constant 150 FPS, you have already gained quite a bit. In the long run, however, you want to move your perception limit towards 250 FPS. So you have to challenge your eyes more and get them used to more FPS. Unfortunately, you can't avoid buying or upgrading an appropriate computer system + monitor with 240 Hz.

But you can then test very quickly whether you have already gotten used to a higher frame rate. Play with maximum FPS for a while and then switch to 10% less FPS. If you feel a difference, your perception limit is already higher. If you don't feel a difference, your maximum is probably reached (if you were mentally fit during the test).


Is more than 300 FPS useful?

No. It is not proven at the moment, but probably nobody will notice a difference above 250 FPS. Even if your graphics card could deliver more frames per second, save energy and give your graphics card a longer life.

It's the same in the world of audio. Regular listeners use their equipment to listen to music, audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

As soon as you start getting focussed on running benchmarks, it takes away from the enjoyment of the game. Either it runs smoothly or it doesn't.

exactly!

 

[Ruru]

It's the same in the world of audio. Regular listeners use their equipment to listen to music, audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment.

As soon as you start getting focussed on running benchmarks, it takes away from the enjoyment of the game. Either it's enjoyable or it isn't.

Can't truly agree as I listen tunes just with a cheap DAC and headphones, but I got your point. I know one audiophile and oh shit, he just wants more and more..

 

[Bomby569]

I'm too old to care about FPS, either the game feels smooth or it doesn't. If you need a FPS counter to see if you are having fun, you are running a benchmark not playing a game.

mouses are different, game are much faster, and image is sharper, it does make a difference

when you played colin mcrae at full speed with all those gigantic pixels flying by it really didn't made much of a difference what fps it was at

 

[Ruru]

mouses are different, game are much faster, and image is sharper, it does make a difference

when you played colin mcrae at full speed with all those gigantic pixels flying by it really didn't made much of a difference what fps it was at

Some things still stay tho. I loved the OG MX518 as a teen, now I have the new model.

 

[tabascosauz]

I remember in 2006 I started my first own desktop PC with a ATi x300SE GPU, at that time I was happy I could play GTA SA.
Lateron I did an upgrade to ATi X1600XT, playing NFS games and GTA SA, Farcry and don't remember what else I was playing.
Later on some more GPU upgrades and so on.
I wasn't really focusing on fps at the time, I even could play Crysis at one moment.

When did people start with saying/wanting you need 60 fps for gaming. (probably 60 @ 1280x1024 at that time)

Were you able to play at 60fps gaming on your first PC.

Only matters what's right for you and the game you're playing.

When I play DCS I'm fine with 30fps, but it does affect headtracking accuracy for HMCS usage.

iirc <60fps looks and feels much better on a CRT. On a LCD you just notice the lag. 30fps gets easier the farther you are from the screen.

 

[Ruru]

Only matters what's right for you and the game you're playing.

When I play DCS I'm fine with 30fps, but it does affect headtracking accuracy for HMCS usage.

iirc <60fps looks and feels much better on a CRT. On a LCD you just notice the lag. 30fps gets easier the farther you are from the screen.

The flickering was the worst with CRT, at least for my eyes. I had a HP 21" Trinitron with 1600x1200 @ 85Hz