What is the minimum fps for games?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cimetière
  • Start date Start date
C

cimetière

Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?

Many thanks for your help!!!

--
Daniel

www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/ouonsenva (français)
ou/or
www.dromadaire.com/cimetiere/english (english version)
 
In a perfect world, you'd never drop below 85fps. However, even with today's
most powerful PC hardware, that's just not possible under certain gaming
situations. 60fps is acceptable for most games. 6fps is unacceptable in any
scenario I can think of. An average of 40fps might be acceptable, depending
on the game, as long as the minimum doesn't drop below 20fps. All of this is
of course subjective. My sweetspot is 85fps for the average which means I'd
like a max of around 110fps and a low of 60fps. Even with my FX-53 and
9800pro though, that's just not possible in certain demanding games at
certain quality settings.

To answer your question... YES - 6fps = major slowdown (lagg really isn't
the appropriate term here though since traditionally it's used to describe
network latency... but hey, use it however you want to)
 
cimetière said:
Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?

Many thanks for your help!!!
Click to expand...


30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the minimum
fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you start
consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost. I
don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.
 
cimetière said:
Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually
based of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for
not seeing "lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when
they say the minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum
60 and average 40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the
game will start lagging?
Click to expand...


There was a bit of a discussion here a couple of days ago. Essentially it
depends on a lot of things, as well as being subjective.

For fast moving games, like first person shooters, 30fps would be an
absolute minimum.

Ben
 
Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?

Many thanks for your help!!!
Click to expand...

that's probably the most subjective issue in the world ...

(next to taste in women perhaps)

some feel the need to get 100 fps, others, like me, are completely
satisfied with 20 fps (as a minimum, I mean)

of course it depends ... when you are moving thru a desert with
nothing in sight, even your 6 fps can be enough, whilst in the middle
of a fight, 20 probably are too few to survive ...

some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..

best try it out with low res, so you can get your fps very high, then
play with it!

Cole ***
 
some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..
Click to expand...

Well, 3DFX themselves said 60fps is needed for fluid framerate.
Anything over that *should* be indistinguishable. I don't like to drop
below 30fps myself, but in some flightsims I own it does drop to the
teens or low 20's during heavy action. And that's on a P4 3.2ghz
w/R9800pro. They keep upping the hardware performance and the new
games just drag it back down again. Maybe I should just buy a console
and be done with it.
 
maggot said:
Well, 3DFX themselves said 60fps is needed for fluid framerate.
Anything over that *should* be indistinguishable. I don't like to drop
below 30fps myself, but in some flightsims I own it does drop to the
teens or low 20's during heavy action. And that's on a P4 3.2ghz
w/R9800pro. They keep upping the hardware performance and the new
games just drag it back down again. Maybe I should just buy a console
and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You could get a console, but then you would keep thinking how shitty the
graphics look, and wonder why you can't customise your skins, and play
expansion packs, add new maps, or in the case of the PS2 have only 2 choices
of controllers set-up (if you are lucky- virtually no customisable controls
that I have seen) oh, and not to forget crashes, even consoles crash
occasionally.
 
You could get a console, but then you would keep thinking how shitty the
graphics look, and wonder why you can't customise your skins, and play
expansion packs, add new maps, or in the case of the PS2 have only 2 choices
of controllers set-up (if you are lucky- virtually no customisable controls
that I have seen) oh, and not to forget crashes, even consoles crash
occasionally.
Click to expand...

It was only a passing idea and nothing concrete. Most of the games on
consoles are not my bag anyway.
 
some claim they can still see a difference between 100 and 110 fps,
others say they everything over 60 is indistinguishable for the human
eye ... both sides claim the others are morons ..
Click to expand...

Since my screen refresh is only 75 Hz, I can't see anything over 75 fps
anyway.

Tom Lake
 
It was only a passing idea and nothing concrete. Most of the games on
consoles are not my bag anyway.
Click to expand...

I've got an XBox, I like it. I got it for $25 though.

--
The Brain From Planet Arous (1958):
"Bad alien Gor takes over scientist Steve's brain; good alien Vol takes over Steve's dog's brain."


Steve [Inglo]
 
Hi!

I have seen lots of reviews of videocards and the results are usually based
of fps. Could someone tell me the *minimum* fps is required for not seeing
"lagging" in games, so that the game runs smooth? Also, when they say the
minimum fps seen was 6 (for sake of discussion), the maximum 60 and average
40, does this mean that when we get in the 6 fps zone, the game will start
lagging?
Click to expand...

It depends on a number of factors...

But for the most part, you want as HIGH as you can afford.

You see, a game will not RUN a straight 30fps (Speed of watching a DVD
on TV) - It goes up and down as you chage rooms and situation and game
speed.

For example: When playing a game like UT2003 - The FPS on my older
setup would bounce from 65~45fps on AVG maps... but when it drops into
the 40s - it was noticable... Playing on UT2004 is smoother, even at
a low frame rate due to improved game engine.

Then you play something like HALO, its never smooth due to its crappy
engine design. (Low detail)

For me, anything under 60fps make me nervous.... Cause there will be
a time when it will drop into the 30s and lower.



- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.
 
30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the minimum
fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you start
consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost. I
don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.
Click to expand...

Well 30/24 are video / film speeds.

If you can keep at least 30fps with full eye candy, then I would
consider it okay...


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.
 
Are you suggesting that UT2004 will run at least approx the same as UT2003
given the same pc?

I've just assumed it'd demand more and as I've not upgraded recently :(

Darthy said:
It depends on a number of factors...

But for the most part, you want as HIGH as you can afford.

You see, a game will not RUN a straight 30fps (Speed of watching a DVD
on TV) - It goes up and down as you chage rooms and situation and game
speed.

For example: When playing a game like UT2003 - The FPS on my older
setup would bounce from 65~45fps on AVG maps... but when it drops into
the 40s - it was noticable... Playing on UT2004 is smoother, even at
a low frame rate due to improved game engine.

Then you play something like HALO, its never smooth due to its crappy
engine design. (Low detail)

For me, anything under 60fps make me nervous.... Cause there will be
a time when it will drop into the 30s and lower.



- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in
Click to expand...
a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you.
(What country is this again?)
- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch
Click to expand...
of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said
Click to expand...
there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding
terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution...
Click to expand...
Ashcroft does it every day.
 
Are you suggesting that UT2004 will run at least approx the same as UT2003
given the same pc?

I've just assumed it'd demand more and as I've not upgraded recently :(
Click to expand...

They are based on broadly the same engine so have very similar
performance.
 
NightSky 421 said:
30 frames per second is generally accepted by a lot of folks as the minimum
fully fluid threshold, while 60 is ideal. In my experience, once you start
consistently falling below 20 frames per second, much of the fun is lost. I
don't like seeing numbers constantly falling below 24.
Click to expand...

generally excepted because it the rate we see at... our eyes can't
distinguish anything above 30. Its a scientific fact.
 
Andrew said:
Get a clue before spreading BS around.
Click to expand...


Well, since you challenged me I went out and got it... and found this...

Here is clue #1....

The speed of light
is about 1 foot per nanosecond. A nanosecond is a billionth of a second\=
0.000000001 seconds.
With suitable flash equipment, you can take a clear picture of a very
rapidly rotating color
wheel. On the other hand, the response time of the eye is about 0.05
seconds, which is why
moving pictures show 20 to 30 frames per second. The eye then cannot see
the individual frames
and smoothly connects adjacent frames to produce the effect of smooth
motion.

From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00660.htm

However on the contrary... I wasn't satisfied with one opinion, so... clue
#2 a & b

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

Furthermore, this site posses the question that maybe there are no frames
when it comes to eyesight, therefore any fps speed will never be fast
enough.. clue #3

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Who to believe, I'm not sure, but I do know that I'm now aware of different
ideas on how our eyes work. And I owe it all to Andrew. Thank you sir.

And to be honest back in 94 when I was in highschool it was thought that the
eyes could only see 30fps... my bad for not keeping up with the research
behind that then so called "fact".


--Brenden
 
The difference in frame rate between 30 and 60 is like night and day.
I can see up to about 70fps, some can see a bit more, some less.
Click to expand...

I can't see ANY difference in stuff beyond 30 ... must be a bit less
than 70 !
 
Back
Top