60 fps, 50 when the i5 wont hold

60 is the answer but 30 fps is not to bad for high resolutions either. The important thing is getting a constant fps raher than having higher, imo.

I probably couldn't tell you the difference between 30FPS and 60 unless you put them side by side and told me which was which.

As long as the frame rate is stable I don't care. What did Quake originally run at? 20? Looks fine to me.

60 fps in better in theory. 30 fps is easier to achieve. Some games don't really require lots of fps (like 2D games, slow games like puzzles, adventures and such) but for any action oriented 3D game I prefer to have at least 40-45 fps, 60 to 90 even better.

24 FPS for the "cinematic experience"... Now really the more FPS the better, but things aren't so simple and we are limited to a balance of quality of image vs. fluid movement, where the frame time is really important.

There's no poll option for "I'm a pleb, I can't tell" Q.Q

i think it depends on the game/engine. i've played games at 30fps without issues, but others like fallout 3-4 give me a headache ater a while.
games like baldur's gate where animations are so limited don't need 60fps, 30fps is ok.

never tried 48fps, but there's a noticeable difference when it drops to 30-50 if you are used to 60fps. 🤷

Unlocked FPS

60+ FPS gives you a smoother, faster and better experience while playing any game. There are certain games where FPS doesn't matter but anything below 30 FPS either because your PC is terrible or the game is terribly optimized, you will not have the same experience as playing a game that is optimized and runs well at solid framerates.

Say you're playing a shooter, where fast reflexes and skill are key. At +60 FPS, you'll get the satisfaction of killing multiple enemies thanks to fast reactions. But if your PC is having a bad time keeping up with framerates - constant lag, you'll struggle because your mouse movements are not fast and smooth like you had with 60+ FPS. So this proves that more FPS means more time to react.

"But I only play on console and most games run at 30 FPS."

True, I agree with you on that. Some games can't reach 60 FPS, due to hardware limitations. That's why developers who are making console exclusive games try their very best to make the experience good on a controller and keeping the game at a steady 30 FPS. Hell, some games are designed to be played at 30 FPS. That's why some games that are ported to PC don't suffer reaction time problems due to games dipping below 60 FPS. It all depends on experience and how developers made these games.

As for "Movie Effect", which is playing games at 30-48 FPS, that argument doesn't go well with games nowadays. Games are games, not movies. Games are meant to give you a challenge, but that challenge must be enjoyable enough for you to keep going. Movies are meant to show you with the highest amount of detail as possible at a reasonable 24 FPS or 48 for certain films. Sure, there are games that tell a story LIKE movies and even going as far as limiting the framerate to have this "Movie Feel", but again it depends on how the game is designed. Putting a "Movie Effect" on all games just like that simply doesn't work. Imagine playing CS:GO on 30 FPS. Would it be the same experience as you play at 60+? What about racing games that require fast reflexes like F-Zero GX?

If you choose to play these games with that "Movie Feel", go ahead, but you won't have the same experience as playing a game where speed and precise timings are everything.

30fps in a game is not movie-like. A movie is filmed in continuous motion, while game frames are replacing one another constantly. If you want movie-like, play at any fps and enable settings like bloom, motion, blur, etc (settings that more accurately represent how our eyes work in real life).

In a game, because of the way frames replace one another on-screen, more fps is almost always better because it simulates more accurately the fluid way we see with our eyes (aka we don't see in "framerate").

I haven't read but its also important to have a STEADY fps. A framerate that jumps around will keep you from perceiving it as smooth. Jumping between 40-70 fps will feel worse than just a steady 40 fps, so cap that puppy when you can.

Anything lower than 144 is a slideshow.

Anyone who chooses 30 over 60 FPS is either a moron or a genius. Unless you have frame TIME problems, never play on a lower FPS than you actually can. I don't think your friend is a genius.

The ideal would be around the 1000 Hz/1000 fps range, since this is when you are not just fooling your brain but even your eyes really believe it is fluid and real motion (granted, we can fully register visual inputs that is shorter than 1 ms).

The thing with 30 fps is that it was a physical limitation and a compromise in hardware, graphics, and prices. There have been games running on lower (a few older pseudo-3D games ran at fixed 15 fps when they tried to be fluid-motion and GTA San Andreas is locked to 25 on every platform). However, beyond the marketing bullshit, this is all that it is: a limitation. SNES, for example, tried to run games at 60 fps, but even then, some titles like Castlevania IV were so demanding on the hardware that some parts were on 30 fps.

Another thing is that 30 fps is more cinematic, yes, and this is one of the reasons many console games are closer to watching a movie with an occasional pretense of gameplay. (coughLastofUscough), but when you are playing a game, you are not doing the same eye movements when you watch a film. With a film,you stare at the screen. With a game, you are constantly looking at several parts of the screen, and this is why whenever someone gets a little bit used to 60 fps gameplay, they feel sickness playing 30 fps. same with the current 144 fps trends compared to 60 fps. Because it is easy to see the difference, and anyone who tries it can debunk the old "humans cannot see more than 30 fps" bullshit rather easily.

4K@60fps, maxed out details. You don't need 144fps in genres other than shooters. Plus 4K is worth it, if your GPU can push it.

ITT: Which is better? Getting your nuts blown off or $2,000,000 in cash?
Obviously, 60fps are superior.
What an effing dumb question. I hope you aren't being serious.

Neither of those games are playable at 30fps. 60fps should be a standard.

Depends if you are on PC or not. For me 30 fps on PS4 feels just OK, it's actually more smoother than 30 fps on PC, i don't know i just can't stand 30 fps on PC it feels so laggy and uplayable, but on PS4 for some reason it is still enjoyable, i guess it has something to do with the mouse, controllers aren't that quick. I've played Evil Within 2 on PC and PS4, and while on PS4 30 fps is not a problem at all, on PC it was unplayable for me, way too laggy. So, for me if there is a choice beetween 30 and 60 FPS i will definetely go with 60.

Even my shitty bespectacled eyes can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Whenever rapid movement happens in any game (regardless of genre, though obvious more action oriented ones are more prone to rapid movement) if it's locked to 30 FPS it just feels like it's shuttering in comparison. Even if it's not immediately obvious there comes a moment where I can't shake the feeling that the animation is lagging. Never have that in games that run at 60 FPS.
Saying that lower FPS makes it more movie-like really isn't a valid argument. Movies and games are pretty different mediums of entertainment. :P

144hz

sigh, it should have been
money loaded gamer vs piss poor gamer

This is like saying: "What would you rather receive, 30 dollars or 60 dollars?". Of course it's 60. When it comes to video games, higher is always better.

A stable frame rate is better than a high but wildly fluctuating one.
But if I have the choice, I would always go with 60 over 30. If you really want an effect similar to movies, then there's some mild trickery that can be done to give the impression of a lower framerate, of aesthetic reasons, while keeping the responsiveness that comes with a higher one, thus in any game where this is relevant, they should go with this. I don't see any case where having 30 FPS in itself would be preferable to 60. And 120 is obviously better than 60. You do get a case of diminishing return though. The gap between 15 & 30 is very noticeable, the gap between 30 & 60 is usually noticeable, the gap between 60 & 120 is not as noticeable.

I don't get people saying 30 fps is unplayable. Really? I get that playing 30 after playing 60 might be a downgrade but I pretty much play the newer games at 1080p 30-40 fps and it's smooth AF.

I don't get the point of this thread. If I can choose, of course I would choose 60 fps, but that doesn't work like that. LOL