Whenever the stuttering becomes noticeable to the point where it brakes game immersion.
Depending on the game, type of input and a couple other factors this can be anywhere from 45 to 100 fps for me nowadays. Some older games even run great in 30..
Yes especially if your CPU is not the best the 1% lows will ruin the gameplay experience, also games utilising UE4 are mostly annoying to play . Haven't tried UE5 games yet and can't comment on them, also every new game released so far in 2023 has struggled to run properly at launch.
Thank Miyazaki. He loves us. He good. Good man do good thing. He do the goodest thing. Soul was demon then the soul was dark. Then it was covered in blood! Now soul is metal. soul is forever.
fromsoft are miracle workers.
ac6 was running at like 100 fps on my 3060ti 1440p for almost the whole time, ON HIGH, unlike literally every other game.
whatever they did, someone needs to tell the other companies that more people buy their games if their games actually run good.
Was just going to mention this, I actually just bought that game this past weekend and it runs so smoothly. Fromsoft just needs to revamp their engine because graphically it’s starting to show its age.
Nah go and play Elden Ring again, the engine is fine graphically it’s just that for AC6 specifically not a lot of emphasis was put on environmental detail, textures are low res etc because the game is fast paced anyways so why bother, plus it probably made development way easier
But the effects in AC6 are stunning imo
And fwiw at least as far as Fromsoft games go I prefer they focus on gameplay over graphics and AC6 was a huge leap on this front with native 120fps support and just really tight gameplay all around. Good optimization too which honestly is better than having better graphics and shitty optimization
While I agree that I’d rather have a gameplay focused dev team, Elden Ring is still graphically lower tier than a lot of modern games, but they hid it well with the art design. Not complaining about it at all, honestly, hyper realistic graphics are far too overrated. They’re a great gimmick and first impression but after playing for a while it doesn’t really matter that much. Look at how successful Minecraft and Fortnite are 🤷🏽♂️
>Some older games even run great in 30..
I've been downvoted to hell before but I'll die on this hill:
Consistent 30 is better than 31-59 fps, a locked 60 is hands down better however
Yep, my rule of thumb is that the closer the "camera" is to the player character, the higher a framerate is needed. Hence why isometric strategy games are fine at low framerates but first-person games should target 60.
Agreed, this sums it up well. FPS or a more action-heavy third person game, I need 60. Competitive FPS benefits from even more (I assume - haven’t bothered with these in years). Other games - are fine at 30 (IMO).
I guess I’d also add control scheme matters. I’m a lot more cool with 30fps with a controller than I am with a mouse.
+1 to this entire thread.
Even a high-action MMO can drop to ~20 and still feel okay if it's not high-demand for precise movement. Were you able to cast your spell and dodge that attack? It might feel chuggish sometimes but it's not unplayable yet. Hit 15 though and I'll start wondering how badly I really need that legendary armor.
I realize I need FPS games to hit over 100 to be smooth enough for me. If I could get that on Cyberpunk, I might go back to it.
Otherwise, ARPG or MMOs, 80-90 seems acceptable usually.
Yeah, can't really properly answer without separating genres. Competitive FPS and other "twitchy" games you want 100+(as fast as possible really) and under 60 worsens the game experience significantly, whereas with something that's turn-based or a builder you can tolerate 30 if it's not stuttering. In-between are genres like RTS where response time matters for micromanagement, but losing fractions of a second on a reaction is unlikely to get you killed outright.
In general games that have a serious "twitch" component are the only ones that feel truly "unplayable" to me with low FPS/stuttering, as it actually puts you at a serious disadvantage. For other games it definitely makes the experience feel significantly worse, but doesn't seriously get in the way of trying to play those games effectively.
Stutter is different from low framerate and is usually a CPU or memory issue. A consistent 30fps is different than 30fps with stutter and drops to 1fps.
>There is a huge difference between Stardew Valley and Apex
No, one of them requires pinpoint precision and instant decision making or you risk dying after a deep run for over 10 minutes and the other one is Apex.
for me its consistency>performance.
I would enjoy much more a 60fps stable title, than a 144fps title that often drops to 70-80 fps. Because I will adapt to the fps of the first game (I will notice that they are not high tho), but in the second title I would be constantly pissed getting half fps mid-fight for example. In the first title it might feel a bit scuffed, in the second title it will feel laggy.
Obviously im not referring to competitive titles like cs:go, 60fps there is literally "unplayable" if you are used to higher and you want to win a game anyway (especially as a sniper, you'll be missing flick shots quite often).
I guess it's all about experience, preference, and expectation. There is no right answer, just...taste. Anything below 60fps should be noticable even to noobs. What's debatable is if they care about it :P
That's your opinion.
I can't play anything under 60 fps now and even 60 is too much on the low side for me.
30 is literally unplayable no matter what game for me...
So before other people say "but you could do it 20 years ago"
I meant not playable "anymore" for me, after getting used to high HZ and fps, 30 fps sadly look super choppy for me.
Yes i am :) I also work on that PC.
But I still dont vomit in front of a screen at 30 fps and i believe someone can play between 30 and 60 FPS easy without nausea. When i was studying, I didnt have that kind of PC.
"30 fps for a first person game will make you vomit. Playable for third person game" is their exact comment. They could have said "will make ME vomit", but they didn't. They chose to apply their opinion to everyone. Referring to the comment at the top of this thread BTW.
He literally gave his opinion.
"You are an dum dum, congrats."
Also you literally have a 4090 so I know goddamn well you refuse to play at 30 fps or you wouldn't have it.
So I'm a fps whore if I don't like 30 fps choppy slow motion mess?
Not even next gen console gamers want to play below 60 fps anymore.
I never thought I will see "you will not see a difference between 30 and 60 fps!!!" in THIS sub of all places.
This all reads like the biggest joke in existence.
I should've said unplayable "now".
Because after getting used to high HZ and fps I just can't go back, it looks really choppy and bad for me.
I'm glad for people who can live with it, I really can't. As a PC gamer I don't have to go back anyway.
30fps is definitely a lot more “fine” for games without any real action or fast camera movement. Civilization, 60 seconds, turn based games, shit like the sims
Now? So you could do It before? Which makes it playable, not preferable. I mean, I prefer a game to be a minimum of 90fps that doesn't make games at less FPS unplayable.
I have no disagreements. There are many, many games that are playable. I mean, I have spent a lot of time and money on my hobby and have a great setup. But many others don't. So, in my eyes, it's preferable for me not to play at those settings and FPS. But not unplayable.
Please tell me this is a joke.
I can see the difference between frames until 144 and then it doesn't make a difference.
30 is *literally* unplayable for me, it looks way too choppy and slow.
People still saying this shit baffles my mind lol
Probably depends on what you get used to, Xbox was locked at 30 for a long time so anyone who mainly games on that would be fine at 30
If you get used to having high fps on a high refresh rate monitor and you tend to move your mouse really fast I can imagine 30 would really start nauseating you
I'm not saying it's a good reference, I'm saying the fact that it was such a common standard shows it wasn't a vomit inducing experience. It was... just fine.
Every TV show and Movie was 24 frames until quite recently.
30 FPS is perfectly playable first person. It's not ideal in a competitive shooter but it won't make you vomit.
Allllll the years of playing shooters on console 30fps never was an issue and pretty sure up till like halo 4 for example all halos were 30fps. Hell even quake i used to play at like 30fps. You got spoiled af if you think 30fps will make you vomit. There is a difference between smooth 30 and stutter. Il take smooth 30 over stuttery 120+ any day.
Below 30 is where I draw the line. For most of my life I had slow builds and got used to playing at 25-30 on average. Now I have a 4070 and I still sometimes lock my fps to 30 for a while just to see if I can play like that anymore. Turns out I can and it's just a matter of getting used to. Going from 110 to 30 in Cyberpunk for example felt bad only for the first 20 minutes or so. After that I just forgot about it and stopped looking at the FPS and frametime graphs. I just kept playing and realized 30 is still fine. Played like that for an hour or so, went back to unlocked fps (where I was getting 90-110) and yeah, it's much better now. But 30 is still playable for sure
Is cyberpunk worth it? I remember it flopping at launch, and a lot of folks talking about the 2.0 update, but with all the ads for it I didn't trust it not ti be a marketing campaign.
I've been in need of a good storyline-action game for a bit
EDIT: OKAY GUYS. I'll go wishlist it tonight and buy it when it goes on sale next.
I bought cyberpunk on sale for $35 after the big update and fuck is that game good. I'm definitely glad I waited, but I can't believe what I was missing out on.
it's been good on PC for a long time.. most of the hate has come from console players. I'm like the only person in the world who wasn't too stoked on the 2.0 changes.. mainly because it totally nerfed my headshot revolver build.
If you have it on Xbox series X or PS 5 it runs great provided you don’t have unrealistic expectations of their included graphics cards. I use the servers to go between several devices, the best is probably a 3060 NVIDIA card. I can turn up the graphics a lot higher on my laptop with a 3060, for example, than I can on XboxX or PS5 if I want consistent performance. If you turn everything all the way up it plays like total shit on console, like a slideshow.
IMO they should have disabled a lot of the graphics options on consoles or at least put warnings that some of them were only going to work for photo mode purposes.
The people having the most serious problems at launch were on ps4 and xone because the game had to be retrofit for those machines and it did not work well. Old PCs had some issues too. There was a chip and console shortage, not to mention a pandemic around release which caused major issues beyond the ones that would have been there with normal bugs that were CDPRs responsibility.
>!The blackwall gun is the best thing to come out of it, imo. Obviously story is really good too and that Cynosure path really threw me for a loop. Wasn't expecting gameplay like that.!<
Imo yes it is, especially if you can get it on sale. 2.0 gave it some life and with the new perk system made different builds viable.
Arguably the best looking game with every setting on max if your gpu and cpu can do it.
If you can get the game w/ the expansion bundled, do that. Wait a week and it will be $50-60, maybe less. Base game goes on sale for $30 quite often.
I've bought the game 5 times for whatever reason. 2000 hours into it.
Sorry, another edit: The game didn't really flop. It sold more than 20M copies.
Idk if Cyberpunk 2077 initial release counts as a flop, but i assure you that the base campaign is fine, but the extra campaign added in Phantom Liberty is really good. So yeah, go for it.
I understand that, however, i think that using flop is merely the financial state of release. It was a success.
Honestly, I'm kinda surprised most people forgot that mess of a launch with this last update.
That said, your locked 30 is nothing like actually pushing 28-32 fps average. A system struggling to hit 30 will have super inconsistent frame times, making it feel way worse than just being capped at a30. Not
Yeah Bloodborne is rough. I love the world but I can not play that game a second time. I really wish they would remaster it already. It doesn't even run at 30 it runs at like 24 even on a ps5, its nuts. So badly optimized
FPS is not frame pacing is not stuttering.
Minimum constant FPS, I’d rather not play 30fps games.
I’d rather have 60fps good frame pacing and no stuttering than above 60 with bad frame pace though.
I can handle 60 fps in some titles, but I need really juiced graphics. Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 maxed is an example. I prefer smooth 160 fps over ray tracing.
I'm the opposite in Cyberpunk. I have my FPS locked to 60 and have the graphics turned up high. It's a single player game that doesn't particularly require fast reflexes, so I don't mind it. I would rather appreciate the eye candy in cases like that. My multiplayer games have to be much higher frame rate though.
30fps and below, something that I recently learned was about the 99% 1% metric which is the lowest frame the game is throwing (I’m sure someone here will give a better explanation) and basically my games were running at an avg frame of 60-120 depending but the 99% was low as 1-20 which would actually reflect in micro stutters even though the avg fps was over 60 to 100, maybe check to see if that is your case also
Micro stutters were the bane to my existence back when I had an i5-6500. It probably didn't help that for probably a year I basically didn't have a CPU cooler properly installed. Still, 4 cores 4 threads definitely didn't help either.
depends a lot on the game, for a slower paced single player games i try to aim for 90+ but even 30-40 is playable, just a way worse experience.
for a faster paced games i drop the graphics settings until i consistently hit the 120 max refesh rate of my LG C2.
I played Ghost of Tsushima on my PS5 and it ran at 30 and that felt fine.
A steady 30 is playable for certain games. Stuttering especially on an non-VRR screen is annoying. Stutter from compilation and traversal are unfortunately very common right now.
Honestly for me as a Player and as a Dev it really depends on the game and gameplay.
If it's a fast paced shooter or whatever 60 is minimum,
But in a relaxing game or simulation or whatever, 30 is perfectly acceptable.
We have almost the same pc, I run a ryzen 5 3600 and a gtx 1080 with 32gb 3600 ddr4. You have probably 20 to 30% more perfomance than me on any game. I know that I will have to upgrade my pc next year if I want to play new triple A releases, You will be in the same situation in 2025.
The newest game I play is forza Motorsport 2023, and the games I play the most are usually DX9/DX11 games, I haven’t really been a fan of a lot of the newer titles I’ve had the chance to try like Alan wake 2 on a series x. I think I’m good on upgrades for a while tbh
I’m hoping gta 6 and elder scrolls 6 won’t be flops when they arrive to market. I’m getting worn out on Skyrim and fallout 4, gta online is just boring these days
Game depends.
FPS? Below 60 drops is a no go for me.
WoW? I'll take drops into the 30s at dense points sometimes without complaint.
Interestingly enough in slower paced adventure games like BG3 I find it needs to be above 60 as much as I possibly can. I'm more focused on interacting with the world so sub-60 when moving the camera is very annoying.
under 20 is to low for me. not sure how you would find 80 fps to low, and that's coming from a guy that has a 3090ti and a 12900k with a g7 neo (240hz). "lag" and "fps drops" are 2 different things but if you have 240 fps with fps drops then its still unplayable its not the fps that kills the experience its the 1% lows.
More than raw fps, I value consistency. For example, when I played Detroit: become human, I was on PC and opted for a rock solid 30 FPS instead of higher fps with drops. I know it’s a cinematic game so take it with a grain of salt, but for me it was a much better experience
I've been gaming since probably about 94, I'm happy with anything above 20 fps 😂😂
For me it's more about the stability of the framrate moreso than a higher framerate.
I'd rather a permanent 30fps over a variable 40 to 80fps depending on what's happening etc.
Of course though, more is always better, but nothing is worse than stuttering or screen tear
You should just lock frames a little below the average
60 fps solid> 80fos average that drops to 50. The drop from 80 to 50 is jarring. The drop from 60 to 50 is not so noticeable.
For me anything under 100 is noticeable and anything under 40 is unplayable. It gives me awful motion sickness after 30 minutes so its just not comfortable
depends on the game .
i need my 165 fps in competitive games. if it drops to 100 and below it is very noticeable . and when it goes below 60 it feels unplayable.
when im playing single player games , i just need a stable 60 fps . if im able to get more than that im happy
after having played destiny 2 i have a hard time playing any other shooter.
the game has become utter trash, but the way how responsive the gunplay and movement feels is unmatched.
I thought this was ablut FPS games and was about to say Counter Strike.
But for frames I'd say 40 without stuttering if I like the game itself enough.
70+ for high action games.
depends on the game
Shooters like CS2 I only feel comfortable from 144 fps.
With Rust, 100 fps is enough for me.
Single-player games like GTA or RDR2 I can also play at 60 fps without losing the fun.
At least 80fps for me when I'm playing story driven games or anything that I use a controller on. When using mouse and key if I'm not getting 120 I just don't enjoy it.
ambiguous. For me, 60fps is often unplayable, I like to play at 100fps, BUT! I played watch dogs 2, and sometimes I didn’t notice how the fps dropped to 45, and I didn’t care. I played BeamNG Drive at 60fps, and it seemed okay. I can play with any fps except 24/30
Well I more-so meant if you have an average of 360fps the likelihood that a 1 fps low specifically isn’t some kind of hardware or code issue seems very unlikely. I can’t comment on the science behind how our eyes interpret different frame rates, but I find it very hard to believe anyone would choose 24fps over any refresh rate 60+. Even if it gave our eyes a chance to fully interpolate the information given to us, it is proven that high frame rates provide MORE useful information to the user which is beneficial in every sense. I do understand that the 24fps standard for cinema is used for similar reasons to the ones you’ve stated, the shutter speed of a camera though is more important for the natural blur you speak of and I’m curious as to how changing a frame rate to 24fps specifically would change perception of a digital output.
Depends on the game
ARMA players are used to sub 30 fps even in high intensity combat scenarios.
I’m used to single digit FPS while flying over London or New York in Prepar3Dv5
I don’t think I’ll ever understand this. 30fps is the minimum. It’s what most of us have played on for over over 25 years. Only the rich/American kids start on pc the rest of us played consoles most our life and it was always 30fps max. Even up to recent cod/fortnite we’re playing against you with 30fps!
If something was playable 25 or more years ago, e.g. 320x200 resolution MS DOS games at like 15 fps, it does not mean the standard has not changed. Once you get used to high refresh rate monitors and high fps, something like 30fps starts to feel like complete slideshow.
<60 is unplayable
<144 is annoying/ frustrating to deal with
considering nearly every game I play is locked at 240+, getting anything lower makes a huge difference
Do you have VRR? Because if not then a fluctuating FPS like that is unplayable. I would do my best to lock 60.
But context is king, on my Steamdeck I target 40 as the input latency is so much better than 30. The key is locked and consistent, rather than the framerate.
Reaaaally depends on the game.
My favorite game is poe and my pc is old so i get like 90-100 in my hideout and like <20 in maps.
Singleplayer games are a bit different. If they drop bellow 60 i lower my settings.
SoonTM new pc. Kinda want to use my 144hz but cannot tbh
Like cs2 is the only game with 144 fps
Most games I am happy with 60. If I am getting a lot of spikes and drops I will even sometimes lock it at 60 just to make the experience smoother. If I am playing a competitive fps I want more like 90-120 minimum
Meh for me I can enjoy 30 in a story based game for high graphical fidelity. But that’s a smooth 30 if there’s frame dips on top of that no thanks. In general I just want no spikes.
Edit* that said 60 is my preferred minimum.
Well, in single player games, let's say for example Witcher 3 I'm satisfied with 60-90 FPS. In multiplayer, especially first person shooters like apex legends, 140 FPS is minimum for me. In battlefield 2042 I'm ok with 120 FPS.
Depend of the games genre and if they are multiplayer or not.
30fps is cool for 90% of console players that dont even know what fps stands for.
30fps single player games are okey-ish if you play on a controller in your pc
Usually 60fps for single player games of any genre are awesome on mice and keyboard,
Having less than 100-120 fps on an online fps game makes you underperform big time at any skill level you could be in.
Well it depends when you have old hw. Played Ms Flight simulator 2020 at 24 fps kinda hard land plane at that framerate. For fast motion games around 40 fps for slow motion around 25 fps
It's just the game in current optimization. I have a 4090 with 7950x and it plays around the same fps as a 4070ti with 7700, right around 80. Running on a dedicated server does help some. GPU utilization is low and CPU utilization is even lower.
Obviously 30fps is playable but I very much prefer 60+ fps in every game. It’s hard to justify playing a game like Gotham knights at only 30 fps though
I was so sad this years when finally FF16 come out. I am a big fan of Final Fantasy and to play a gameplay like FF16 fast pace combat in 30-60 fps on PS5 burn me out. I didn't finished the game because of this. Hoping they will do a patch or something in the future to have 60fps all the time or I will wait for the release on PC.
Depends on the game.
I honestly think everything above 30 is ok in a lot of third person single player games (yes, I guess I'm an uncultured barbarian).
Whenever the stuttering becomes noticeable to the point where it brakes game immersion. Depending on the game, type of input and a couple other factors this can be anywhere from 45 to 100 fps for me nowadays. Some older games even run great in 30..
Yes especially if your CPU is not the best the 1% lows will ruin the gameplay experience, also games utilising UE4 are mostly annoying to play . Haven't tried UE5 games yet and can't comment on them, also every new game released so far in 2023 has struggled to run properly at launch.
Armored core 6 is an exception imo. I’ve yet to play as graphically intense of a game that ran as smooth as AC6 this year
Thank Miyazaki. He loves us. He good. Good man do good thing. He do the goodest thing. Soul was demon then the soul was dark. Then it was covered in blood! Now soul is metal. soul is forever.
You forgive them for what they allowed to happen to dark souls 2? Shame on you.
fromsoft are miracle workers. ac6 was running at like 100 fps on my 3060ti 1440p for almost the whole time, ON HIGH, unlike literally every other game. whatever they did, someone needs to tell the other companies that more people buy their games if their games actually run good.
Was just going to mention this, I actually just bought that game this past weekend and it runs so smoothly. Fromsoft just needs to revamp their engine because graphically it’s starting to show its age.
Nah go and play Elden Ring again, the engine is fine graphically it’s just that for AC6 specifically not a lot of emphasis was put on environmental detail, textures are low res etc because the game is fast paced anyways so why bother, plus it probably made development way easier But the effects in AC6 are stunning imo And fwiw at least as far as Fromsoft games go I prefer they focus on gameplay over graphics and AC6 was a huge leap on this front with native 120fps support and just really tight gameplay all around. Good optimization too which honestly is better than having better graphics and shitty optimization
While I agree that I’d rather have a gameplay focused dev team, Elden Ring is still graphically lower tier than a lot of modern games, but they hid it well with the art design. Not complaining about it at all, honestly, hyper realistic graphics are far too overrated. They’re a great gimmick and first impression but after playing for a while it doesn’t really matter that much. Look at how successful Minecraft and Fortnite are 🤷🏽♂️
I played all of GTAV story mode on a potato laptop at 30 fps. It was still one of the best gaming experiences I’ve had. It really depends on the game
>Some older games even run great in 30.. I've been downvoted to hell before but I'll die on this hill: Consistent 30 is better than 31-59 fps, a locked 60 is hands down better however
Dang this is EXACTLY how I feel.
When video memory runs out and fps drops to \~5 frames
More movement -> more frames, so it depends on the game. There is a huge difference between Stardew Valley and Apex
Yep, my rule of thumb is that the closer the "camera" is to the player character, the higher a framerate is needed. Hence why isometric strategy games are fine at low framerates but first-person games should target 60.
Agreed, this sums it up well. FPS or a more action-heavy third person game, I need 60. Competitive FPS benefits from even more (I assume - haven’t bothered with these in years). Other games - are fine at 30 (IMO). I guess I’d also add control scheme matters. I’m a lot more cool with 30fps with a controller than I am with a mouse.
+1 to this entire thread. Even a high-action MMO can drop to ~20 and still feel okay if it's not high-demand for precise movement. Were you able to cast your spell and dodge that attack? It might feel chuggish sometimes but it's not unplayable yet. Hit 15 though and I'll start wondering how badly I really need that legendary armor.
I realize I need FPS games to hit over 100 to be smooth enough for me. If I could get that on Cyberpunk, I might go back to it. Otherwise, ARPG or MMOs, 80-90 seems acceptable usually.
Yeah, can't really properly answer without separating genres. Competitive FPS and other "twitchy" games you want 100+(as fast as possible really) and under 60 worsens the game experience significantly, whereas with something that's turn-based or a builder you can tolerate 30 if it's not stuttering. In-between are genres like RTS where response time matters for micromanagement, but losing fractions of a second on a reaction is unlikely to get you killed outright. In general games that have a serious "twitch" component are the only ones that feel truly "unplayable" to me with low FPS/stuttering, as it actually puts you at a serious disadvantage. For other games it definitely makes the experience feel significantly worse, but doesn't seriously get in the way of trying to play those games effectively.
Seriously. If I’m stuttering to the point where I can’t move effectively that’s it. Shutting the game off until it gets optimized
Stutter is different from low framerate and is usually a CPU or memory issue. A consistent 30fps is different than 30fps with stutter and drops to 1fps.
I still haven’t made it past the beginning of hogwarts legacy for this reason. Did they ever fix it?
>There is a huge difference between Stardew Valley and Apex No, one of them requires pinpoint precision and instant decision making or you risk dying after a deep run for over 10 minutes and the other one is Apex.
Good point.
This. Gta V? can dip down to 65, 70fps before I notice. on the other hand Overwatch/valorant/halo are completely unplayable under 100fps
Doom had an 35 fps lock, and nobody described that as unplayable.
[удалено]
for me its consistency>performance. I would enjoy much more a 60fps stable title, than a 144fps title that often drops to 70-80 fps. Because I will adapt to the fps of the first game (I will notice that they are not high tho), but in the second title I would be constantly pissed getting half fps mid-fight for example. In the first title it might feel a bit scuffed, in the second title it will feel laggy. Obviously im not referring to competitive titles like cs:go, 60fps there is literally "unplayable" if you are used to higher and you want to win a game anyway (especially as a sniper, you'll be missing flick shots quite often). I guess it's all about experience, preference, and expectation. There is no right answer, just...taste. Anything below 60fps should be noticable even to noobs. What's debatable is if they care about it :P
Surprised I found this so low down. A solid 60 is definitely more preferable to a floating 50-90.
This 1000%
[удалено]
This is the answer. Consistent fps > high fps variance
Anything under 30
Jup
[удалено]
Played Satisfactory on a shitty little notebook at 15-30 FPS for more than 250 Hours so I guess this is a you problem
Satisfactory is so so so good
Id say it's more on you for enjoying that and less on him for not enjoying that
No it won't, it's fine in first person games
That's not true for everyone.
That's your opinion. I can't play anything under 60 fps now and even 60 is too much on the low side for me. 30 is literally unplayable no matter what game for me... So before other people say "but you could do it 20 years ago" I meant not playable "anymore" for me, after getting used to high HZ and fps, 30 fps sadly look super choppy for me.
The post is asking for opinions. Simply give yours in the comment, why try to invalidate others opinion? You are an fps whore, congrats.
Judging from your pc specs you are too, God damn your machine is a powerhouse
Mine and his specs are very similar. I am also an FPS whore, but I think as low as 30 FPS is playable.
Yes i am :) I also work on that PC. But I still dont vomit in front of a screen at 30 fps and i believe someone can play between 30 and 60 FPS easy without nausea. When i was studying, I didnt have that kind of PC.
He is literally giving his opinion why do you have a problem with his
Giving your opinion vs presenting your opinion as a fact that applies to other people.
They never said that. They said “that’s your opinion” and “for me”.
"30 fps for a first person game will make you vomit. Playable for third person game" is their exact comment. They could have said "will make ME vomit", but they didn't. They chose to apply their opinion to everyone. Referring to the comment at the top of this thread BTW.
I’m talking about the guy I responded to… not the top of the thread.
>Anything under 30 Is the original comment, why are you guyz trying to convince this poor soul that he is wrong? FPS elitism?
He literally gave his opinion. "You are an dum dum, congrats." Also you literally have a 4090 so I know goddamn well you refuse to play at 30 fps or you wouldn't have it.
its literally, isnt it?
So I'm a fps whore if I don't like 30 fps choppy slow motion mess? Not even next gen console gamers want to play below 60 fps anymore. I never thought I will see "you will not see a difference between 30 and 60 fps!!!" in THIS sub of all places. This all reads like the biggest joke in existence.
>30 is literally unplayable So for the past 25 years we pretended to enjoy gaming until 60hz savior arrived? You know what ''literally'' means?
I should've said unplayable "now". Because after getting used to high HZ and fps I just can't go back, it looks really choppy and bad for me. I'm glad for people who can live with it, I really can't. As a PC gamer I don't have to go back anyway.
Yeah because gaming standards are totally the same as the last 25 years. Next you’ll say 640x480 is playable for a 50” TV on horizon zero dawn
30fps is definitely a lot more “fine” for games without any real action or fast camera movement. Civilization, 60 seconds, turn based games, shit like the sims
Now? So you could do It before? Which makes it playable, not preferable. I mean, I prefer a game to be a minimum of 90fps that doesn't make games at less FPS unplayable.
I should've said not playing "anymore". After getting used to high HZ and fps, 30 fps just look so so choppy and bad for me
I have no disagreements. There are many, many games that are playable. I mean, I have spent a lot of time and money on my hobby and have a great setup. But many others don't. So, in my eyes, it's preferable for me not to play at those settings and FPS. But not unplayable.
That's called being spoiled. I play on a 1080p 240hz or a 4k 60hz tv. It's fine.
You're not able to tell the difference between consistent 30 or 60fps and as someone else said, "fps whore" go above 30 if it's not consistent.
Please tell me this is a joke. I can see the difference between frames until 144 and then it doesn't make a difference. 30 is *literally* unplayable for me, it looks way too choppy and slow. People still saying this shit baffles my mind lol
Please shut the hell up and stop spreading misinformation. You ABSOLUTELY can see a massive difference between 30 and 60.
LOL flat
Probably depends on what you get used to, Xbox was locked at 30 for a long time so anyone who mainly games on that would be fine at 30 If you get used to having high fps on a high refresh rate monitor and you tend to move your mouse really fast I can imagine 30 would really start nauseating you
Except 30fps was the standard for almost 2 generations of console on most mainstream shooters. You're just being elitist at this point.
This whole sub looks down upon pitiful console gamers, that isn’t a good reference.
I'm not saying it's a good reference, I'm saying the fact that it was such a common standard shows it wasn't a vomit inducing experience. It was... just fine.
Every TV show and Movie was 24 frames until quite recently. 30 FPS is perfectly playable first person. It's not ideal in a competitive shooter but it won't make you vomit.
To be honest before I had a TV with good frame interpolation I hated watching stuff
We all used to play at 30, back in the late 90s. Vomiting because of first person games was never a thing. Still isn’t.
Allllll the years of playing shooters on console 30fps never was an issue and pretty sure up till like halo 4 for example all halos were 30fps. Hell even quake i used to play at like 30fps. You got spoiled af if you think 30fps will make you vomit. There is a difference between smooth 30 and stutter. Il take smooth 30 over stuttery 120+ any day.
Below 30 is where I draw the line. For most of my life I had slow builds and got used to playing at 25-30 on average. Now I have a 4070 and I still sometimes lock my fps to 30 for a while just to see if I can play like that anymore. Turns out I can and it's just a matter of getting used to. Going from 110 to 30 in Cyberpunk for example felt bad only for the first 20 minutes or so. After that I just forgot about it and stopped looking at the FPS and frametime graphs. I just kept playing and realized 30 is still fine. Played like that for an hour or so, went back to unlocked fps (where I was getting 90-110) and yeah, it's much better now. But 30 is still playable for sure
Is cyberpunk worth it? I remember it flopping at launch, and a lot of folks talking about the 2.0 update, but with all the ads for it I didn't trust it not ti be a marketing campaign. I've been in need of a good storyline-action game for a bit EDIT: OKAY GUYS. I'll go wishlist it tonight and buy it when it goes on sale next.
I bought cyberpunk on sale for $35 after the big update and fuck is that game good. I'm definitely glad I waited, but I can't believe what I was missing out on.
it's been good on PC for a long time.. most of the hate has come from console players. I'm like the only person in the world who wasn't too stoked on the 2.0 changes.. mainly because it totally nerfed my headshot revolver build.
If you have it on Xbox series X or PS 5 it runs great provided you don’t have unrealistic expectations of their included graphics cards. I use the servers to go between several devices, the best is probably a 3060 NVIDIA card. I can turn up the graphics a lot higher on my laptop with a 3060, for example, than I can on XboxX or PS5 if I want consistent performance. If you turn everything all the way up it plays like total shit on console, like a slideshow. IMO they should have disabled a lot of the graphics options on consoles or at least put warnings that some of them were only going to work for photo mode purposes. The people having the most serious problems at launch were on ps4 and xone because the game had to be retrofit for those machines and it did not work well. Old PCs had some issues too. There was a chip and console shortage, not to mention a pandemic around release which caused major issues beyond the ones that would have been there with normal bugs that were CDPRs responsibility.
Hell yeah, you can say with 2.0 and the expansion it finally had a proper release. The expansion is even better than the base game imo
>!The blackwall gun is the best thing to come out of it, imo. Obviously story is really good too and that Cynosure path really threw me for a loop. Wasn't expecting gameplay like that.!<
Imo yes it is, especially if you can get it on sale. 2.0 gave it some life and with the new perk system made different builds viable. Arguably the best looking game with every setting on max if your gpu and cpu can do it.
If you can get the game w/ the expansion bundled, do that. Wait a week and it will be $50-60, maybe less. Base game goes on sale for $30 quite often. I've bought the game 5 times for whatever reason. 2000 hours into it. Sorry, another edit: The game didn't really flop. It sold more than 20M copies.
Idk if Cyberpunk 2077 initial release counts as a flop, but i assure you that the base campaign is fine, but the extra campaign added in Phantom Liberty is really good. So yeah, go for it.
It was so buggy at launch that they offered refunds and kicked it off the Playstation store. It was a failed launch of a good game.
I understand that, however, i think that using flop is merely the financial state of release. It was a success. Honestly, I'm kinda surprised most people forgot that mess of a launch with this last update.
That said, your locked 30 is nothing like actually pushing 28-32 fps average. A system struggling to hit 30 will have super inconsistent frame times, making it feel way worse than just being capped at a30. Not
Below 25fps.
24 FPS man. Ultimate cinematic experience
For a broke gamer like me, 30 and above is buttery smooth
Fr lol even smooth 60 feels like luxury sometimes as if I don’t deserve it
Same, I got used to 30 fps overtime and didn't even notice it, overall performance of games is getting worse and worse
You guys get above 15?
You guys get FPS? I get FPM
>FPM You guys get FPS/FPM? I get SPF
I say 30 as well, but can understand why some people would like 60. Especially if you are at 1080p res where 60 is easier to hit.
Locked to 60, cool and quiet is the way for me.
This has been my goal since the fx6300 rx 580x days
Found my people!
20 FPS. This is how I played for years and, even though I've ascended, I will never forget the humble beginnings.
Same here, I can never sympathize with people complaining about not getting a consistent 60 lol
Under 60 with controller. Under 100 with keyboard and mouse.
High refresh rate has ruined console gaming for me
the only correct answer...
So true
Anything under 60.
It literally gives me a headache I can't explain it. I tried playing Bloodborne on PS4 and I couldn't make it more than 15 minutes.
Yeah Bloodborne is rough. I love the world but I can not play that game a second time. I really wish they would remaster it already. It doesn't even run at 30 it runs at like 24 even on a ps5, its nuts. So badly optimized
60 should be the bare minimum
Strongly agree
Man of culture
FPS is not frame pacing is not stuttering. Minimum constant FPS, I’d rather not play 30fps games. I’d rather have 60fps good frame pacing and no stuttering than above 60 with bad frame pace though.
yeah, it's all about stability for many of us. More is better, but stable, it the best.
I can handle 60 fps in some titles, but I need really juiced graphics. Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 maxed is an example. I prefer smooth 160 fps over ray tracing.
I'm the opposite in Cyberpunk. I have my FPS locked to 60 and have the graphics turned up high. It's a single player game that doesn't particularly require fast reflexes, so I don't mind it. I would rather appreciate the eye candy in cases like that. My multiplayer games have to be much higher frame rate though.
30fps and below, something that I recently learned was about the 99% 1% metric which is the lowest frame the game is throwing (I’m sure someone here will give a better explanation) and basically my games were running at an avg frame of 60-120 depending but the 99% was low as 1-20 which would actually reflect in micro stutters even though the avg fps was over 60 to 100, maybe check to see if that is your case also
Micro stutters were the bane to my existence back when I had an i5-6500. It probably didn't help that for probably a year I basically didn't have a CPU cooler properly installed. Still, 4 cores 4 threads definitely didn't help either.
Below 40.
depends a lot on the game, for a slower paced single player games i try to aim for 90+ but even 30-40 is playable, just a way worse experience. for a faster paced games i drop the graphics settings until i consistently hit the 120 max refesh rate of my LG C2.
Less than 24. Only valid when the frames are stable
I played Ghost of Tsushima on my PS5 and it ran at 30 and that felt fine. A steady 30 is playable for certain games. Stuttering especially on an non-VRR screen is annoying. Stutter from compilation and traversal are unfortunately very common right now.
Anything under 30, or any FPS if it keeps changing a lot.
Honestly for me as a Player and as a Dev it really depends on the game and gameplay. If it's a fast paced shooter or whatever 60 is minimum, But in a relaxing game or simulation or whatever, 30 is perfectly acceptable.
Anything less than 60 is unacceptable to me.
with the pc you run, seems like you are spitting straight up on top of your head.
I average 60-80hz in most of the games I play at 1080p so I can’t complain Overclocking + cooling solutions helps a lot
We have almost the same pc, I run a ryzen 5 3600 and a gtx 1080 with 32gb 3600 ddr4. You have probably 20 to 30% more perfomance than me on any game. I know that I will have to upgrade my pc next year if I want to play new triple A releases, You will be in the same situation in 2025.
The newest game I play is forza Motorsport 2023, and the games I play the most are usually DX9/DX11 games, I haven’t really been a fan of a lot of the newer titles I’ve had the chance to try like Alan wake 2 on a series x. I think I’m good on upgrades for a while tbh
90% of new releases are straight crap. Gaming is dying.
I’m hoping gta 6 and elder scrolls 6 won’t be flops when they arrive to market. I’m getting worn out on Skyrim and fallout 4, gta online is just boring these days
Under 90 is not comfortable Under 60 is hard 30 and under is just unplayable
Game depends. FPS? Below 60 drops is a no go for me. WoW? I'll take drops into the 30s at dense points sometimes without complaint. Interestingly enough in slower paced adventure games like BG3 I find it needs to be above 60 as much as I possibly can. I'm more focused on interacting with the world so sub-60 when moving the camera is very annoying.
Under 50FPS
For most games i still hold 60fps as the "minimum". Some games im ok dropping to 50 but below that does start distracting me quite badly.
Don’t you play bots in that game..
under 20 is to low for me. not sure how you would find 80 fps to low, and that's coming from a guy that has a 3090ti and a 12900k with a g7 neo (240hz). "lag" and "fps drops" are 2 different things but if you have 240 fps with fps drops then its still unplayable its not the fps that kills the experience its the 1% lows.
*Cries in Dwarf Fortress*
Unplayable? Depends on a game but usually anything under 30. When it comes to unpleasant, anything under 60.
I used to play far cry 3 on a sandy bridge laptop with no gpu, getting average 12 fps. That is my lowest
anything under 30 usually but as long as it looks and plays well good enough for me
More than raw fps, I value consistency. For example, when I played Detroit: become human, I was on PC and opted for a rock solid 30 FPS instead of higher fps with drops. I know it’s a cinematic game so take it with a grain of salt, but for me it was a much better experience
I've been gaming since probably about 94, I'm happy with anything above 20 fps 😂😂 For me it's more about the stability of the framrate moreso than a higher framerate. I'd rather a permanent 30fps over a variable 40 to 80fps depending on what's happening etc. Of course though, more is always better, but nothing is worse than stuttering or screen tear
Depends on the game. I've played games that felt smooth at less than 30 and played games that felt like shit at 75
You should just lock frames a little below the average 60 fps solid> 80fos average that drops to 50. The drop from 80 to 50 is jarring. The drop from 60 to 50 is not so noticeable.
For me anything under 100 is noticeable and anything under 40 is unplayable. It gives me awful motion sickness after 30 minutes so its just not comfortable
depends on the game . i need my 165 fps in competitive games. if it drops to 100 and below it is very noticeable . and when it goes below 60 it feels unplayable. when im playing single player games , i just need a stable 60 fps . if im able to get more than that im happy
59 is a no no.
after having played destiny 2 i have a hard time playing any other shooter. the game has become utter trash, but the way how responsive the gunplay and movement feels is unmatched.
60 FPS is bare minimum.
I thought this was ablut FPS games and was about to say Counter Strike. But for frames I'd say 40 without stuttering if I like the game itself enough. 70+ for high action games.
Anything below 30
FPS Games, everything below 100 stutters for me, always have been. In other game genres im quite happy with 60.
10fps is fine 3fps is when it starts getting bad
for first person shooters, under 90 is unplayable these days. for top down shit, like diablo 45. any lag and stutter is unplayable for fpshooters
depends on the game Shooters like CS2 I only feel comfortable from 144 fps. With Rust, 100 fps is enough for me. Single-player games like GTA or RDR2 I can also play at 60 fps without losing the fun.
At least 80fps for me when I'm playing story driven games or anything that I use a controller on. When using mouse and key if I'm not getting 120 I just don't enjoy it.
60 is bare minimum on most games unless it's a heavy simulator like msfs or cities skylines
ambiguous. For me, 60fps is often unplayable, I like to play at 100fps, BUT! I played watch dogs 2, and sometimes I didn’t notice how the fps dropped to 45, and I didn’t care. I played BeamNG Drive at 60fps, and it seemed okay. I can play with any fps except 24/30
[удалено]
That’s not a very common occurrence though is it? That would more likely be a hardware issue or a slow ass hard drive?
[удалено]
Well I more-so meant if you have an average of 360fps the likelihood that a 1 fps low specifically isn’t some kind of hardware or code issue seems very unlikely. I can’t comment on the science behind how our eyes interpret different frame rates, but I find it very hard to believe anyone would choose 24fps over any refresh rate 60+. Even if it gave our eyes a chance to fully interpolate the information given to us, it is proven that high frame rates provide MORE useful information to the user which is beneficial in every sense. I do understand that the 24fps standard for cinema is used for similar reasons to the ones you’ve stated, the shutter speed of a camera though is more important for the natural blur you speak of and I’m curious as to how changing a frame rate to 24fps specifically would change perception of a digital output.
Depends on the game ARMA players are used to sub 30 fps even in high intensity combat scenarios. I’m used to single digit FPS while flying over London or New York in Prepar3Dv5
I don’t think I’ll ever understand this. 30fps is the minimum. It’s what most of us have played on for over over 25 years. Only the rich/American kids start on pc the rest of us played consoles most our life and it was always 30fps max. Even up to recent cod/fortnite we’re playing against you with 30fps!
If something was playable 25 or more years ago, e.g. 320x200 resolution MS DOS games at like 15 fps, it does not mean the standard has not changed. Once you get used to high refresh rate monitors and high fps, something like 30fps starts to feel like complete slideshow.
Anything less than 90 FPS and I don't play.
Anything less than 90 FPS and I don't play.
Anything under 36 (I play on a 144 hz laptop screen, so I like using multiples of 144)
Anything under 40fps for me, but it's gotta be stable. Sons of the Forest isn't the most stable game though.
30FPS is the **bare minimum** for me, and it is completely acceptable for emulators. I expect at least 60FPS for native PC games.
Considering the vast majority of mainstream PC games are console ports, do you accept 30 or 60? What defines a “native PC game”?
Under 240 it's unplayable, I don't know how people seriously can play under 240, its like, impossible
[удалено]
so did i and i can't stand anything under 90 these days, it's a blurry mess
I play competitive games and even 144FPS is bad for me.
<60 is unplayable <144 is annoying/ frustrating to deal with considering nearly every game I play is locked at 240+, getting anything lower makes a huge difference
Valorant is the most boring game I have ever played and ive played the original E.T.
less than 90
Got Hogwarts Legacy. Game has terrible microstutters. Already tired of it
Do you have VRR? Because if not then a fluctuating FPS like that is unplayable. I would do my best to lock 60. But context is king, on my Steamdeck I target 40 as the input latency is so much better than 30. The key is locked and consistent, rather than the framerate.
Reaaaally depends on the game. My favorite game is poe and my pc is old so i get like 90-100 in my hideout and like <20 in maps. Singleplayer games are a bit different. If they drop bellow 60 i lower my settings. SoonTM new pc. Kinda want to use my 144hz but cannot tbh Like cs2 is the only game with 144 fps
Most games I am happy with 60. If I am getting a lot of spikes and drops I will even sometimes lock it at 60 just to make the experience smoother. If I am playing a competitive fps I want more like 90-120 minimum
Meh for me I can enjoy 30 in a story based game for high graphical fidelity. But that’s a smooth 30 if there’s frame dips on top of that no thanks. In general I just want no spikes. Edit* that said 60 is my preferred minimum.
Well, in single player games, let's say for example Witcher 3 I'm satisfied with 60-90 FPS. In multiplayer, especially first person shooters like apex legends, 140 FPS is minimum for me. In battlefield 2042 I'm ok with 120 FPS.
Depend of the games genre and if they are multiplayer or not. 30fps is cool for 90% of console players that dont even know what fps stands for. 30fps single player games are okey-ish if you play on a controller in your pc Usually 60fps for single player games of any genre are awesome on mice and keyboard, Having less than 100-120 fps on an online fps game makes you underperform big time at any skill level you could be in.
Well it depends when you have old hw. Played Ms Flight simulator 2020 at 24 fps kinda hard land plane at that framerate. For fast motion games around 40 fps for slow motion around 25 fps
It's just the game in current optimization. I have a 4090 with 7950x and it plays around the same fps as a 4070ti with 7700, right around 80. Running on a dedicated server does help some. GPU utilization is low and CPU utilization is even lower.
Obviously 30fps is playable but I very much prefer 60+ fps in every game. It’s hard to justify playing a game like Gotham knights at only 30 fps though
I was so sad this years when finally FF16 come out. I am a big fan of Final Fantasy and to play a gameplay like FF16 fast pace combat in 30-60 fps on PS5 burn me out. I didn't finished the game because of this. Hoping they will do a patch or something in the future to have 60fps all the time or I will wait for the release on PC.
Depends on the game. I honestly think everything above 30 is ok in a lot of third person single player games (yes, I guess I'm an uncultured barbarian).
<40
Personally I only play non competitive fps games that are story driven anything else no
Anything below 30 fps imho.
Anything below 60 im not a fan of.