Support NeoGAF

[omegasc]

120 to 144 and 165 I can notice but it's not a big difference. 144 to 165 feels "the same" to me. I don't think I would be able to tell one from the other. Granted, I never used anything past 165hz.

 

[Rickyiez]

120FPS. Past that I couldn't really tell.

It's more obvious with fast paced FPS games, otherwise 60FPS is good enough

 

[ThaMonkeyClaw]

I limit my PC to 60fps so I can enjoy console games still. I don't want to be chasing that dragon.

 

[kubricks]

Same as everything, it depends.
For online FPS, ideally 120 - 144fps, although 60fps is also acceptable but it needs to be stutter free at all times.
For action games, 60fps should be fine.
For Strategy or RPG games, I can accept 30fps but it need to have a very smooth frame pacing.

 

[BlackTron]

144 for me. I can notice the difference beyond that, but it's not one that really makes a difference in gameplay or impacts my experience. Kinda like resolution, doubling it once makes a huge difference, doubling it yet again to 8k or in this case 240hz makes a discernible difference that isn't that important.

 

[twilo99]

On my ultrawide OLED there is an noticeable jump in clarity going from 144 to 175, while 60 to 144 is meh because the persistent blur is still there

That’s a rather strange behavior on your panel’s behalf..

 

[Mithos]

No clue, since I only have a display that can do 60hz (50" TV), so running 60fps lock.

 

[hemo memo]

69

D. Users 13 years of age and under are prohibited from registering.

.

 

[analog_future]

Not sure why you'd skip including 90fps as an option, which is the obvious diminishing return point IMO.


I can't really tell much of a difference after my fps hits 90+.

 

[Bojji]

90 fps with gamepad and ultra low latency or reflex is amazing.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

2

 

[Holammer]

60 is alright for most games, but testing various framerates I reckon it starts to get the buttery smooth feeling at 72fps. Perfect for third person games like BotW or Spyro Trilogy. It feels like the jump from 30 to 40.
Oddly enough I feel the framerate the most from 2D games like Hollow Knight, there the effect of 240 fps is unreal and unmistakable. If you see it, you can never go back to 60.

 

[King Dazzar]

I've voted 120. As its noticeably better than 60. But the difference from 60 through to 120 is far less than it is for 30 through to 60. So anything from 60 upwards is great for me. But really 45 to 60 and upwards with VRR is smooth enough for me to get immersed.

 

[winjer]

For me, it's around 90-100fps.
60 to 90 is very noticeable, especially for input lag. But after 90 fps, I don't notice it as much.

 

[acm2000]

why no option for 24fps?

 

[Lucifers Beard]

120fps is where I start not really seeing much of a difference. I usually cap my games at 120 (for those that run as well as that) since I'd rather not put the additional strain on my hardware. Sometimes I'll cap at 90 or 100 since that's more than good enough.

 

[zeroluck]

That’s a rather strange behavior on your panel’s behalf..

The display is fine, I can see the improvement, 144 is just not enough to trigger my brain to go wow like 175 fps.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Depends on the motion clarity of the display, the difference between 120 and 240 is still very noticeable on modern displays.

After 120 it becomes hard to notice the increase of fluidity.

 

[Gaiff]

I feel that 90 would have been a very popular option.

 

[Party McHardy]

I’m old so I don’t notice or give a shit

 

[Kenpachii]

~100 is smooth, however i can feel and see up to 175 a difference. Best solution would be 240fps. I always aim for in the 100+. Anything below that feels and looks janky.

 

[King Dazzar]

I feel that 90 would have been a very popular option.

Or maybe a 100. On Sony TV's you can lock to 100 or 120 and still apply BFI. Not sure what its like on other TV's. But for me 100 would be a better target than 120 for sure.

 

[Rheon]

Anything over 144.

Might be because my monitor has a refresh rate of 165hz.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I think for me 60. I've never used a PC monitor/screen more than 60 so I cant tell there, but my TV can do 120 gaming. And for those games that do 120 I couldnt tell.

 

[GymWolf]

Before trying 120 i thought 60 was more than enough.

I was clearly wrong.

But sure, i guess 60 is the minimum acceptable, i can only make an exception for console graphic powerhouse esclusives once in a while that have to run at 30 like gta6 or tlou3.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

Seeing the counter go to 120 fps makes me happy but I probably couldn't pass a blind test of 60 vs 120.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

60 is fine for consoles, but 90 is the minimum I want on PC.

I struggle to tell anything beyond 175.

However, I would love to play and see how it feels on the 480Hz 1080p mode OLED.

 

[Quixz]

My old Alienware AW2723DF was 280hz and felt just about right regarding smoothness.

Back down to 165hz HP Omen whilst I wait for the OLEDs and it feels very slow.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

120fps

This.

Then again, this is the max for certain games on PS5, so...

 

[Sethbacca]

Depends on the game type honestly. A single player game that doesn't rely on twitch reaction speed is going to feel a lot different at a varying range of fps than a competitive shooter or esports game where frame rate is life.

 

[T4keD0wN]

I cant tell a difference between 120 and 170, but i can see that there is an absolutely massive difference between 60 and 70 or 70 to 80 all the way up to once we get past 100 its not much noticeable to me.

So i guess somewhere in the low 100s is the point. Its harder to tell in non 3d games, isometric and turn based games because the camera will move less.

 

[Garibaldi]

60 with a pad. About 100 with the mouse.

Takes me about 20 mins to get used to 30 with a pad unless the frame pacing is off (then I never do).

Mouse has to be over 60 or I don't bother.

 

[ShakenG]

Can see the difference between 60 and 120 but 60fps is all i need.

 

[Brigandier]

After 120 I don't feel any difference.

 

[rodrigolfp]

I have 165hz and can't really tell the visual difference past ~120fps.

 

[Represent.]

Anything beyond 30 on console is a waste of recourses

 

[DanEON]

80fps is my target. I can see the difference above that but it doesnt impact the gameplay.

 

[twilo99]

Anything over 144.

Might be because my monitor has a refresh rate of 165hz.

165fps is quite pleasing to the brain from my experience.

I’ve been playing on 165fps/1440p for almost 2 years now and I think in order to see any meaningful gains I would have to switch to 4k/240hz, which would likely require a 5090 for my next build

 

[buenoblue]

I have 120hz tv and a 165hz monitor and can tell the difference between them definitely. I can even tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz on my monitor. It's more the input response (on rocket league for me) than the actual fluidity of the framerate.

I haven't tried higher than 165hz though

 

[Portugeezer]

Probably 90fps. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120, but I don't feel much of a benefit in games above 60.

There may be another arbitrary number such as 75hz which is the sweet spot but I don't know.

 

[rm082e]

As someone who plays single-player games with a controller on a screen that is 165hz and G-Sync, 60fps feels really good and is my standard. If I set my cap at 90, it feels a little bit more smooth visually, but I don't feel any gain in responsiveness from my controller. If I set it to 120, I can maybe tell a 2-3% benefit over 90 in fast moving games like Doom. Generally speaking, it's not worth the added heat output, fan noise, electricity cost, etc. I typically run 60 and only bump up to 90 for first person games.

I think part of this is my brain/eyes not being sensitive enough to feel the difference between higher frame rates. The other part is I play single player games with a controller. Maybe if I were playing MP shooters with M&K, I would feel it more?

 

[Arsic]

Above 120 is overkill for me.

As long as I can get 60 on everything I’m golden.

 

[touchfuzzy]

I would say 60fps -- when Rocket League got 120fps on PS5 I thought "This is exactly the same" -- then after a while I played it in my basement at 60fps on Series S and noticed the difference, but adjusted very quickly.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

120fps, beyond that I feel it's negligible. 30fps is absolutely unacceptable though, no amount of "getting used to it" makes it better.

 

[XXL]

30fps to 60fps is the biggest difference.

60fps to 120fps is definitely noticeable, but not as much.

120fps to anything above just gets less noticeable.

The higher the better, but that's the scale it works at (to my eyes anyway).

 

[Fbh]

Past 120fps I can't really tell the difference.
That said I think 60fps is the "must have" point and everything above it is just a nice bonus. When you go from 120fps to 60fps the drop is noticeable but 60 still feels decent. It's not like going from 60 to 30 where it feels absolutely awful.

 

[poodaddy]

I gotta be honest, I've never had a monitor higher than 144hz, so I feel like I ultimately can't speak on this completely. That being said, I honestly can't tell the difference between 120 and 144, so I voted 120.

 

[Hrk69]

There may be another arbitrary number such as 75hz which is the sweet spot but I don't know.

I think 75 is perfect

With 60 I can still "see/feel" the frames. This dissappears at 75 for me

 

[rkofan87]

i am not a pc guy so its 60 is max for me.

 

[Trogdor1123]

It would have been 60 for me until I got to use a 120 fps screen for a bit. It’s a huge difference. I got to try my uncles 240 fps monitor after that and couldn’t see the difference so I’m thinking 120 for me. Maybe more if I got to look at them more and more.