Icymanipulator
Member
Just something I thought of today after watching HokiHoshis new video on how frame rate effects performance in racing games. (Spoiler: it matters)
Clearly 30 fps is the worst, and this aligns with my personal experience as well. It’s also part of the reason I dropped Monster Hunter Rise on switch and moved to PC. That buttery smooth 60 fps makes the game feel and look better. It’s also why I only play Forza Horizon 5 on my PC, where I can have good graphics and 60fps.
But in these discussions it’s always 30 or 60, and the big dogs sometimes talk about 120. Why does the frame rate need to double again instead of just adding 30? 90 would still be divisible by it. It would still be better then 60 and wouldn’t cost as much resource wise. Yet I’ve never really seen this mentioned. Any specific reason, or is it just not enough of a difference?
Clearly 30 fps is the worst, and this aligns with my personal experience as well. It’s also part of the reason I dropped Monster Hunter Rise on switch and moved to PC. That buttery smooth 60 fps makes the game feel and look better. It’s also why I only play Forza Horizon 5 on my PC, where I can have good graphics and 60fps.
But in these discussions it’s always 30 or 60, and the big dogs sometimes talk about 120. Why does the frame rate need to double again instead of just adding 30? 90 would still be divisible by it. It would still be better then 60 and wouldn’t cost as much resource wise. Yet I’ve never really seen this mentioned. Any specific reason, or is it just not enough of a difference?