What Is Your Ideal Frames Per Second?

No_Style · Jul 28, 2004, 05:27 AM

What's your ideal FPS for all your games in general?

I'm a VSYNC user, so I like mine at 90 FPS.

P.S - I love polls. Poll related questions generate interesting discussions, like the Engine Poll I started.

pr0digal jenius · Jul 28, 2004, 05:33 AM

i too like vsync in older games, where i know it will consistantly run at the vsync limit

in newer games i try and shoot for 45 or so, but even at 30 i dont much mind so long as its consistant and looks awesome (ut 2004 stays aroudn 30 at 6x/16x AA/AF and 1600x1200 res)

Vampyromaniac · Jul 28, 2004, 05:34 AM

It's different for different games. Sometimes 60 fps looks good on some games, but not fast enough on others.

I use Vsync, so I'm at 120 or 60 at 12x9 res or below, 100 or 50 for 12x10 or 16x12.

Of course, I use triple buffering when possible, to get higher framerates

Anyway, 100 or more is ideal for me 98% of the time

EDIT: I voted Vsync, but afterwards didn't know whether 100 or Vsync is the right vote lol.

No_Style · Jul 28, 2004, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pr0digal jenius
i too like vsync in older games, where i know it will consistantly run at the vsync limit

in newer games i try and shoot for 45 or so, but even at 30 i dont much mind so long as its consistant and looks awesome (ut 2004 stays aroudn 30 at 6x/16x AA/AF and 1600x1200 res)

The problem with games like FarCry or UT2K4 is that the rate of movement is very noticable when you rise from 30 FPS to 50 FPS. If it's consistently 30 FPS I wouldn't mind that much, but that flux bothers me.

Whobetta · Jul 28, 2004, 05:50 AM

I wish more games would let you set the fps or lock it.

No_Style · Jul 28, 2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whobetta
I wish more games would let you set the fps or lock it.

Yeah. I also more games would allow you to change the in game refresh rate

Damn you NOLF2 locking me at 75 Hz

TwistedMetal · Jul 28, 2004, 06:03 AM

I voted 30 FPS or higher.

I'm not a big FPS man myself, I don't worry about FPS that much. As long as the game isn't choppy or laggy, I could care less about FPS. The higher the FPS, well.... It's makes no difference, it still plays the same. 30 FPS or higher you won't get any choppiness or lagginess. I played America's Army with around 20-30 FPS and it ran smooth. But, with today's graphics card, you should get 30+ FPS on any game out with high settings. Which is just fine by me.

GutterPunk · Jul 28, 2004, 06:29 AM

60+ 60ish is optimal

BWX · Jul 28, 2004, 06:48 AM

45 is fine, dipping into 30's is ok, but not for long.. 60+ is optimal, but if I can run 60+ all the time, I'm cranking the IQ settings up.

@/2ct!< · Jul 28, 2004, 07:59 AM

vsync is best, but anything over 40 is fine unless you have lame quake engines where you do stupid tricks at super high frames, honestly, we all need better engine locks. (Why cant we have locked engines but unlocked visual fps ?

)

Judas · Jul 28, 2004, 08:12 AM

with v-sync enabled.... everygame will result is being more fluent looking... maxium refresh rate though.... can't stand anything under 85.... perferably 90hz or 120hz... for the best results....

MSX · Jul 28, 2004, 09:02 AM

V-sync gives me headaches. I only use it if I have to keep games from tearing.

60+ is optimal.
100+ is overkill.

Dom · Jul 28, 2004, 11:25 AM

85

Zardon · Jul 28, 2004, 11:31 AM

50+ with the IQ on insane level. anything over 50-60 fps isnt noticeably "better', but I can tend to notice smoother rates between 30-50.

mkk · Jul 28, 2004, 01:17 PM

It's up to the game. In a strategy or adventure game anything above 30 feels fine most of the time. Otherwise i feel happy with around 50-60fps in most shooter games, while in a few special cases like Quake3 it starts to feel choppy below 100'ish because of game engine shortcomings in physics and input handling.

Whenver using VSync you should make sure the game runs with triple buffering. If a shooter game can't do triple buffering then there is a huge performance hit to run with VSync on. It's nice to see a game like Far Cry enabling triple buffering automatically for what I can see, but most games so far have not been so intelligently made.

dipstick · Jul 28, 2004, 01:49 PM

60fps is the sweet spot for me although I'm happy with anything over 30fps(I always have Vsync on btw)

No_Style · Jul 28, 2004, 03:22 PM

It's good to see that nobody is an FPS maniac anymore

The last option is untouched.

~~BMG_Cya=-~~ · Jul 28, 2004, 06:10 PM

60 is ideal...but if I have to sacrifice frames even down to 20-25 fps in order for the game to look good, I don't mind.
Far Cry at 1280 x 960, 16x Aniso and 4x AA runs far below 60 fps on my 9800XT, but man...it looks damn good.

IQ...beauty...and immersiveness are more important. IMHO anyway.

Zelig · Jul 28, 2004, 06:43 PM

Idealy, my fps would always be at 120, which would be my refresh rate at 1600x1200... too bad neither my video card nor my monitor can do that. I'm pretty happy as it is though.

Danhill · Jul 28, 2004, 06:55 PM

I'd say about 60, but anything between 30-1000 is OK

BWX · Jul 28, 2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danhill
........ but anything between 30-1000 is OK

Yup, that about covers it.. Unless you're playing an online FPS w/ a quake 3 based engine, then 30 seems a little sluggish, but still playable.

**MIG-31** · Jul 28, 2004, 07:03 PM

for me most games run smooth enough with my newly installed x800pro. 50+ im happy with but thats without aa & af.40+ with them on high.

the one exeption at the moment is farcry it still does not like aa & af with cats 4.7's.

Vampyromaniac · Jul 28, 2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mkk
It's up to the game. In a strategy or adventure game anything above 30 feels fine most of the time. Otherwise i feel happy with around 50-60fps in most shooter games, while in a few special cases like Quake3 it starts to feel choppy below 100'ish because of game engine shortcomings in physics and input handling.

Whenver using VSync you should make sure the game runs with triple buffering. If a shooter game can't do triple buffering then there is a huge performance hit to run with VSync on. It's nice to see a game like Far Cry enabling triple buffering automatically for what I can see, but most games so far have not been so intelligently made.

agree 100%

Judas · Jul 28, 2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danhill
I'd say about 60, but anything between 30-1000 is OK

i like anything over 1000 though....

i hit 2900fps in quake 3 a few times.. although, building a map gives a good reason

movingincircles · Jul 28, 2004, 10:04 PM

30 is coo, as long as it is detailed

BWX · Jul 29, 2004, 12:25 AM

Also you should be able to force triple buffering in DX games in te ATI CP, I never figured out why you can in OGL in the CP, but not DX?? For instance I wanted to run Vsync in CMR4 but there is no option for triple buffering, so the fps is all over the place, if I had the option in the CP to turn it on, I would be set..
Why doesn't ATI include that? There must be a reason.

Vampyromaniac · Jul 29, 2004, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX
Also you should be able to force triple buffering in DX games in te ATI CP, I never figured out why you can in OGL in the CP, but not DX??

Yes, that is what they call . . . "ghey"

(I feel your frustration)

Lchevy79 · Jul 29, 2004, 06:33 AM

60 is cool but anything over 40 works for me

WisMerHill · Jul 30, 2004, 09:56 AM

72+ FPS,
while lower is playable offcourse i always prefer to have a minimum of 72FPS. When my system can't do that anymore i'm getting a better system.
I only play UT2004 and UT99, for which my current system is adequate to get me 72+ fps. Only in the heaviest gamemodes (assault & onslaugt) my fps will sometimes drop below that so i've ordered my new system last week

Junkguy · Jul 30, 2004, 03:56 PM

On my old computer, I used to play games at around 10fps every day

Anything 10fps or higher is good for me

But of course, 30+ is what I play with now.

Jul 28, 2004, 05:27 AM	#1
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	What Is Your Ideal Frames Per Second? What's your ideal FPS for all your games in general? I'm a VSYNC user, so I like mine at 90 FPS. P.S - I love polls. Poll related questions generate interesting discussions, like the Engine Poll I started. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Jul 28, 2004, 05:34 AM	#3
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	It's different for different games. Sometimes 60 fps looks good on some games, but not fast enough on others. I use Vsync, so I'm at 120 or 60 at 12x9 res or below, 100 or 50 for 12x10 or 16x12. Of course, I use triple buffering when possible, to get higher framerates Anyway, 100 or more is ideal for me 98% of the time EDIT: I voted Vsync, but afterwards didn't know whether 100 or Vsync is the right vote lol. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Jul 28, 2004 at 05:44 AM.

Jul 28, 2004, 05:50 AM	#5
Whobetta DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 30 Rep Power: 0	I wish more games would let you set the fps or lock it. __________________ Asus P4S8X, 512MB DDR Ram, Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB, Maxtor 40gb 7200rpm, MSI dragonwriter 48X16X48, LG 4163B 16x DVD-RW, SB LIVE 5.1, Canoscan 320p, LG Studioworks 17' Monitor, Windows XP SP1

Jul 28, 2004, 06:03 AM	#7
TwistedMetal MC John-117 Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 728 Rep Power: 0	I voted 30 FPS or higher. I'm not a big FPS man myself, I don't worry about FPS that much. As long as the game isn't choppy or laggy, I could care less about FPS. The higher the FPS, well.... It's makes no difference, it still plays the same. 30 FPS or higher you won't get any choppiness or lagginess. I played America's Army with around 20-30 FPS and it ran smooth. But, with today's graphics card, you should get 30+ FPS on any game out with high settings. Which is just fine by me. __________________ [color=red][/color]

Jul 28, 2004, 06:29 AM	#8
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 70	60+ 60ish is optimal __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Jul 28, 2004, 05:33 AM	#2
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	i too like vsync in older games, where i know it will consistantly run at the vsync limit in newer games i try and shoot for 45 or so, but even at 30 i dont much mind so long as its consistant and looks awesome (ut 2004 stays aroudn 30 at 6x/16x AA/AF and 1600x1200 res)

Jul 28, 2004, 06:48 AM	#9
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	45 is fine, dipping into 30's is ok, but not for long.. 60+ is optimal, but if I can run 60+ all the time, I'm cranking the IQ settings up. __________________

Jul 28, 2004, 07:59 AM	#10
@/2ct!< HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Not Vegas, anymore :( Posts: 1,391 Rep Power: 0	vsync is best, but anything over 40 is fine unless you have lame quake engines where you do stupid tricks at super high frames, honestly, we all need better engine locks. (Why cant we have locked engines but unlocked visual fps ? ) __________________

Jul 28, 2004, 09:02 AM	#12
MSX Burning the frozen... Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,201 Rep Power: 0	V-sync gives me headaches. I only use it if I have to keep games from tearing. 60+ is optimal. 100+ is overkill.

Jul 28, 2004, 11:25 AM	#13
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	85

Jul 28, 2004, 11:31 AM	#14
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	50+ with the IQ on insane level. anything over 50-60 fps isnt noticeably "better', but I can tend to notice smoother rates between 30-50.

Jul 28, 2004, 01:17 PM	#15
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,383 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	It's up to the game. In a strategy or adventure game anything above 30 feels fine most of the time. Otherwise i feel happy with around 50-60fps in most shooter games, while in a few special cases like Quake3 it starts to feel choppy below 100'ish because of game engine shortcomings in physics and input handling. Whenver using VSync you should make sure the game runs with triple buffering. If a shooter game can't do triple buffering then there is a huge performance hit to run with VSync on. It's nice to see a game like Far Cry enabling triple buffering automatically for what I can see, but most games so far have not been so intelligently made.

Jul 28, 2004, 01:49 PM	#16
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 70 System Specs	60fps is the sweet spot for me although I'm happy with anything over 30fps(I always have Vsync on btw)

Jul 28, 2004, 03:22 PM	Thread Starter #17
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	It's good to see.. It's good to see that nobody is an FPS maniac anymore The last option is untouched. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Jul 28, 2004, 06:10 PM	#18
~~BMG_Cya=-~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 718 Rep Power: 0	60 is ideal...but if I have to sacrifice frames even down to 20-25 fps in order for the game to look good, I don't mind. Far Cry at 1280 x 960, 16x Aniso and 4x AA runs far below 60 fps on my 9800XT, but man...it looks damn good. IQ...beauty...and immersiveness are more important. IMHO anyway.

Jul 28, 2004, 06:55 PM	#20
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	I'd say about 60, but anything between 30-1000 is OK __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Jul 28, 2004, 06:43 PM	#19
Zelig HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 3,187 Rep Power: 69 System Specs	Idealy, my fps would always be at 120, which would be my refresh rate at 1600x1200... too bad neither my video card nor my monitor can do that. I'm pretty happy as it is though.

Jul 28, 2004, 07:03 PM	#22
MIG-31 HardwareHeaven News Mod Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Nottingham,UK Posts: 55,773 Rep Power: 444 System Specs	for me most games run smooth enough with my newly installed x800pro. 50+ im happy with but thats without aa & af.40+ with them on high. the one exeption at the moment is farcry it still does not like aa & af with cats 4.7's. __________________ Please Post Your News Submissions Here

Jul 28, 2004, 10:04 PM	#25
movingincircles DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Rep Power: 0	30 is coo, as long as it is detailed

Jul 29, 2004, 12:25 AM	#26
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Also you should be able to force triple buffering in DX games in te ATI CP, I never figured out why you can in OGL in the CP, but not DX?? For instance I wanted to run Vsync in CMR4 but there is no option for triple buffering, so the fps is all over the place, if I had the option in the CP to turn it on, I would be set.. Why doesn't ATI include that? There must be a reason. __________________

Jul 29, 2004, 06:33 AM	#28
Lchevy79 -=[DHzer0point Team]=- Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 725 Rep Power: 0	60 is cool but anything over 40 works for me __________________ msi K7N2 delta2-AMD 2800xp@2083-1gig of pc2700ram -ati x850xt 256mb -Audigy mp3+ - 1 80gig maxtor 8mb and 1 250gig 16mb maxtor -48x24x48 buslink burner-and a lite on 4x +/- dvd burner xp home samsung lcd (19") 930b monitor

Jul 30, 2004, 09:56 AM	#29
WisMerHill DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 468 Rep Power: 0	72+ FPS, while lower is playable offcourse i always prefer to have a minimum of 72FPS. When my system can't do that anymore i'm getting a better system. I only play UT2004 and UT99, for which my current system is adequate to get me 72+ fps. Only in the heaviest gamemodes (assault & onslaugt) my fps will sometimes drop below that so i've ordered my new system last week __________________ [color=sandybrown][color=white] [/color] [color=white][color=white]M[/color][color=white]y Computer[/color]: [/color][color=white]3DMark2001[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]3Dmark2003[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]3DMark200[/color][color=white]5[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]PCMark2004[/color][/color]

Jul 30, 2004, 03:56 PM	#30
Junkguy PC Game Modder Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 731 Rep Power: 0	On my old computer, I used to play games at around 10fps every day Anything 10fps or higher is good for me But of course, 30+ is what I play with now. __________________ P4 2.66GHz, ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB, WinXP, 1024MB DDR, 120GB WD, 2.5Mbps/400kbps DSL, 17" LCD E171FPb, SBLive! 5.1 Digital, Logitech Z2300 2.1 400Watts