If you are used to getting 120 fps it will feel so bad if it drops to 80. If you never got that high fps it will feel very smooth at 80.
Good FPS?
- Thread starter CreepaCatcha
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
40 - Bad
60 - Good
100 - Ultimate Unleashed
I get around 110 fps, lowest I get is about 70/80 fps, I have a killer Vibox machine!
60 - Good
100 - Ultimate Unleashed
I get around 110 fps, lowest I get is about 70/80 fps, I have a killer Vibox machine!
You all clearly have gigantic e-penises. Congratulations.
Uh... how is maxing out your framerate at 60fps going to make it better than ranging between 80 and 120?
Bollocks. Unless they void their items from quarries by dumping them on the ground, you will not get a range of 20-180fps on the one machine. Also, I don't know of many monitors that go that high, and if you're forking out
You must be restarting a lot, given you seem to average 120-150 in TF2
The human eye can detect changes in up to 400Hz. Admittedly under lab conditions, but still. You're right that on a 60Hz monitor, anything over 60 is wasting energy, but a lot (as in nearly all) of the newer PC monitors are now 120, so that's the best point to aim for.
Uh... how is maxing out your framerate at 60fps going to make it better than ranging between 80 and 120?
anything below 175-180 is noticeable , and I try and keep my base without a ton of the tech in the area I live, but other players when I visit their houses my fps can go down to like 20 because they have so much stuff
Bollocks. Unless they void their items from quarries by dumping them on the ground, you will not get a range of 20-180fps on the one machine. Also, I don't know of many monitors that go that high, and if you're forking out
You must be restarting a lot, given you seem to average 120-150 in TF2
The human eye can detect changes in up to 400Hz. Admittedly under lab conditions, but still. You're right that on a 60Hz monitor, anything over 60 is wasting energy, but a lot (as in nearly all) of the newer PC monitors are now 120, so that's the best point to aim for.
35 or Less: Unplayable; usually accompanied by high levels of block and stuttering lag.
40-50: Iffy; usually start checking for laggy systems or blocks.
50-60: Average late-game base or with texture pack
60-80: Normal
90+: Most other games
100-300: Vanilla
40-50: Iffy; usually start checking for laggy systems or blocks.
50-60: Average late-game base or with texture pack
60-80: Normal
90+: Most other games
100-300: Vanilla
funny thing about minecraft is, that running at 70 fps, might give a few "chops" if the fps is fluctuating. This is due to the fps dropping beneath the 60 hz of the monitor.
And believe it or not, but our eyes are created in such an amazing way that they see some kind of change in the picture.
Btw 120 hz screens (of course running at 120 fps) are so many times smoother in quick movements.
Going below 60 fps is bad, that goes for all games. 60 fps is really low if you're playing a fps game -you simply react too slow.
Professionals use 144 hz monitors when they're playing professionally just to make the image that much clearer!
And believe it or not, but our eyes are created in such an amazing way that they see some kind of change in the picture.
Btw 120 hz screens (of course running at 120 fps) are so many times smoother in quick movements.
Going below 60 fps is bad, that goes for all games. 60 fps is really low if you're playing a fps game -you simply react too slow.
Professionals use 144 hz monitors when they're playing professionally just to make the image that much clearer!
Yeah if you play CS or any other fps game anything below 60fps is eww.
Im saying from my experience.
My monitor is 60hz and fps in CS:S is average 170 which is good.
But if i do fps_max 60 i just feel sick when i play it is just , uhh , cant explain.
So i just let it go do its max.
Yeah if you play CS or any other fps game anything below 60fps is eww.
-snip-
But if i do fps_max 60 i just feel sick when i play it is just , uhh , cant explain.
So i just let it go do its max.
That's because it's fluctuating a bit about the 60, and your eye sees that
if i ever lock my fps i do it at 70-80 so the screen is showing a constant 60 fps
Yeah if you play CS or any other fps game anything below 60fps is eww.
Im saying from my experience.
My monitor is 60hz and fps in CS:S is average 170 which is good.
But if i do fps_max 60 i just feel sick when i play it is just , uhh , cant explain.
So i just let it go do its max.
Depending on the code, Locking to 60 might actually make it drop to 30.
Say you're running 60 fps, and locking to 60. That's great! Everytime your monitor goes "SEND ME A FRAME" you're video card goes "Sure, here's the one I just finished!"
But now you install a mod, and you can only get 55fps. What happens if you turn vsync on?
Well, you might think you'll get 55fps, but you won't. The monitor draws frame 1, and when it's finished, it goes "SEND ME A FRAME", but the video card hasn't finished a new one yet. And your monitor is locked to 60fps. So it keeps frame 1 up for frame 2 as well. Meanwhile, your video card has gone "Oh, shit, that frames out of date now, start frame 3"
Hopefully frame 3 is easier to draw, otherwise, it's going to happen again.
Programmers worked around this with double buffering, but that's a harder topic. Double buffering lets us draw to a frame "behind the scenes" and then when the monitor requests a frame, we just pass it that one.
Imagine you have a 75Hz monitor, and the game runs at 100fps.
Video card draws frame 1, puts it on the buffer. Video card gets half way through frame 2. Monitor requests frame 1. Video card puts half of frame 2 on buffer, and finishes drawing it. Gets 90% through frame 3, monitor requests frame 2. 3 moves to buffer, card starts drawing 4, and with the buffer full, the card can wait patiently til the monitor has claimed the frame before hand. This is great, we will max out the vsync.
But what if our fps drops?
You're at 75Hz refresh rate still, but now you're only getting 50FPS, 33% slower than the refresh rate. That means every time the monitor updates the screen, the video card draws 2/3 of the next frame. So lets track how this works. The monitor just refreshed, and frame 1 is copied into the frame buffer. 2/3 of frame 2 gets drawn in the back buffer, and the monitor refreshes again. It grabs frame 1 from the frame buffer for the first time. Now the video card finishes the last third of frame 2, but it has to wait, because it can't update until right after a refresh. The monitor refreshes, grabbing frame 1 the second time, and frame 2 is put in the frame buffer. The video card draws 2/3 of frame 3 in the back buffer, and a refresh happens, grabbing frame 2 for the first time. The last third of frame 3 is draw, and again we must wait for the refresh, and when it happens, frame 2 is grabbed for the second time, and frame 3 is copied in. We went through 4 refresh cycles but only 2 frames were drawn. At a refresh rate of 75Hz, that means we'll see 37.5FPS. That's noticeably less than 50FPS which the video card is capable of. This happens because the video card is forced to waste time after finishing a frame in the back buffer as it can't copy it out and it has nowhere else to draw frames.
What's all this about sub 60 FPS being unplayable? That's bollocks.
I run at 80-120FPS, but my laptop is a beast.
I also play on an older laptop that gets about 20-25fps, yes the difference is noticeable, yes, I prefer my beasty laptop over the old one, I will always prefer my new one over my old one.
Would I stop playing just because I'm forced to use the old laptop and deal with 20fps? No.
The entitlement complex in this thread is ridiculous.
I run at 80-120FPS, but my laptop is a beast.
I also play on an older laptop that gets about 20-25fps, yes the difference is noticeable, yes, I prefer my beasty laptop over the old one, I will always prefer my new one over my old one.
Would I stop playing just because I'm forced to use the old laptop and deal with 20fps? No.
The entitlement complex in this thread is ridiculous.
V-sync locked at 60 for FRAPS sake, and doesn't budge much one way or the other. Can get 120 to 150 FPS when not locked, not that it matters. Will still freeze a bit if there is a lot of chunk rendering all at once or something, but that is the CPU hitting its limits, not the GPU. As long as the FPS is consistent, I don't particularly notice the difference between 30 or 60. When it bounces up and down, THEN it gets annoying. Which is why I don't Minecraft on my laptop that much, gaming laptop or not it tends to bounce around from like 50 to 75, with occasional spikes down to 30 and that shit just gets annoying fast.
It's the Alienware 17
CPU i7-4700MQ 3.4ghz
Ram 16G dual channel DDR3L 1600MHz
SSD 80G for caching
HDD 1.5TB Raid 0
GPU Nvidia GTX780M
The other laptop is a 2011 model 13inch MacBook Pro
Last edited:
Technically speaking 23 FPS is what the eye requires for "seamless" viewing for example all TV shows and movies (except those in blu-ray quality or 3D) are viewed at 23 FPS. As others have stated the only reason why people notice changes in FPS is because the human eye has evolved in such a way that it detects changes in movement, so your brain HAS to notice the change. To those who are stating that anything below 60 FPS is unplayable or intolerable, this is because YOU know there is a difference I would bet anyone that if they had 2 identical systems playing locked FPS at 70 and 50 and there was no fluctuation and no one told them which was which they would have no idea. you notice the difference because you know either by fraps or the in-game fps count. The human brain is an interesting thing and it lies to you constantly particularly when it comes to visual input.
Or a simpler explanation: anything that's lagging your game to the point where you get to these "unplayable" levels is also likely causing other issues as well, such as stutter lag, delay lag and TPS lag.