Are 500fps a meme?

The human eye isn't a fucking camera.

bloodborne fans agrees too.

How would you know? Have you checked the insides of your eyes?

Why are you here? Who invited you? Go back to wherever you came from.

Wrong, stereoscopic tests on fast moving objects will show a perceivable distance up to about 10khz refresh rate.

We're miles off having even passable screen tech. 1khz is the minimum I'd consider acceptable for gaming. 240 and below is literal baby toy tier.

At what point do you genuinely stop seeing a difference, its obviously really noticeable going up to 60fps but is there much of a difference between 60 and 90 for example or anything after that?

based

Think I might do a run through of zelda soon its been a good 10 years. I just played it so much when it came out in the 90's I got sick of it.
Bit like Super Mario World. Played it to death with a mate when we got our SNES's. When I was a security guard working behind a desk at Westpac corporate I fully completed it with all coins on my gameboy advance.
Thank you for healing my cool story bros.
As a bonus story
>be me 22
>security guard in 2002
>work at westpac bank corporate building
>we had a huge stack of hardcore porno mags from europe as well as a collection of penthouse
>one time 'reading' a penthouse black label
>get a call to go to a floor and sort out an alarm issue
>come back to my desk
>couple hours later a woman comes up to me
>hi user, i don't care about things like that but you shouldn't leave nudey mags out on your desk when you leave it incase somebody complains
>say thanks for not saying anything
>she smiles and leaves
Could you imagine a woman in this age being that normal in this decade?

Here's the rundown on framerates for the uninformed.

>30FPS is the standard for normies that have never seen anything above it, it looks bad to anyone that has experienced higher and has noticeable input lag.
>60FPS is the sweet spot, at this point, games look good and inputs are responsive enough for most games
>120-144FPS is a noticeable upgrade in both visuals and input, if you play rhythm games or FPS games you should be aiming for this
>240 FPS looks almost the same but again, is more responsive, if you're a competitive FPS player you want this.
>Anything higher is unrealistic but objectively better, there's diminishing returns on how it will look but it stays true that higher FPS = higher responsiveness.

You basically need to double your framerate to perceive a difference once you get to the hundreds.

It's not really about being able to see 500 fps, it's that your computer can now have control percision that is accurate to one five-hundredth of a second. This is useful for TAS and botting and shit, but for actual gaymen just stick with 120 max

LCD tech is still in the stone ages. Any bog-standard CRT will massively outperform sample and hold garbage, you'd need a 1000hz LCD to even come close to a CRT display due to persistence.

Current screen tech isn't even good enough to come close to the limits of human vision.

There is a clear difference between 60 FPS and 144 FPS, from my experience. You can tell even outside of games, just by moving your mouse cursor around. It's not as huge as 30 FPS to 60 FPS but it's still very noticeable.

I would love to live in a world where 60 FPS is considered the bare minimum industry standard and 120+ FPS becomes the new 60 FPS.

the most obvious difference is things staying properly visible while moving, appearing more fluid.
For example, in your browser you're using right now, scroll through all the dozens of tabs (or at least enough that they start having to cycle across the top) you presumably have open. Now cycle through them using ctrl+pagedown. If you pa attention, the appear to become blurry when moving and then regain their sharpness upon stopping. This effect is lessened at higher framerate

140 is supposed to be the approximate cutoff for visuals, but even without a monitor than can display anything higher than that higher framerates = more responsive gameplay due to frame latency.

>1khz is the minimum I'd consider acceptable for gaming
Good for you. Me personally? I look for a good game in there somewhere as a jumping off point, but I’m very old fashioned.

>if you play rhythm games
Sure, because 120fps was the norm in their era, you fucking idiot.

rhythm games still exist and they're massively better at high framerates bro

perfect for my monitor

Attached: 2017-07-24-04.38.09.jpg (3264x2448, 308K)

Doesn't extremely high frame rate above 200 damage your hardware?

It's just like every other function of the human body, such as hearing. The difference between 30 and 60 is about as big as the difference between 60 and 120, which is about as big as the difference between 120 and 240.

Humans don't see in fps though

Came from Kiwifarm forum & Reddit

Have sex incel

I'm not trying to fuck my computer with 200 frames in every game, I'm fine with capping at 60fps. It's not a big deal. It really seems like a dick measuring contest at this point, nobody can accept being on the same level as everyone else and tries to push it the farthest.

Attached: n.jpg (960x960, 141K)

depends on the game, on an emulator for an old console there's 0 chance even 500fps is going to make a dent in a good gpu/cpu

delusional

this kek

That’s what I’m saying though is it, son? A higher frame rate being preferred is axiomatic across the genres; it being necessary is nonsense.

If you can watch a movie in 24 fps, you can play a game at 30 fps
don't be a bitch about it

They actually see 224 FPS

the thing is that you can and will easily notice the difference between 60 and 144 in a rhythm game whereas with most other genres you're probably not going to, playing rhythm games at a high framerate makes them unplayable to you once you go back to a lower one, the same can't really be said for other things.

(500) Frames Per Second: You Can (Not) Lag

oh boy, here we go

People over on some site literally dedicated to increasing and documenting the technological progress of refresh rates in monitors have done some experiments with +400 FPS, google blurbusters iirc

alrighty tripfag, got me there

Not disputing that but 30 was perfectly acceptable for years. Like I said, of course higher is preferable

I recognize this from their site too

Framerates above 60 are literally a meme for idiots.

The most important thing for gaming is STABILITY. A game that is solid 30 fps and never dips will feel better (and can be designed better) than a game that is 60 fps by often dips into 45 fps and experiences screen tearing.

Attached: 1550948709538.jpg (640x427, 47K)

what monitor?

Freesync and Gsync already solved that problem, consolecucks are literally living in the stone age

>frameskip
Even ignoring that the game can't produce those frames at all, you're a fucking idiot.

If you care about screen-tearing, then ultra high framerates are important for V-Sync to work without a feeling of input lag. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

People have yes and we know how it works.
You eyes is a lens and the brain requests information periodically based on what is happening.

If you are reading the brain asks for less info
If you're in a warzone your brain wants lots of info. which is why "fighttime" makes moments seem like minutes.

I dream of 1000fps when each frame only takes 1ms to pass.

Isn't byuu a nonbinary furry now?

Sounds like variable fps to me

1ms frametime and 1ms input delay = video games are good now