What is the point of FPS past 60?

What is the point of FPS past 60?

Attached: images.jpg (216x233, 7K)

Real life is 90 fps at most so I can understand that, but 144 is just overkill to be honest

Play everything at 120, and you'll soon notice just how choppy 60 is. I think going into the 200s might be overkill though. I still haven't experienced that, so I can't rightly say.

Nothing of your monitor can refresh as fast.

it looks smoother but has diminishing returns the higher you go
if 60 looks good to you just stop there

The human eye can't comprehend more than 22 frames per second, so anyone who pretends there's a difference between 30 and 60 fps is lying. 22's all you need.

Looks nice.

this.

What is the point of eating shit?

Back in CRT days, when people had control over their resolutions and frame rates and could lower their resolution to obtain higher frame rate if needed, people considered 90-100 to be the ideal frame rate for FPS games which were recognized as benefiting from higher frame rates as compared to other kinds of games which would generally do just as well a bit lower. Above this made no noticeable difference, so you may as well improve graphics. Such was the accepted standard of the time and it was agreed upon universally by all of the peoples.

Then came the bad days of LCDs, with their bleeding backlights, native resolutions, and 60 hertz maximum frame rate. The people became accustomed to garbage and then were convinced to suffer even worse with their 30 frame rate console trash. This was a major setback, as now the argument was shifted to the 30 camp and the 60 camp, the 90-100 standard having been almost entirely forgotten.

Finally, as technology improved the inferior display technology of LCD was able to catch back up to a crude approximation of what acceptable visuals a CRTs could do all along, with led backlighting recovering some of the way towards the true blacks, with higher pixel density allowing for some lower resolution options that did not look that bad, and higher refresh rates which enabled people to break the decades long 60 frame rate prison.

But at this point people had forgotten what they were fighting for, accustomed to the limitations of LCD screens they had lost all grounding as to what and why certain frame rates were even important, and developed a blind dogmatic view that more is simply better.

I will now tell you what you need.
For FPS or any fast paced game you want a stable 90-100 frame rate, and it must never drop below 75. If you can accomplish this you have obtained the optimal, more does nothing, increase your graphical settings.
For any other game 60 fps is fine
30 is the point that it starts to look like shit even in slow games.

>literally "hello I'm user this is my powerpoint" tier fps

Attached: 1545975162072.jpg (418x420, 80K)

Is that Richard William Thomas Evans III from the Ellen Show?

>faceapp
>redlettermedia
You need to go back.

Yea Forums has been obsessing over those frauds since 2010. I think you're projecting your newfaggotry here.

I've only really noticed a difference in racing games where you have models going so fast it's a lot more immersive and helps your reflexes to have it higher

most games have the characters waddling around at human walking speed so it doesn't really matter

>trump memes

i'm sorry but if you do them you are doing them wrong
XD

Dick measuring.

you can see the difference between a 100 Hz and 200 Hz and after that anything less than 100 Hz hurts your eyes

>The eye only sees 24 FPS
>The eye only sees 60 FPS
>The eye only sees 120 FPS

Eyes don't see in frames in the first place!
You take in the image in scattered bloches and piece them together to make and update the image in your head.

Whether you notice the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS depends on what parts of the screen you're focusing on at that particular moment

It's 2019

What's the point of resolution past 480p? Is it dick measuring or is there a noticeable difference that people will deny because they can't afford to experience it themselves?

Attached: D4Ux-AaUwAAbU_t.png (327x375, 146K)

To satisfy autists who spend too much money on a children's toy.

Isn't 2k pretty much the human visual limit? Why even have 8k or 16k in 10 years?

Based and framepilled

Kill yourself fat boy.

Attached: 1505103675909.gif (365x268, 2.1M)

>be poorfag
>have literally never viewed a screen over 60 hz
Maybe one day bros

Yeah 4k is just dick measuring nobody can notice the difference between 2k and 4k

Honestly I played one game for a good 100 hours at 4k and then on a bit of a whim went down to 1440p for the frame rate boost and I swear to god it looks identical. Maybe some extra aliasing in spots but I can’t even be sure about that.

Not true. Humans with peak eyes like the best soccer players can notice changes in the range of 800fps.

Average smuck caps out at about 90 though.

240hz is a meme though, most gamers don't have eyes that good. 144hz is really all you need unless your a rare human with a career that trains your eyes to their max.

How is that when I play games where I have fps around 160 it doesn't feel like it is smooth, my monitor has 60hz refresh rate , but when I watch movie in 60 fps I can see the difference and it's smooth as fuck. Do I need to get 75hz monitor to get that smooth feeling of 60 fps?

My absolute bottom level of acceptability for videogame frame-rates, is the cinematic standard of 24 fps. I'm perfectly comfortable and happy with 30 fps, but any lower than 24 and i cant stand it.

I had a few of my friends play with their fancy 144hz displays only to have it set to 60hz and tell me how smooth it is. That said, there's a huge difference between them, if your IQ is over 90.

>people can see as high as 800fps
>people can't see 240hz
what did he mean by this

Inside your eye are countless little light receptors.
They are like a snails eyes every one, only much small, a photon bumps into them and they recoil like a snails eye does when you touch it. This recoil is what generates the signal of light.
It takes them a while to come back out and reset. One might argue the time it takes for this to happen is the frame rate your eye can see, but it actually takes several seconds to happen (this is why it takes time to recover from a sudden very bright flash of light, it has triggered all your receptors simultaneously), the reason we can see 'higher frame rates' is because at any given time you have receptors which have just triggered, and which are in various stages of recovery

So I can be faster and jump higher at 125 fps!

Attached: 5991_scr.jpg (640x480, 225K)

if you are 60 you will not be able to shoot anything LMAO

The DPI matters more here. Obviously 4k and 1440p are going to look extremely similar on a small monitor.

There is a noticeable improvement between 2K and 4K, though beyond 4K it gets iffy.

With resolution, just like framerate, higher is always better but past a certain point you get diminishing returns. There is a certain point where your eyes/brain cannot perceive the difference, but that point varies from person to person.

imo 8K will be the last standard for the everyday consumer.
Beyond 8K will be popular for professional and enthusiast use, but the average joe won't have any use for it. The only exception being maybe VR headsets, but it's not really looking like VR is ever going mainstream anyway.

8K and 16k are for giant canvases like in cinemas. Like the user said, the DPI is what matters. You will never have a big screen at home to make a difference.

Your inputs feel smoother. The image is smoother. This doesn't matter if you slog through games and simply don't care. If 120 fps is considered smooth then 240 is close to realistic, however maintaining solid 240 fps across many games is a tale of expense. Unless you are an epic gamer in pursuit of peak performance, playing at 30-60 fps and regardless of settings is the best way you can treat your wallet.

Yes, but at ideal viewing distance the screen should take up about 60 degrees of your field of vision, regardless of the size of the screen.
So the bigger the screen the farther away you have to sit, at a certain point there is no noticeable difference unless you're sitting too close to the screen.

incredible butter smooth movement that 60fps peasants cant never experience

Attached: 1563794872800.jpg (1024x768, 75K)

>He fell for the CRT meme

I started playing pc games in 1996
CRTs were and are still objectively superior to any form of screen with native resolution

whats the point of life past 30?

I was about to make fun of you but then I realized I haven’t either.

>CRTs were and are still objectively superior to any form of screen with native resolution
And yet even when you push a crt to 2-4K, it doesn't look nearly as nitid and clear as a simple 1080p LCD.
The scanlines will always make even the highest resolutions look like shit.

>people have snails in their eyes
big if true

Try VR at 60 Hz and tell us how buttery smooth it feels

VR already looks like shit though.

Not the point

who cares about clarity when you have a faster response time wtf

This. RLM has been complete Reddit tier garbage since at least 2015, and ironically spouting memes doesn't make it funny. Also Space Cop is a shit movie, and them insisting on it being intentional is ass backwards to what they went on about during their discussion of intentionally shitty Asylum movies.

>tfw I'm still using crt

Attached: wnn_mix_121210_wg.jpg (640x360, 32K)

Don't worry user. I would still be using crts too if my back was still able to handle carrying them around.

same

i can stand 20fps+, but 15fps or less gives me motion sickness RIP

>you can see the difference between a 100 Hz and 200 Hz a
the difference is the price

15 is the minimum that separates slide show and animation.

>reading comprehension
He said that most humans can't see at 800fps- he didn't say that the occasional trained, talented individuals couldn't do so, though. Is this really the average level of reading comprehension on Yea Forums nowadays?

proof?

www 30vs60fps com

from 100fps onwards it starts to give me headaches, but I OC'd my monitors to 75 and it's a little nicer than 60 in the few games that support it, since most of the games I play are japanese ports locked at 60

240 to 800 is too big of a difference to actually be real

>they hated him because he told them the truth

I process at like fucking 20 fps i dont notice anything

Attached: 1555934739487.png (605x249, 14K)

CRTs had poor brightness.

Real life is actualy att about 9-10 fps but there is a ton of motion blur and predictive mechanisms, kinda like Valves anti-lag prediction technology.

You won't trick anyone, Martian man.