Dude I need 60 fps for gameplay reasons and not because I like a smooth nice picture

>dude I need 60 fps for gameplay reasons and not because I like a smooth nice picture
>I'm all about gameplay dude
Lies, you need a response time of 33ms to get to the limit of 30fps. You don't have a response time of 33ms, you're between 150 and 300. Prove me wrong faggot

Attached: 1.jpg (379x452, 14K)

I need 60fps because I'm an autist that needs to see the FPS counter not go down a single digit not even once.

>settling for 60fps
How fucking poor can you get

lol no, more visual information = better reactions even outside of response time
shit thread

Reaction time != your eye's temporal resolution

hHAHHAHHA that's gotta be the dumbest thread I've seen on Yea Forums today, congratulations OP
Look at him, he even downloaded a little graph

Your brain isn't in sync with the monitor refresh rate, so of course more framerates are still better.

This. Everybody knows framerate is way more important than anything else. 1080p at 144hz is better than 2k at 45-60hz.

Attached: 1582443138453.png (171x230, 39K)

Sure, I'll prove you wrong, faggot.
The chart you're obtaining data from is done with people using (primarily) 60Hz monitors with varying levels of input lag, so the delay from the inputs is added to the chart. Delay from monitor. Delay from mouse. Delay from PC processing.


Play and FPS at 30 vs 60 it feels like absolute ass especially if your using KB&M.

60fps/hz will allow you to see things sooner on screen than if you have it on 30
same with 120 versus 60 etc
not by much, but it's there so why not utilize it?

Idiot, you dont play 60fps for every single frame
You play it for the inbetween frames and the motion and feeling of reactiveness the games feedback gives.

Nobody who plays games digest every single frame, we consume the motion

Attached: ScreenShot03-04-2020002.png (976x657, 16K)

Let's say that I'm playing at 33ms refresh, and my reaction is 150ms.

If something I need to react to happens just after the refresh, it will be 32ms before it's even shown on screen, then another 150 for me to react to it. So my reaction time is essentially 182 now.

The faster the screen refreshes, the better my reaction time will be. So the closer to 0ms we can be at the more consistent my reactions will be, since there will be less time on average that each thing will happen between refreshes.

Did you know: Smacking yourself in the foot and hand at the same time will still feel like you smacked your hand first.
Also if you shoot yourself in the face you won't feel a thing.

Who the fuck even cares about reaction time? It's all about the smoothness, it's not a tryhard faggot thing, it's just very pleasant to look at without the choppyness
then again you wouldn't know if you were a console faggot would you?

>more visual information
So better resolution then?

I don't know what the problem is with your logic, but there is definitely a problem.

If your logic is sound, and everyone here has >150ms response time, then nobody here received any benefit from over 7fps. I know for a fact that I struggle to process motion in fast-paced action shots animated at 24fps, but can usually handle 60fps just fine.

B-sync when?

>It's all about the smoothness
So you admit that it's a visual upgrade not a gameplay one? I'm just tired of FPS fags arguing for more FPS as if they're arguing for gameplay and against visuals. When in fact all they're getting is visuals

Because high FPS is good for both. Even if you have 60fps and turn v-sync your game will start to feel like shit if it's fast paced.

Of course it's a gameplay upgrade. Smoother motion makes it much easier to predict trajectories as has already been outlined in this thread. People can aim at moving targets demonstrably better at higher framerates.

Response time alone is a red herring. The reason higher framerate is more responsive is because it's much, much easier to extrapolate motion with more points of data.
Actions that demand a response in a video game are not binary triggers, which is what response time measures. You need to be able to determine what is happening in a simulated environment rapidly - the more samples you have of that system, the more rapidly you can observe what the situation is.

Except that’s reductio ad absurdum and an actual representation of what you see at either rate.
Use your brain for once, you could LITERALLY just replace the numbers with 240fps and 480fps.

Objects in a game don't move that fast.

>Objects can't move 480 pixels per second or more in games

eat a dick.

Go get your 30fps monitor and have fun then idiot

Is this bait? Or are you simply retarded?

>what is the brain interpreting frames before giving any command at all
jezus christ you are fucking retarded

>cannot tell the difference between 120hz 300 fps and 240hz 300 fps
>can tell the difference between 120hz 120 fps and 120hz 300 fps
Am i wired wrong, Yea Forums?

And 480fps would be better than 240 if it was at all feasible with current tech, what's your point?

Attached: 1520428037225.jpg (1200x720, 105K)

Input lag will be difference you notice not FPS after reaching high refresh rate, this is why you play first person shooters on as high FPS as you can. And never turn v-sync on.

Yes? And? 480 FPS is better than 60 FPS. Congratulations user, you managed to figure it out! 60 FPS is around the minimum (maybe 50 is okay) for a game to not feel like shit if it is an actiony kind of game. I, and many other people, also tend to get motion sick if a first person game plays at ~30 FPS and below.

Honestly never gone that high, but i feel a very clear difference from 60Hz and 100Hz but anything beyond only in blur tests.

Your statement makes sense if you consider 120Hz 120fps is bound to have very noticeable frame drops (or minor stutter with vsync), while 300FPS will run smooth no matter the refresh rate.

I see thanks user

If something's moving in a simple curve, you need to see at least 5 frames (data points) to determine its path. That's basic curve fitting. It's also very generous because it doesn't account for any of the other aspects of motion in games like 3D depth.
fps - 5 frames - 5 frames + 150ms response time
30fps - 166ms - 316ms
60fps - 83ms - 233ms
120fps - 41ms - 191ms
240fps - 21ms - 171ms
480fps - 10ms - 160ms
Jumping from 30fps to 60fps cuts down total latency by over a quarter. Jumping from 240fps to 480fps isn't even an improvement of 7%.

But higher fps does look more visually pleasing... I would take 60 fps over MSAA any time.

>>I'm all about gameplay dude
yeah, input delays feel like ass
also gets unbearably choppy handling the camera with a mouse

Only people who never expirienced 60 fps think its overrated.

Yea diminishing returns but it's still there.
Also larger the screen the bigger difference it will make.
Not that we will be using even 240Hz monitors.

better resolution makes everything look sharper but it doesn't give you any more visual information
faster refresh rate not only allows you to see more frames of movement while making it smoother

Attached: the importance of 60fps.webm (1280x720, 799K)

You're getting information 2x sooner with 120hz vs 60hz, not to mention input lag from your actions happens 2x sooner which is a big deal for some of us that can tell lag as low as 7ms

>better resolution makes everything look sharper but it doesn't give you any more visual information
Resolution x FPS x color depth = bitrate = amount of information

Thanks user for proving my point here about higher refresh rates getting information to you sooner, just look at how 30FPS looks like it's lagging behind even though every time it pulses it's in frame with 60FPS

>So you admit that it's a visual upgrade not a gameplay one?
Playing at half my monitor refresh rate creates a visual byproduct which has a negative impact on any gameplay that isn't static, including the speed of mouse cursor movement across the screen. It's fucking irritating to play anything based around real time user inputs at low framerates.

>Game took 33ms (plus some 5ms from monitor response time) to render then add your 150ms reaction on top
>Game took 16ms to render and 150ms of your reaction
Gee, I wonder which one is better


According to you, all games should be at 7fps (1000ms/150ms) because humAN BraInS CannOt ProcEed pASt 150mS

>humAN BraInS CannOt ProcEed pASt 150mS
I've seen a few posts across various boards formatted in this obnoxious manner. Why?

That's not how it works because games aren't random images, they are repeated animations with specific timing that you CAN react to perfectly after seeing them dozens/hundreds of times.

Look at esports, there's your proof you fucking mongoloid. At the top level, people play with lower details and resolution only to get that 255+ FPS. It's a billion dollar industry and at the top of the game, FPS is a big fucking deal. There's a reason for that.

It's not about reaction speed, it's about fluidity and responsiveness. On world tier top level, even something like 0.1% makes a difference. For mouse aiming for instance, 30 FPS vs. 144 FPS translates to an insane increase in accuracy. The increase in accuracy translates to reduced aiming times. Reduced aiming times translates to faster reactions, and the ability to better focus on tactics. All of which has a clear, measurable increase on your statistical likelihood of winning. On top level, even 144FPS to 255+ FPS makes a difference. Not because people can "see" the difference between them, but because every so often on 144FPS the vcard just barely can't buffer the next frame in time, so instead it'll skip it. And once this happens often enough, it can create just enough of a delay to cause few milliseconds of extra delay on your screen. When people are playing on the highest level on the planet and their skills and reaction times are virtually exactly the same, those few milliseconds matter. So the 255 FPS is just an overkill to make sure even the slightest, almost imperceptible lags never happen. To ensure constant, and perfect fluidity and minimize as effectively as possible, the chance for anything at all to interfere with the player skill.

The difference in 30 to 144 FPS is so obvious any average player will instantly notice an improvement in their game. For someone like me (low tier ex-esports from 15 years back), simply the act of upgrading from 60 FPS to 144 stable, increased my KDR/KDA in CSS, Overwatch, PUBG and a bunch of other games between 13 - 19% (I've been playing on the same level so long, it's been stable for a long time. 19% is a fucking massive difference).


You know that thing kids to around kindergarten, where they can't think of anything witty so they just repeat what someone else said in a funny voice? It's that.
Comes from youtube comments, twitter, tumblr, or some other sewage pit.