Acceptable FPS

What is the minimum FPS that you would consider silky smooth? My standard is 60 FPS and I won't play game if the FPS doesn't stay at 60 FPS 90% of the time. I also won't play it unless I can crank all the graphic options at max with 4x FSAA. Which is probably why in the end I don't play game at all since my standard is too high

 

Yeah thats like me, i cant stand gaming at slow rates. FPS always has to be above 60fps at high settings and 2-4x AA

 

I wont mind as long as a game plays at 25-30 FPS, but my gaming standards are at high-medium settings only.

 

Entirely game dependent. Assassin's Creed I got by with mid 20's. No way I could play TF2 at that though.

 

Let me guess, you haven't played Crysis (based on your need for both speed and eye candy). Playable fps really depends on the engine since for Crysis, I found mid-high 20's playable in the demo, but in the Source engine, at around 30 fps it starts stuttering, the min I'd want is 40.

EDIT: aww, flippy, you posted too early, we would've had a 4-way tie.

 

45 FPS + on my XPS and 20+ on my 4500MHD Ultraportable.

 

So long I feel the gameplay is smooth. AA? As long as I won't notice the "blocks" from distances that I play games.

 

Depends on what game it is.

CS:S is unplayable at anything below 50 fps.
TF2 & L4D are fine if they are above 40 fps.
COD4 & 5 are fine at above 30 fps.
Crysis is fine at 20 - 25 fps.

 

I barely reach above 30 on most new games so getting 60 would be a bonus.

To be honest though unless the game drops way low suddenly I don't generally notice low fps rates because I'm concentrating on playing the game...

 

First person shooters I like 40+
3rd person games 25+

 

Whatever feels smooth enough for me works, the more I obsess over the numbers the less I enjoy my game.

 

I don't monitor FPS's anymore Whatever looks smooth to my eye is what I play at.

 

25 FPS is just fine -- my eyes and reflexes aren't really suitable for distinguishing ranges beyond that. I don't explicitly look at it except for debugging.

 

well your eyes are only able to pick up 60-70fps anyways, no point pushing higher. as long as its above 30 its fine for me

 

40ish, though lower won't stop me from playing it.

I sometimes have to turn AA off depending on the game (thus is the price you pay for a game-ready laptop that isn't $3000), but I can otherwise run pretty much everything on high and exceed my 40fps target.

 

Ideally I want 60+ (ie min 60, never dropping below).

But in the real world, with limited hardware and also wanting eye-candy etc, I can live with 45 FPS average. Any lower and it definitely looks jerky to me.

One exception is Crysis, it 'looks' smooth at low fps because of the motion blur. But that doesnt change the fact that the screen is reacting much slower than the mouse input, so to me, even if it looks smooth, it still feels jerky.

 

In my reviews, I define 'playable' as a minimum of 30 FPS with very few exceptions. Ideally, you should average 40 - 45 FPS so in intense scenes, then FPS does not dip too low. If you only maintain 30 FPS average, then your minimum FPS is likely in the unplayable range (>30 FPS).

 

Minimum 30 FPS. I have rather all the gizmos running with a solid 30 than a barren low res world at 60-100. Anything over 60 is waste anyway, and I would turn on vsync to prevent tearing and save cpu performance. IMO, 30 cap is better than 30-60 as well, I hate the choppy feeling when FPS drops "dramatically".

 

Movies in the cinema are maxed at 24 fps, so yes anything lower than that isnt acceptable. Your way too stingy if your minimum is 60 fps. Mine is 30 fps.

 

Movies are not comparable to games.

In movies, the shutter is typically open for 1/48th of a second. All of the motion that occurs within this timeframe is captured on the same frame of film, meaning action scenes (where things can move reasonable distances in this timeframe) have significant motion blurring. When played back at 24fps, the human eye happily perceives smooth motion due to the blurring on the frames.

Without this motion blurring, 24FPS movies would be extremely jerky. The human eye would have no problem perceiving it as 24 separate frames instead of smooth continuous motion. Studies indicate the human eye has no problem perceiving things that last just 1/200th of a second or less.

In addition, unlike movies, games are interactive. Your mouse is sampling movement much faster than 24 or 30 times a second. But if your fps is just 30, then there will be a significant and noticeable delay or lag between your mouse movements and the corresponding screen action.

It has nothing to do with being 'stingy'; if you can't tell the difference between (for example) 30 fps and 60 fps, then you are the odd one out and not vice versa.

 

i crank it upppp 40 fps is nice

 

With FPS's, I want at least 40-60 but I need at least 30. RTS games are a different story though, I can play most at 20 fps and it'll look fine to me.

 

I like more than 40, but in games like Crysis 30fps is fine (although I play it at 20-40fps with my 9800m gts, those lower fps are hard to get rid).

 

I think a good rule of thumb for smooth immersive framerates would be
1st person perspective games: 30+ frames per second.
3rd person perspective games: 24+ frames per second.
The ideal would be not to drop below those mentioned framerates.

 

It really depends on the game. I tend not to really go by a number and really just play what feels smooth to me personally. What I consider jerky and what someone else considers jerky is kind of a different standard >.>

 

um....no. mines is the scientific method.

 

I don't really pay attention to fps anymore unless I'm troubleshooting. On the other hand, my bro is exactly like op where nothing below 60 fps with everything cranked will suffice.

 

Anything over 30 is fine, like others have said I would rather have some of the eye candy turned on to get the full experience.

 

Depends on the game of course
Half Life 2 and episode packs: 30
Call of duty 4: 40+
World In conflict 20-30
Battlefield 2: 50
Team Fortress 2: 60

 

Anything that remains over 30fps throughout. If it drops below that, stuttering becomes noticable and is an extremely big put off.

To be hit/killed because the computer can't handle the action is one of the worse crimes in my books. Hence why I'm always willing to sacrifice graphic integrity for a safe level of quality gameplay. Not that it it often happens when you have a 9800M card.

 

I find that 30+ is usually enough for me
however some games are much better at 40+
Some like Crysis and GRiD are playable for me at 25+

If I'm going above 60, I have the settings too low, and then usually crank them up

 

Usually 30+ is a good average. If its a competitive multiplayer shooter I try to cut it down so im constantly above 40. If im looking for eye candy (Crysis) and just playing single player I don't mind dealing with an ~25FPS average.

 

30+ is good for me. In multiplayer RTS, I try to stay above 40, to insure that no lag is coming from my end.

As far as settings go, I'll lower the details before I'll consider lowering the resolution. Native res + lower details looks better than lower res + higher settings, at least to my eyes. Also, I don't care a bit care about AA, as jaggies are hard to see when I'm gaming at 1680x1050 on a 15.4" screen, and even then they don't bother me at all.

 

Wow, 60 FPS seems pretty low. I always thought that 80FPS+ was the standard for "silky smooth".

Personally I have always like to get 80+ FPS (too bad it rarely ever worked out that way, atleast not consistently, LOL)

 

I often find that when my frames go that high, and sometimes higher, there starts to be some tearing, so I have to turn V-Sync on or something to that effect

 

I don't understand people who can't play FPS' at under 60+. I've been playing at 30+ all my life and I am a mighty fine player. Never felt the need to complain. In fact, 60FPS usually looks a bit sickening to me.