opinions of 60 fps vs 120 fps please..
  1 / 2    
is there a significantly improved difference of 120 fps over 60 fps?
is there a significantly improved difference of 120 fps over 60 fps?

#1
Posted 03/31/2014 08:09 PM   
Yes, but most would say it's relatively minor. Though the issue of fps is always very subjective and based on personal preference. Some people swear they can't even see the difference between 30 and 60, which seems incredibly hard to believe to me, but there you are. Other people say they can no longer stand anything lower than 120. Everyone has different thresholds. Here are mine (I'm probably a bit pickier than most): 30fps: unplayable. Uncomfortable on the eyes 45fps: borderilne 55-60fps: satisfying, but noticeably unrealistic 120fps: very smooth; feels almost real. So 120 fps definitely feels smoother (even just moving the cursor in windows feels nicer), and I'll always prefer it over 60fps. But only if my cards can actually maintain 120fps (eg. I'd rather a steady 60fps than a jerky 80-120fps any day.) However, when you use 3Dvision, 60fps is the max (because 120fps becomes divided by two eyes: 60 x 2 = 120). And for all its extra smoothness, 120fps in 2D is nowhere near as nice as 60fps in 3D. PS. the type of game makes a big difference, too. For example, mouse movement is *much* less forgiving of poor FPS than gamepad or racing wheel movement, because its movement is much more erratic and fast. Also, the camera tends to swivel much more dramatically in first person games, and when this happens, things in the distance can move so fast that the illusion of their fluidity of movement is broken (eg. if you move fast enough, the bush in front of you will only move a few pixels per frame, but that building on the horizon might move more than an inch from one frame to the next, which looks jerky) As a general rule: -FPS games using mouse suffer the most from bad FPS -FPS games using gamepad aren't as bad, because the gamepad has a constant speed of camera movement, whereas the mouse has a variable one. -2D side scrollers also suffer a lot, because the camera tends to pan quite fast -Racing games where you move mainly forward are much more forgiving, because the camera rarely turns very fast, so distant objects rarely move fast
Yes, but most would say it's relatively minor. Though the issue of fps is always very subjective and based on personal preference. Some people swear they can't even see the difference between 30 and 60, which seems incredibly hard to believe to me, but there you are. Other people say they can no longer stand anything lower than 120.

Everyone has different thresholds. Here are mine (I'm probably a bit pickier than most):

30fps: unplayable. Uncomfortable on the eyes
45fps: borderilne
55-60fps: satisfying, but noticeably unrealistic
120fps: very smooth; feels almost real.

So 120 fps definitely feels smoother (even just moving the cursor in windows feels nicer), and I'll always prefer it over 60fps. But only if my cards can actually maintain 120fps (eg. I'd rather a steady 60fps than a jerky 80-120fps any day.)

However, when you use 3Dvision, 60fps is the max (because 120fps becomes divided by two eyes: 60 x 2 = 120). And for all its extra smoothness, 120fps in 2D is nowhere near as nice as 60fps in 3D.




PS. the type of game makes a big difference, too. For example, mouse movement is *much* less forgiving of poor FPS than gamepad or racing wheel movement, because its movement is much more erratic and fast.

Also, the camera tends to swivel much more dramatically in first person games, and when this happens, things in the distance can move so fast that the illusion of their fluidity of movement is broken (eg. if you move fast enough, the bush in front of you will only move a few pixels per frame, but that building on the horizon might move more than an inch from one frame to the next, which looks jerky)

As a general rule:

-FPS games using mouse suffer the most from bad FPS
-FPS games using gamepad aren't as bad, because the gamepad has a constant speed of camera movement, whereas the mouse has a variable one.
-2D side scrollers also suffer a lot, because the camera tends to pan quite fast
-Racing games where you move mainly forward are much more forgiving, because the camera rarely turns very fast, so distant objects rarely move fast

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#2
Posted 03/31/2014 11:47 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"] 30fps: unplayable. Uncomfortable on the eyes 45fps: borderilne 55-60fps: satisfying, but noticeably unrealistic 120fps: very smooth; feels almost real. [/quote] I'd like to drop into this;)) Since is I'm a good example of "other people" ^_^ 30fps (as long as is constant and no fps dips and stuff): I would say OK...but I can still see the "missing" frames there as it moves a little "in steps". Although IT doesn't bother me to play the game. (still I would desire something above) 45fps: almost there but not quite. 60fps: smooth as butter 120fps: smoother then butter (although there are a few games I can see the difference between 120fps and 60fps, the DIFF is there DEFINITELY) I have a few games on which I run tests and I can see it clear as the SUN (it involves rapid movement and image "stability") SO overall, you will see (most likely) a sharp image every single frame unlike at 30/60fps where some frame (during movement) are blurry:)
Volnaiskra said:
30fps: unplayable. Uncomfortable on the eyes
45fps: borderilne
55-60fps: satisfying, but noticeably unrealistic
120fps: very smooth; feels almost real.


I'd like to drop into this;)) Since is I'm a good example of "other people" ^_^

30fps (as long as is constant and no fps dips and stuff): I would say OK...but I can still see the "missing" frames there as it moves a little "in steps". Although IT doesn't bother me to play the game. (still I would desire something above)
45fps: almost there but not quite.
60fps: smooth as butter
120fps: smoother then butter (although there are a few games I can see the difference between 120fps and 60fps, the DIFF is there DEFINITELY) I have a few games on which I run tests and I can see it clear as the SUN (it involves rapid movement and image "stability") SO overall, you will see (most likely) a sharp image every single frame unlike at 30/60fps where some frame (during movement) are blurry:)

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#3
Posted 04/01/2014 12:06 AM   
double post
double post

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#4
Posted 04/01/2014 12:07 AM   
triple post..nvidia had some issues with the forums
triple post..nvidia had some issues with the forums

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#5
Posted 04/01/2014 12:10 AM   
It also depends heavily on the quality of display. Bad display = Dim + slow pixel change On a dim screen, the iris adjusts to let in a lot of light which stays on the retina longer. The pixel latency also introduces significant motion blur. This combined has the effect of "smooth" motion, even at 30fps. The truth, though, is that you are not perceiving much detail. On the flip side, high quality display with a bright image with low pixel residual image gives crisp information to the brain. In this case, even 120fps is not enough in fast motion sequences. This is why 144Hz (144fps) low residual image monitors are considered the apex of gaming technology. 60FPS is really the lowest acceptable motion for me personally. I like 120 but would prefer even higher. 3D vision on my brother's 144hz (72fps) screen is cool. A while back, I postulated that we could achieve true 120FPS in 3D vision on 120Hz displays compared to the current 60fps - by each and every frame being different in the timeline. I got an immense amount of backlash for the suggestion, but was slowly able to convince some of the more enlightened folk. Helifax was also working on an OpenGL experiment at the time. His app proved once and for all that it could be done; and the result was glorious. I tried to find a developer to make a better demo, but none could be found.
It also depends heavily on the quality of display.

Bad display = Dim + slow pixel change

On a dim screen, the iris adjusts to let in a lot of light which stays on the retina longer. The pixel latency also introduces significant motion blur. This combined has the effect of "smooth" motion, even at 30fps. The truth, though, is that you are not perceiving much detail.

On the flip side, high quality display with a bright image with low pixel residual image gives crisp information to the brain. In this case, even 120fps is not enough in fast motion sequences.

This is why 144Hz (144fps) low residual image monitors are considered the apex of gaming technology.

60FPS is really the lowest acceptable motion for me personally.

I like 120 but would prefer even higher. 3D vision on my brother's 144hz (72fps) screen is cool.

A while back, I postulated that we could achieve true 120FPS in 3D vision on 120Hz displays compared to the current 60fps - by each and every frame being different in the timeline. I got an immense amount of backlash for the suggestion, but was slowly able to convince some of the more enlightened folk. Helifax was also working on an OpenGL experiment at the time. His app proved once and for all that it could be done; and the result was glorious. I tried to find a developer to make a better demo, but none could be found.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#6
Posted 04/01/2014 02:23 AM   
what about projectors? do they get to 60/60 fps? they say 720p is the max resolution for projectors, but some are sold claiming 1080p... can this be explained?
what about projectors? do they get to 60/60 fps?

they say 720p is the max resolution for projectors, but some are sold claiming 1080p... can this be explained?

#7
Posted 04/01/2014 02:40 AM   
I am on a 120Hz 3D projector. Currently, 3D vision only supports 60/60. The 1080p projectors work at 24fps. Both would be doubled if nVidia were to investigate and implement the idea I was talking about. It has already been proven to work. I guess they are too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "We can't hear you!"
I am on a 120Hz 3D projector. Currently, 3D vision only supports 60/60.

The 1080p projectors work at 24fps.

Both would be doubled if nVidia were to investigate and implement the idea I was talking about. It has already been proven to work.

I guess they are too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "We can't hear you!"

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#8
Posted 04/01/2014 02:46 AM   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how Helifax's awesome OpenGL wrapper works? Alternating eyes, instead of both at once. From his use of it, and other people on mtbs3d forums, it sounds like it's not comfortable for most people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how Helifax's awesome OpenGL wrapper works? Alternating eyes, instead of both at once.

From his use of it, and other people on mtbs3d forums, it sounds like it's not comfortable for most people.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#9
Posted 04/01/2014 03:47 AM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"]A while back, I postulated that we could achieve true 120FPS in 3D vision on 120Hz displays compared to the current 60fps - by each and every frame being different in the timeline.[/quote] I can't comprehend how this would be physically possible, at least using active shutter tech... If the display can only output at 120fps, and active shutter works by showing every other frame to alternating eyes, then by definition the maximum each eye could receive is 60fps. Right? The only way I could see true 120fps per eye stereoscopic 3D happening is on a 240fps capable display + active shutter (which would have the downside of doubling the resource demanded by the already intensive 120fps), or a 120fps display + passive/interleaved (downside being each eye only sees half native resolution). I think maybe I am misunderstanding what you are claiming, or maybe my understanding of how active shutter S3D works is off base... Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?
RAGEdemon said:A while back, I postulated that we could achieve true 120FPS in 3D vision on 120Hz displays compared to the current 60fps - by each and every frame being different in the timeline.


I can't comprehend how this would be physically possible, at least using active shutter tech... If the display can only output at 120fps, and active shutter works by showing every other frame to alternating eyes, then by definition the maximum each eye could receive is 60fps. Right? The only way I could see true 120fps per eye stereoscopic 3D happening is on a 240fps capable display + active shutter (which would have the downside of doubling the resource demanded by the already intensive 120fps), or a 120fps display + passive/interleaved (downside being each eye only sees half native resolution).

I think maybe I am misunderstanding what you are claiming, or maybe my understanding of how active shutter S3D works is off base...

Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?

#10
Posted 04/01/2014 03:53 AM   
[quote="callmelucky"] Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?[/quote]Be careful what you ask for :D
callmelucky said:
Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?
Be careful what you ask for :D

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#11
Posted 04/01/2014 04:25 AM   
On topic: 120fps is noticeable, and definitely nice. But I wouldn't go out and buy a 120hz monitor unless you want it for 3d - the upgrade isn't significant enough to bother. Off topic: Rage, two things: "3D vision on my brother's 144hz (72fps) screen is cool." I'm pretty sure that even on a 144hz screen, 3d vision is locked to 120hz? "I am on a 120Hz 3D projector. Currently, 3D vision only supports 60/60." There are 120hz 3D projectors? Are they compatible with 3d vision?
On topic:

120fps is noticeable, and definitely nice. But I wouldn't go out and buy a 120hz monitor unless you want it for 3d - the upgrade isn't significant enough to bother.

Off topic:
Rage, two things:

"3D vision on my brother's 144hz (72fps) screen is cool."
I'm pretty sure that even on a 144hz screen, 3d vision is locked to 120hz?

"I am on a 120Hz 3D projector. Currently, 3D vision only supports 60/60."
There are 120hz 3D projectors? Are they compatible with 3d vision?

#12
Posted 04/01/2014 05:52 AM   
[quote="bo3b"]Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how Helifax's awesome OpenGL wrapper works? Alternating eyes, instead of both at once. From his use of it, and other people on mtbs3d forums, it sounds like it's not comfortable for most people.[/quote] Hey:) Indeed that is how it works (except for Amnesia games where I synchronized the eyes). Now in theory this approach works if the framerate is not locked at 60fps by the nvidia driver (which it is) and the engine renders independently of what is actually displayed (aka Vsync is Off). Thus the "time" difference between frames is very small and it would work with sequential frames. (Check Dark Athena and you will see it) Then again this approach requires more horse power than the current implementation of rendering the same frame twice;))
bo3b said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how Helifax's awesome OpenGL wrapper works? Alternating eyes, instead of both at once.

From his use of it, and other people on mtbs3d forums, it sounds like it's not comfortable for most people.


Hey:)

Indeed that is how it works (except for Amnesia games where I synchronized the eyes).
Now in theory this approach works if the framerate is not locked at 60fps by the nvidia driver (which it is) and the engine renders independently of what is actually displayed (aka Vsync is Off). Thus the "time" difference between frames is very small and it would work with sequential frames. (Check Dark Athena and you will see it) Then again this approach requires more horse power than the current implementation of rendering the same frame twice;))

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#13
Posted 04/01/2014 10:26 AM   
[quote] I can't comprehend how this would be physically possible, at least using active shutter tech... If the display can only output at 120fps, and active shutter works by showing every other frame to alternating eyes, then by definition the maximum each eye could receive is 60fps. Right? The only way I could see true 120fps per eye stereoscopic 3D happening is on a 240fps capable display + active shutter (which would have the downside of doubling the resource demanded by the already intensive 120fps), or a 120fps display + passive/interleaved (downside being each eye only sees half native resolution). I think maybe I am misunderstanding what you are claiming, or maybe my understanding of how active shutter S3D works is off base... Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?[/quote] Please have a leisurely read at it here: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/572033/3d-vision/please-help-me-fix-the-60fps-120hz-issue-once-and-for-all-/1/ helifax's test program worked in certain conditions using nv inspector, but it was a proof of concept. And as helifax says, rendering 120fps instead of 60fps requires 2x the horsepower; but I would say that this is the same problem with all games, not just in 3D.
I can't comprehend how this would be physically possible, at least using active shutter tech... If the display can only output at 120fps, and active shutter works by showing every other frame to alternating eyes, then by definition the maximum each eye could receive is 60fps. Right? The only way I could see true 120fps per eye stereoscopic 3D happening is on a 240fps capable display + active shutter (which would have the downside of doubling the resource demanded by the already intensive 120fps), or a 120fps display + passive/interleaved (downside being each eye only sees half native resolution).

I think maybe I am misunderstanding what you are claiming, or maybe my understanding of how active shutter S3D works is off base...

Can you explain your sorcery to me, or link me to the thread where it was shown to be possible?


Please have a leisurely read at it here:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/572033/3d-vision/please-help-me-fix-the-60fps-120hz-issue-once-and-for-all-/1/

helifax's test program worked in certain conditions using nv inspector, but it was a proof of concept.

And as helifax says, rendering 120fps instead of 60fps requires 2x the horsepower; but I would say that this is the same problem with all games, not just in 3D.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#14
Posted 04/01/2014 11:01 AM   
Pirateguybrush, i'll answer ur questions in the next post. Double post :(
Pirateguybrush, i'll answer ur questions in the next post. Double post :(

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#15
Posted 04/01/2014 11:06 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top