60fps 720 VS 30fps 1080

[Ærion]

can i have your money pot? because looks like you got way to much money on your hands....

Funnily enough, I don't. I do, however, have principles.

[zealo]

but human eye can only see 24 fps right...? or was it the dog eye?? :P

Human eyes are capable of seeing a difference a bit higher than 60 fps, but it all depends on what you are used to game with. People that play with 120hz monitors can often see a difference between that and 60.

[Vankrys]

60 FPS is visible. In fact study have determined that a human eye could distinguished up to 400 FPS.
Though the poll is mess up, in spirit i would always prefer larger FPS by reducing resolution or visual quality than the reverse.


The larger is the FPS, the smoother is the experience, the more precise is the control, the more enjoyable is the gaming experience. Far far more than graphical fidelity. Numerous players care little about graphical fidelity. No one care to see the individual hair on an arm. If you can do so without harming the framerate, so be it, otherwise,


FRAMERATE >>>>>>>>>>> ALL

[Tech614]

Human eyes are capable of seeing a difference a bit higher than 60 fps, but it all depends on what you are used to game with. People that play with 120hz monitors can often see a difference between that and 60.

Most 120hz panels are crap, and not legit 120hz. They just duplicate frames to achieve 120hz. That is actually counter productive for video games and adds input lag, which completely negates the point of wanting higher fps.

If you have a legit 120hz panel then that's cool, but they're rare.

[Deleted]

The poll is messed up, lol...

I'd take 720p @ 60fps anytime over 1080P @ 30fps. Smooth gameplay is more important for me.

[Vankrys]

but human eye can only see 24 fps right...? or was it the dog eye?? :P

Mis conception here.

Human eye can distinguish much higher frame rate. The proof is that if in a movie i subtitute 1 out of 24 image in the 1 secondes time frame, with a text, or another image, you will see it and your brain will process it, consciently or inconsciently. it's called a subliminal message.


The 24 FPS is the actual minimun framerate for a continuous movement. The human brain is able to "recreate" the missing part and link the image between them.
The more FPS the eye see, the less "work" the brain has to do to connect the dot.

Thus watching higher FPS is more relaxing, less tiring.

[Tech614]

Arguments of what framerate the human eye can see are always laughable.

Everyone's eyes are different. There is no magical FPS number that the human eye sees. You either use a higher framerate(video games) or motion blur(live action) to create lifelike smoothness. Most people I know can definitely see a difference from a locked 30 fps to a locked 60 fps. Even more noticeable is when a framerate isn't locked and bouncing all over the place.

30 fps is fine to me, as long as it's not a shooter, platformer or fighter as long as it is a locked 30 fps. What annoys me more then anything else is when some game is trying to be 60 fps but can't maintain it with no options to lock it down to 30. 40-60 bouncing fps looks A LOT worse then a locked 30 fps.

[Hellfury]

On TV, 720p is fine my TV does good upscalling and I dont sit with my nose next to it, there is a diference ofc from 720 to 1080 but most of times its not noticable only if u are there looking for it.

On PC monitor it has to be 1080 no way around it because sitting next to it, and I guess my monitor doesn't have a good upscaling circuit

[Vankrys]

Arguments of what framerate the human eye can see are always laughable.

Everyone's eyes are different. There is no magical FPS number that the human eye sees. You either use a higher framerate(video games) or motion blur(live action) to create lifelike smoothness. Most people I know can definitely see a difference from a locked 30 fps to a locked 60 fps. Even more noticeable is when a framerate isn't locked and bouncing all over the place.

30 fps is fine to me, as long as it's not a shooter, platformer or fighter as long as it is a locked 30 fps. What annoys me more then anything else is when some game is trying to be 60 fps but can't maintain it with no options to lock it down to 30. 40-60 bouncing fps looks A LOT worse then a locked 30 fps.

people are different ... within limit. We share the same biology, mostly. If we exclude the rare extreme, we can have a range of what the human eye can see. You attempt to discredit research is weak, especially without any proof.

That being said, claiming that 30 fps is fine for you is your opinion. You are used to it and don't know any better. 20 years for now, the technology will permit 60, maybe 120 FPS at 4k resolution, and i bet your speech would be rather different.

Saying bread and water is fine for you doesn't make bread and water better than a full 3 course meal.

[Tech614]

people are different ... within limit. We share the same biology, mostly. If we exclude the rare extreme, we can have a range of what the human eye can see. You attempt to discredit research is weak, especially without any proof.

Angry little elf you do realize I wasn't even replying to you or trying to disprove anything you posted? Matter of fact what I posted proves with my anecdotal evidence that the human eye can see above 30 fps if you actually read it. It seems you are still mad about debates lost in the past that you take anything I post as a shot at you?

Since you targeted me, I will counter your post that has many false points.

20 Years from now no one is going to be playing at 4k resolution either, hate to break it to you. You should be thinking well above that. FPS will always stay constant around 30-60 no matter how much technology advances. Because resolution and effects are going to advance as well. 30 and 60 fps game have been the standard since the early 90s, that is never going to change no matter how much stronger hardware gets.

Lastly, you don't need above 60 fps to replicate lifelike smoothness, the only thing it will achieve(if you have a display to match the fps) is the input lag for really really precise pro gamers who have the hand eye coordination to get a performance boost above 60 fps. No game developer will ever target 120 fps no matter how much technology advances. More power = more effects, better and better looking games not higher framerate. 60 fps games didn't just popup in the last decade, take a look at your game history before you claim this crap.

[zealo]

The human eye do not see in framerates either afaik but its more our perception of how many frames are being shown that decides how many frames out of the total that we see.

[Gamez]

FPS over resolution for me. FPS affects the gameplay, resolution the graphics. However It depends on the game and the genre.

finally a reasonable answer! FPS > everything else, but sometimes when the game is all about resolution and less fps, here is where Resolution gets important

[Remilia]

Humans don't see in FPS... we see what our brain can process.

Most 120hz panels are crap, and not legit 120hz. They just duplicate frames to achieve 120hz. That is actually counter productive for video games and adds input lag, which completely negates the point of wanting higher fps.

If you have a legit 120hz panel then that's cool, but they're rare.

Most high Hz panels actually aren't like that anymore. One I have is actually amusing what you said, except it's 120Hz with 240Hz boost motion blur reduction.
Newer high Hz TN panels are usually 144Hz now though.

Personally, I just run at whatever resolution I feel like really... it varies wildly game to game. Whatever I feel comfortable, both resolution and fps. That being said though, I don't usually use fullscreen so interpolation usually isn't a huge issue.

[Vankrys]

Angry little elf you do realize I wasn't even replying to you or trying to disprove anything you posted? Matter of fact what I posted proves with my anecdotal evidence that the human eye can see above 30 fps if you actually read it. It seems you are still mad about debates lost in the past that you take anything I post as a shot at you?

what? angryl little what? i don't even...
whatever, i don't want to debate with you, you're just resolve to insulting people who don't agree with you.

Lastly, you don't need above 60 fps to replicate lifelike smoothness, the only thing it will achieve

You're wrong. anyone who has regularly played at 60 or 120 FPS knows you're wrong. But i let you win. I do not care, you will never admit the obvious. If console were displaying 60 FPS and PC only 30, i'm willing to bet your speech would be different.


Whatever, consider yourself the winner of the argument.

[Deleted]

http://30vs60.com/

[Deleted]

To me, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is more visible than 720p to 1080p, I'd go with the fps as that also has an effect on performance where resolution doesn't.

[Wilian]

FPS > Resolution, always.

[loki504]

Mis conception here.

Human eye can distinguish much higher frame rate. The proof is that if in a movie i subtitute 1 out of 24 image in the 1 secondes time frame, with a text, or another image, you will see it and your brain will process it, consciently or inconsciently. it's called a subliminal message.


The 24 FPS is the actual minimun framerate for a continuous movement. The human brain is able to "recreate" the missing part and link the image between them.
The more FPS the eye see, the less "work" the brain has to do to connect the dot.

Thus watching higher FPS is more relaxing, less tiring.

i know but i was queting the guy saying i can't wait to see some1 go hur hur the human eye can only see 24 fps

[Deleted]

Right now 1600x1200 with 60+fps thanks.
Consoles are shit, 30 fps is shit.

No console bashing, please.

[loki504]

Right now 1600x1200 with 60+fps thanks.
Consoles are shit, 30 fps is shit.

then why is Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare running at 1080p 60 fps on the ps4?