| Chrkeller said: Vast majority can't tell a difference? Any data? Or just claims based on personal preference? Meanwhile here a published scientific study demonstrating benefits at 90 fps compared to 60 fps. https://d1qx31qr3h6wln.cloudfront.net/publications/Tokey_NOSSDAV_25.pdf Diminishing returns past 120 fps. Sure. But objectively the average gamer does in fact benefit above 60 fps. |
Interesting study
The summary
"The results show that player performance improves sharply from
7 f/s through 90 f/s, but sees little benefit for frame rates higher than
120 f/s"
First just a little bit of context, they're playing a PC game on mouse and keyboard. As I said console is a different experience, and so is analogue stick input... and in this example the reticule and targets really are very tiny and doesn't reflect most console gaming experiences.
On an experience level (how the users rated the smoothness of experience)
Player Experience:
15fps=1400
30fps= 1800 (+400)
60fps= 2050 (+250)
90fps= 2000 ( -50)
120fp= 2100 (+50 relative to 60fps)
These are approximates since the graph doesn't show interval values.
If this doesn't scream diminishing returns, I don't know what does haha... Interestingly the 90fps was rated lower than 60fps and 165fps rated lower than 120, which implies some level of uncertainty of difference and high margin of error in these higher ranges. These are averages too, so even with the data we cannot say that the "majority" noticed 120fps over 60fps. It could simply be that 2-3 players out of the 44 did whilst the other remained static. Based of how small the increases are, I think thats actually a safe presumption.
The one thing I'd clarify with my OG point is that I meant once you go below the 16ms range, most people cannot notice the difference... That seems to be supported by the study. It doesn't mean there isn't a discernible difference for the most advanced players.
