How crazy are you about your frames per second?

[Zloth]

I didn't, either, until I tried to do windows-key-R to run something and hit the alt key on accident.

 

[Sarafan]

I basically don't care about anything higher than 60 fps as I usually play with V-sync on (at least in single player games). It's good to have a higher framerate, but the usage of it in my case is quite limited. I do notice immediately when the frames fall below 60 fps though and it's not a pleasant experience.

 

[OsaX Nymloth]

I notice if I am running below 60 - especially in FPS games. Even 59 have the "wrong feel" to it. Getting as low to 40 fps makes me reconsider currently selected graphic options. Especially in multiplayer games. Need. Those. Frames. Seriously.

Same in RTS titles, below 60 fps I can feel already not only the smoothness of things on the screen being wrong but also my control getting worse because of that. As somebody who played StarCraft II for 9 years on "ok-ish" level, that would be absolutely distruptive to any competitive gameplay.

In case of some turn based games, card games etc. well, then I am usually way less concerned about fps - I mean, would be weird for a card game to run so bad the animations would be stuttering, right?

So in short: yeah I do care about my fps and I don't play anything that I can't run at at least stable 50-60 fps. (looking at RDR2 and muttering "your time will come" under his breath)

 

[Sarafan]

I notice if I am running below 60 - especially in FPS games. Even 59 have the "wrong feel" to it. Getting as low to 40 fps makes me reconsider currently selected graphic options. Especially in multiplayer games. Need. Those. Frames. Seriously.

It's especially noticeable when V-sync is on. For some reasons the stutters caused by lower framerate are more of a problem with this option enabled. I don't know how the situation looks with G-sync for example as I never tried this technology.

Same in RTS titles, below 60 fps I can feel already not only the smoothness of things on the screen being wrong but also my control getting worse because of that. As somebody who played StarCraft II for 9 years on "ok-ish" level, that would be absolutely distruptive to any competitive gameplay.

There's a general rule in multiplayer games that you're less competitive if the framerate falls down below 60 fps. This of course includes Starcraft 2 and every online focused FPS. In multiplayer games I usually turn off V-sync and it highly improves my efficiency. The problem with V-sync is not only the fact that it limits the framerate but it also often introduces input lag. In single player games it's not so important, but in online titles it can be crucial to achieve a significant result.

So in short: yeah I do care about my fps and I don't play anything that I can't run at at least stable 50-60 fps. (looking at RDR2 and muttering "your time will come" under his breath)

You've played Pillars of Eternity haven't you? The game has a significant performance problems no matter how good your hardware is. I have a decent machine and in the late game I had drops to 40 fps in some locations.

 

[Zloth]

Yeah, that's why I keep mentioning 'competitive shooters' as an exception, @SIET_Arduous . Fighting games are an even more extreme example. DOA5 actually has a hard limit of 60fps specifically to keep the playing field level.

What gets crazy is when people take that thinking into other games, where it simply doesn't matter that much. The less that precise reaction time matters, the less frame rates matter. When you get all the way down to turn based games like Civilization or XCOM, you just need enough to make the animations and screen scrolling look nice.

 

[Pifanjr]

Yeah, that's why I keep mentioning 'competitive shooters' as an exception, @SIET_Arduous . Fighting games are an even more extreme example. DOA5 actually has a hard limit of 60fps specifically to keep the playing field level.

What gets crazy is when people take that thinking into other games, where it simply doesn't matter that much. The less that precise reaction time matters, the less frame rates matter. When you get all the way down to turn based games like Civilization or XCOM, you just need enough to make the animations and screen scrolling look nice.

I tried playing XCOM: Chimera Squad on my laptop yesterday and the animations sadly did not look nice, even with the settings turned all the way down. I'd install it on my desktop, but I had to delete two games already to make room for the new Total War: Warhammer 2 update. I need a new SSD.

 

[Ferfi]

For me frame rating is important. I got used to 60FPS and above all the time. I preffer FPS at the expense of graphics. When I play <59 FPS I've feeling that it's hard to play, or my eyes are in flames, or something like that, but after 1 hour plaing with 30/40/50 FPS I can adapt, and then it is playable and nice I guess

 

[Zloth]

I need a new SSD.

Or faster internet. If re-installing only takes a few minutes, it matters a lot less what is and isn't installed.

 

[Pifanjr]

Or faster internet. If re-installing only takes a few minutes, it matters a lot less what is and isn't installed.

That's more expensive and costs me precious minutes of my limited gaming time.

 

[flashn00b]

Not TOO terribly crazy about it. In fact, i often play with FPS caps on some games to as to not have the GPU at full freakin' blast and possibly shortening its lifespan, especially when your MSRP RTX 30 series GPU will need to last you longer than what's ideal for GPU ownership. With that said, I do enjoy downsampling my games since that seems to be the best way to apply anti-aliasing on 1080p monitors.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Usually my FPS is capped to 60, although I could go higher. But I do not see the point in doing that. Consistent 60 FPS is enough for me.