The difference between 30 and 60 fps

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm getting old cause it was hard for me to tell with those gifs.
 
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Set motion blur to "light 0.5" for the 30fps and "realistic 1.0" for the 60fps for most accurate comparison.

~~~~~
wshowers said:
I'm getting old cause it was hard for me to tell with those gifs.
Click to expand...
I found what makes that comparison hard is that they are both side by side like that. Even if I just look at the 30fps one, my eyes are also seeing the 60fps one and so it throws my brain off. I have to cover each one whilst looking at the other, and then it is clear as daylight.
 
Last edited:
I can barely see the difference

i1QnjMMjOIDol.gif
 
One is noticeably chuggier than the other. One stutters more. It took me a few seconds to see it, but once I did, it seemed pretty clear.
 
The best difference I saw was that TR gif. It was clear as day in that gif but these it's harder to tell.
 
Dr D Wayne Love said:
I can barely see the difference

i1QnjMMjOIDol.gif
Click to expand...

I can see it. The one the right is 60 FPS and if you look at this legs, one of them have nasty popping. Honestly, these are pretty lazily animated in certain parts. I'd also question why they would be sliding into place. This reminds me of the Tomb Raider 30 vs 60 FPS comparisons. I could see it, but I didn't care. 30 was still smooth and to be frank, the desire for 60 just seems like such an odd number. Why not 40 or 50? Better yet, why not demand 70 FPS? Push those frames and retinas to their limits!
 
It is pretty easy for me actually. Especially in the last gif....you can SEE which one is slower...the first is the hardest because the animation is so short.
With a slightly longer animation it would be easy to discern.
 
sharkboy1200 said:
I can see it. The one the right is 60 FPS and if you look at this legs, one of them have nasty popping. Honestly, these are pretty lazily animated in certain parts. I'd also question why they would be sliding into place. This reminds me of the Tomb Raider 30 vs 60 FPS comparisons. I could see it, but I didn't care. 30 was still smooth and to be frank, the desire for 60 just seems like such an odd number. Why not 40 or 50? Better yet, why not demand 70 FPS? Push those frames and retinas to their limits!
Click to expand...
30fps and 60fps are not odd numbers. They are numbers that divide evenly into 60Hz in correspondence with US electrical standards. And anything over 60fps is not significantly noticeable to the human eye.
 
I've played actual games at both 30 and 60 fps. The biggest difference was the environment and how smooth everything goes by. It made GTA IV seem like a racing game while driving around, and Skyrim seemed to be a lot more 3d like.
 
Let me get this right: All this fuss is over something you really have to look hard to notice? There are some here that can see the difference but I suppose that is because of a trained eye Im guessing? If you have to have a trained eye or expend a bit of effort to see the difference, is it really there and how pertinent is it?o_O

Im not stating that there isnt a difference, but there has been pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, over forum after forum after forum after forum to damn near WW III about FPS......over.....this? Daaaaayyyum! :laugh:
 
Last edited:
I don't have a trained eye, and I can easily see the difference. I'm actually scratching my head over why some people are having trouble. It seems really obvious to me. One is smoother; the other is more ratchety.
 
Last edited:
Anderson said:
I don't have a trained eye, and I can easily see the difference. I'm actually scratching my head over why some people can't. Seems really obvious to me. One is smoother, the other is more ratchety.
Click to expand...
I can see it too Anderson and I dont have a trained eye, but you have to "see" it. Im just sayin.....Daaaayyyuuuum! :laugh: There's a muffuggin' war going on over this stuff! Dat s*** crazy mane! :laugh:
 
Noticed them straight away.

And remember this is just a small test with a single character on-screen and up-close. When it's multiple moving characters in a dynamic environment it is much more apparent.
 
I can see the difference. But odds are without the answers many would get it wrong.

48fps! or die!
 
The gifs actually helped me to understand. All the talk about 30 vs. 60 was pretty much just an abstraction to me before, since I didn't have a concrete example. Seeing the gifs, though, I get it. The difference is very noticeable. I can see why people would prefer 60 fps, if they have a choice. It just looks smoother and more realistic.
 
It does, but all things being equal those are horribly animated. I prefer 60fps, but as it means very little in the impact of a game for me 30 is fine - so long as it's stable. Having 60 and drops to 21, I'll pass.
 
Rez said:
Noticed them straight away.

And remember this is just a small test with a single character on-screen and up-close. When it's multiple moving characters in a dynamic environment it is much more apparent.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
menace-uk- said:
I can't tell a difference on those.
Click to expand...
Seems to make a big difference, now, to some of the very same people who, only a year ago were touting a 720p 30fps game as the best of last gen. Now, all of a sudden, their inter-active cartoons have to move smoother and be more "realistic". Being an avid retro-gamer I find it some what amusing, and never really gave framerate much thought. Now, in certain quarters, obsessing about it is all the rage. No matter; everyone should have a hobby.:txbsmile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back