Maximum Hertz: The Value of Gaming Beyond 60fps
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ต.ค. 2014
- NOTE: This video corrected a factual error at 2:50 of the original. The USAF study cited did not support what was said in the script, and that portion of the video has been re-written to correct that.
How could I not name a video about 120-144fps gaming "Maximum Hertz"!?
The monitor in question: www.newegg.com/Product/Product...
13ms reaction time study abstract: link.springer.com/article/10.3...
Sub-10ms perception study: download.springer.com/static/p... - เกม
I just find it funny that TH-cam allowed for 60fps videos 4 days after this video was uploaded.
I find it appropriate that your comment has exactly 144 upvotes
Is that mariya takeuchi in your profile pic?
George was always ahead of his time
Oh yeah. I remember 60 fps TH-cam started very close to Watch Dogs 1 launch. Good times.
"It's time to enter the 20th century"
......wait, what?
WE HAVE TO GO BACK!
So it's 2017 and apparently everyone other than Nintendo chose resolution over frame rate, so now we have games that can run at 4k but are still limited to 30 fps.
Uh didn't Nintendo also release breath of the wild at 30fps?
@@DevilsAdvocateofnazareth BoTW is the exception, not the rule; most Switch games run at 60 fps, including Odessey. There were pretty significant compromises in resolution and FPS to get that specific game to run. There are other games that run at 30 but not nearly as many as on the XBox and Playstation.
Devil's Advocate the small screen for the switch lets them keep a small resolution without anyone noticing it
@@Cavs191 I still play on a DS, 720p isn't that low resolution
Mr. Weidman, I have been watching your videos for several years now, and I am astounded by the clarity, depth, and fluidity of your reviews and observations. As a English major graduate, these videos have restored my faith in how good journalism should be conducted. Continue the good work, and I hope you eventually do a video on MGS4 if you have the time to.
Also in dark souls 2 weapons degrade twice as fast at 60 fps.
And your parry windows and roll invincibility only last half as long.
I hope it will be at least fixed in the remastered version...
*****
I-Frames are not affected. www.reddit.com/r/DarkSouls2/comments/25lnny/agility_and__correlation_data/
Couldn't find anything about parry windows. Though, I ran the game at both 30 and 60fps and couldn't tell a difference.
Sadly the weapons do degrade twice as fast. :(
GhostTaco
Ah, thank you; I wasn't aware of that. Strange that they would correct for rolling but not weapon degradation.
PanicGiraffe That's why you should lock as many calls to on fixedUpdate rather than just on Update. Update is called every frame render. FixedUpdate is at a fixed interval decided by the engine. When George talks about how Bioshock's animations were locked to 30fps despite the game actually running at 60fps, this is (sort of) an example of that. The dark sould menu might be a case of this, but I doubt it because the difference wouldn't be that easy to trigger unless you had turbo input. The problem with Dark Souls is likely due to code being tied to the in-game rendering of the menus.
It's also important to remember that we're talking about milliseconds here. A 60Hz monitor refreshes every 16 milliseconds, or 0.016 seconds. A 144Hz monitor refreshes every 7 milliseconds, or every 0.007 seconds. (point of note for any of you James Bond fans, it's actually 0.006999... ;16 is actually 0.016666...) The difference is nearly imperceptible. I say nearly because it is not entirely imperceptible. But keep in mind that it is lower than the 10 milliseconds (0.01 seconds) threshold for notable visual information loss. However, notable visual information loss is not the same as whether there is perceptible differences. The bugaboo is 30Hz, which is 33.333... milliseconds, or 0.0333... seconds. As you can clearly see, the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames is well above the minimal threshold for notable visual information loss with a 14 millisecond, 0.014 seconds, difference.
As George noted, we don't see in frames. That's not how our visual cortex works. We actually perceive different elements of imagery in the same scene at different rates. It's why we can see a tiger running at us very clearly, but we don't perceive the foliage in the background moving as fluidly. Furthermore, this is why soldiers often experience events, like firefights, as if they have taken significantly longer than they truly have. The human brain literally speeds up the processing of information and they are actively perceiving events at a heightened level. Time, for them, is, literally, moving slower. This is not the same, btw, as the gravitational distortion of time. They are not distorting time, but because of their heightened sense of perception, they are experiencing the elapsing of time at a different rate than others.
So, what does that bit about the perception of time have to do with any of this? A lot, actually. When you are super-excited or panicked, your body will physiologically react by releasing various chemicals, notably endorphin and testosterone, which will speed up your sense of perception. Time will pass slower for you during this state of hyper-perception and so those minor time differences of only a few thousandths of a second can become more pronounced and noticeable. Likely, if you were playing something calming, relaxing, and didn;t require your to be as attentive, then you would be less likely to notice a difference.
Does framerate matter? Yes. Especially when code is tied to it. However it is important to note that after 60 frames, the difference becomes exponentially negligible to the point of imperceptibility in the 200+Hz range.
60Hz was the standard because the US electrical system runs at 60Hz. This became the CRT TV standard, then the LCD TV/monitor standard. There is no other reason. In 1891 Westinghouse chose 60Hz because arc lights performed better than at 50Hz.
And 24 FPS is the standard in the cinema because when they started recording audio on the side of the film they found that it was noticeably out of sync at less than 24 FPS.
I really expected to hear you say "an excuse to solder new capacitors on." They cost a few cents, and is surprisingly easy.
I bought a 144hz monitor. I don't recommend it to my friends because I now notice choppiness when playing games at 60fps. But it's so damn buttery smooth. I'm definitely for higher framerate over higher pixel density so far.
The Laser Beam123 I know what V-sync is and I'm not talking about that (although that is also a legitimate problem). I mean I get used to how smooth 144fps is that 60fps feels choppy to me, like how 30fps feels choppy to people used to 60fps.
The problem with playing 60fps games on a 144hz monitor is that the refresh rate is not a multiple of 60. Basically, each frame is being shown for 2.4 frames on the monitor, which creates noticeable judder even though the game is running fine. A similar thing happens when watching movies on a 60hz TV. 60 is not a multiple of 24, which means each frame is shown for 2 frames, then 3, then 2, and so on. 120hz or higher TVs don't have this problem, because 120 is a multiple of 24. For your case, if you can set your monitor to, say, 120hz, then the problem will be resolved.
That's not a problem Sean. Every 144 Hz monitor supports 60 Hz natively. If you really want to, you can create a custom resolution with 97.6754 Hz refresh rate or whatever. Most even support weird legacy refresh rates like 25 Hz interlaced.
This is why VRR exists. I think the usefulness of VRR is quite limited in 60 Hz displays, but if you are using a high refresh display then having it work as a great all-in-one 60 Hz, 120 Hz, 144Hz etc display is extremely useful. Should eliminate all that judder (if the source of the judder is the mismatch of the framerate and refresh rate and not some other, deeper engine issue).
In fact, in the modern day and age I can't really recommend getting a high refresh screen unless it comes with some kind of VRR. It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, are you ALWAYS going to hit a perfect 144fps? If not you will certainly feel the fluctuations (even relatively minor ones) -- something that I've found toggling G-Sync on immediately masks.
+ShehzaanA Abdulla The problem with VRR is its incompatibility with strobing, as that would require variable intensity strobing depending on how long the frame is displayed, which you don't accurately know in advance. Buffering 1 frame so that you do know this would cause display lag.
If that is ever resolved then VRR is a set-it-and-forget-it setting like anisotropic filtering. As it is now, in any game that mostly hits the refresh rate of the monitor I'd much rather have ocassional judder than poor motion clarity.
The poor motion clarity (AKA persistence blur) results from the fact that your eye doesn't move in discrete steps, where as the display does display motion in a series of discrete pictures. If your eye is smoothly following an object that moves across your screen at 10 pixels per frame with full image persistence, then the object will move 10 pixels on the retina while being displayed each frame. That's a massive 10 pixel blur. If the display strobes, like CRTs did, and e.g. lightboost LCDs and VR HMDs do, then the image is only illuminated for a fraction of a frame and the after image follows along on your retina as your eyes move. That's why motion clarity is wonderful on e.g. on CRTs and on the VIVE HMD.
On VR HMDs lost frames is dealt with using various interpolation/extrapolation approaches (e.g. asynchronous time warp). This might be possible on monitors to "fake" a higher framerate in most important respects (translation and rotation of the player camera, but not e.g. animations and movement of enemies).
I perceive life at 420 fps.
I love all of your series, the Let's Try To Plays, the Critical Close Ups, the no-tranq and Revengence playthroughs as well. I wish I had more money to give, but what can you say, college, right? Oh well! Keep up the great work.
Haha! This was uploaded 4 days too early. 60fps videos are here!
Hope he does a re-do.
MrBulbasaurlover Maximum Hertz: Definitive Edition
This video just took a shit on Ubisoft.
And then TH-cam does the same by having 60hz video upload support.
What do you mean!? They just want a cinematic experience! 30 FPS, overly gritty characters, shitty camerawork, no female characters, it's all there just to support that "cinematic feel"!
(joke)
CyrusBluebird The difference between 60Hz and 144Hz is a refresh rate of 9 milliseconds.That's 0.009 seconds. After 60, the differences from doubling the Hz becomes exponentially negligible to point of being imperceptible. For example, comparing 200Hz to 400Hz is not going to yield any perceptible difference. However, the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz is 14 milliseconds, which is within the realm of notable visual information loss and is certainly perceptible, especially when in a state of heightened perception.
Let's take a minute to acknowledge all those who have no clue what you just said.
+Leonard Ababio Basically, once you get to a certain high level of framerate, you begin to have decreasing returns for accuracy of input because the differences are too small to make any major impact.
Increasing from 30 to 60 makes a lot of sense in practical terms. You get real, perceptible gains from that. 60 to 120 and 120 to 240, not so much. 480, even less so. Yes, it's getting smoother and smoother, but that's not the point. It's a matter of diminishing returns.
The more frames you put out, the more it taxes your hardware. So, yes, 240Hz is smoother than 120Hz, but the gains in speed in terms of framedraw isn't as noticeable as 30 to 60.
In real world terms: You have the chance to play GTA5 at 60fps with ultra settings or at 240fps with low settings. It would be more reasonable to play at 60fps because the increased framerate between 60 to 240 isn't going to be that much better of an experience. You are going to be spending a LOT of computational power for very little actual gains.
As for what I mean about diminishing returns: You can run a camera to capture the beating of a humming bird's wings, and it is beautiful to see, but there is no reason to film every scene of a movie at a framerate that high because you won't notice beyond a certain threshold. The slow-motion footage is a bit misleading in that context. Yes, transitional framing is important, but there gets to be a point around the 60 to 120 range that the actual difference isn't that noticeable for most people. Once you go over 120, you're getting into levels where it is trivial when it comes to exerting input.
The 60fps limit of the human eye probably comes from a misunderstanding of the "flicker threshold", the rate at which our eyes can no longer discern between individual frames; it's believed to be somewhere between 60 and 70fps (up to 76fps if the human eye has been recorded spotting a 13ms frame).
Putting aside that not being able to spot frame changes isn't the same as not being able to see a difference, nobody seems to take into account that the amount of change on screen between frames could also make a difference.
This is the best demonstration of framerate i've ever seen, good job!
The reason why so CRT's were used for that long (and still are) by pro players, is not only the high framerate you can achieve with them, but also the very minimal latency. Even with the best high frequency LCD's it still takes a couple of milliseconds more to have the image change after player input than with CRT's. Some years ago it was quite a bit more than just a couple of ms.
Such a great video. I've watched it once a year since it came out now. About to pull the trigger this evening on a monitor deal and wanted to reassure myself I'm making a good choice.
60FPS is the speed at which I stop noticing painful stuttering. It seems reasonable that, therefore, I could see more.
Love that the 120fps shows off the terrible microstutter present in the source engine for most of its games. Go valve.
I'll reiterate some other commenter's thought from another video of yours. Your videos are the most thoughtful and insightful videos relating to video games on TH-cam, perhaps in all of the Internet. I haven't watched all of the Let's Try to Plays or the MGS3 NoTranqs but the reviews are just superb. The Dark Souls review specifically was a masterpiece, imho. In fact, now that I think of it, I'll watch it again, even though I already have a platinum in that game. Ah memories.
A good indicator that we are starting to see the big push of graphics this generation to start to become redundant. I hope people will eventually be satisfied with resolutions and frame rates so that funding can go into bettering the game-play rather than just the visual spectacle of fancy graphics
aspect We're getting to the point where graphics become "good enough". Lighting's where it's at and that shit's hard to render.
@@BrainSeepsOut And that's when Ray tracing came to the rescue.
I have been using a 120htz monitor for quite some time, and you are right, you get so used to 120htz that anything below looks a lot worse. Like, A LOT. Suddenly 60htz looks like shit. 30htz looks unplayable.
+orange Recently got a 144hz monitor and I can attest to this. I can never go back after.
Top-Kun We can NEVER go back. It's a shame that all the marketing goes to high resolution and so we don't have support for high framerate in all modern games. Hell, even old FPS games had better support for it...
orange 4k 144hz is the dream, my friend.
Top-Kun I'm waiting for that. Maybe next decade...
+Orange Zone I think we might have it in 5 years.
Best review I've seen in weeks!
So uh, anyone else here check out 60 fps porn? Shit is off the wall.
Where can one obtain such pornographic material
There's a subreddit for a start.
superghost6 /r/60fpsporn
60 fps porn is the tits
tamerdp "the tits" (☞ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)☞
i recently bought a 144hz monitor. its not that iam disappointed, its just.. iam not overwhelmed and i thought i would be. the difference between 30 and 60 fps is strongly visable for me. so my thoughts were: 144 has to look twice as good as 60.. but its not. its more like the difference between 45 60. yes, i can see it, but its not the jump that i expected
in reality it ISN'T as much of a jump, as people are trying to tell everyone...
double the fps doesn't mean "double the realism" or "double the time to react".
It looks smoother and feels smoother, but as you already said, only like... comparing 45 fps to 65 fps. not much of a deal
0:36 "It was time to finally enter the twentieth century and enjoy some 1080p."
I'm pretty sure monitors that could display 1080p weren't around even in the 1980's/1990's, let alone anything beyond 50 years ago where personal computers were a rarity and scarce amongst consumers.
+Lewis Wilkinson There were some proffesional Sony BVM CRTs that could do 1080P@>60Hz.
I think 60fps is going to continue to remain an industry standard for a good while, simply because of how easy it makes to time animations.
I do light animation work and am starting to model and rig in rhino, cinema, and programs alike. I also messed around with some good old java in processing. Using a frame counter in code is literally just easier than using a timer.
To make transitions frame-perfect in games, i.e. a gun's reload animation finishes at an EXACT frame and not between two frames, you want your game's timer to work in units of frames, NOT units of times. animation and user imput that works EXACTLY at each instance (frame) is what creates the smoothest result and uses the least amount of processing power.
By using 30fps, 60fps, or even pumping up to 120Hz, you're using a frame count that syncs perfectly with real world time. 60 frames to a second, 60 seconds to a minute, et cetera. This means that you only have to program ONE set of timers for your in game animations -- just for the frames, and therefore by timing your frame animations you're simultaneously timing measurable clock time, because the units match up.
If you clock things to 144fps, though, your frame timers are wayyy out of whack, which means you have to program different timers: a timer that measures real time (probably 60 instances per second) and a seperate timer for your unlimited frame rate that tells the first time "if you hit this 60th of a second, wait three frames, then conclude the animation, but of you hit a different 60th of a second, wait four."
To create these unlimited framesrates, you're changing algorithyms, and playing around with your game engine in ways that'll make your timers use more processing power. This results in needing more power to run the software, and also results in more possibilities of errors, because syncing the proper frame is simply just hard. That's why your free aim can stay at an unlimited framerate, because the textures do not have animated timers, but anything animated (your gun) will clock at 60 or 120fps. It's the only way the software can properly time the frame EVERY time without a hitch.
I got really lucky when I bought my monitor. Like 3 years ago I was lucky enough to find a 1440p monitor for $300. It shipped from Korea, I couldn't even read the box, had a special converter to work in the US, and it works to this day flawlessly lol. Now the lucky part comes in where with some monitors you can actually overclock the framerate and still have it be stable. I can run at a smooth 120hz at 1440p and a monitor that can do that for 300$? Even today you that's a damn good deal.
This was really REALLY helpful. Thanks.
Really cool video man! thank you.
This was really informative, not biased instead weighed fairly from both ends.
Great video!
Anything above 60fps is too smooth for me, if that makes sense. It feels so weird to watch and play
The only time I've ever noticed frame rate is when a game really chuggs, to lag/freezing levels. That and in slow motion scenes of older movies.
Very informative! Thank you.
On the subject of accuracy and timing, I'd argue that frame-time (the pacing of frames) is more important that frame-rate. 144fps with an inconsistent frame-time offset will make things absolutely horrible and juddery. A good recent example of high frame-rate with terrible frame-time is Infamous: Second Son. It was almost unplayable to me with how inconsistent the frame-time is.
I play on 144 but when I when back to 60 it felt like 10 fps
my big issue is just getting 60fps because of how many games are horribly optimized and no matter what kind of parts i have shit ports will be shit.
Really? What kind of games are you playing? I haven't had much trouble with that. Maybe the settings you are playing on are too high.
Hymen Buster im talking about games like evil within, arma 3, dead rising 3. if this keeps up shitty ports will be a norm again.
well arma 3 isn't a shitty port its just poorly optimized
But even if you have just 60 fps or less with a 120hz monitor you'll still get less tearing and somoother movement of the camera.
redfred004 Hm, i play ArmA 3 with 40 FPS and pretty crappy Hardware. I deactivate all that motion blur and bloom bullshit, tho.
Almost want to put out a response vid for gaming on a 4k monitor and the ins and outs of that. This made me feel a bit more confident in my decision making. 4k looks wonderful for text, and though my 1070 can't exactly hit 60fps at true 4k, a lot of new games allow for scaling, so at least the UI looks beautiful and crisp while you're playing.
The 60fps frame rate also became standard in games due to the 60hz NTSC TV system, that 60hz limit also carried over to LCD monitors unbroken until recently. A generation of gamers never played on CRT and during the CRT generation people with 100hz quality displays were a minority. I think this is why it's so hard to explain to feeling, when true 120fps monitors came out a lot of my mates had no idea why it was so exciting to me. I have to say it's close enough but in terms of response time and feeling the CRT is still better, the trade off goes in favour of LCDs though, they are larger with better dimensions, don't create static, brighter, lighter and are perfectly flat without picture distortion.
I don't see this going much further than PC MP fps though, consoles are hardware limited so there is no point pushing past 60 for them.
I've read that people can see as high as 1000 fps in some very specific cases (dealing primarily with detecting motion). Really though, as you said, it comes down to our eyes not being cameras. We can see well above 60 fps mostly because that's not how eyes work. Underestimating how fast our eyes "refresh" is a lot like how people overestimate reaction time. I don't think people realize just how much of our daily lives and gaming in general relies heavily on our brains making predictions to deal with quick situations.
Playing better or not, if it *feels* better, then it makes the game more fun/enjoyable, and that's what really matters.
On the other hand, if it makes
When I read your comment I hear Bender's voice.
roush26 Shut up baby, I know it.
Why would you ever play at sub 100 fps?
because games that only run at sub 100 fps can be really good.
Regarding Dark Souls at 60fps (aka only on PC and with DSfix enabled)
not only there is the menu problem mentioned at 8:25 , but the game also calculates the distance of jumps based on frames, which is why, as any Dark Souls "veteran" knows, jumps tend to be way shorter when DSfix is enabled..it isn't really a huge problem since in Dark Souls you rarely need to do pixel perfect jumps, but it still is something to be noted
That crosshair you are using in CS is absolutely nasty!
Very informative, thanks for vid
Conclusion: 30fps is pleb tier, 60 is "sweet spot" tier and 120-144 is luxury.
I had never considered the UX related issues to framerates... this was an eye-opener
I totally feel you on the dragging windows around part. It's probably more noticeable than in games. I have two primary monitors: a 120Hz 1080p(or 30Hz at 4k but fuck that) and a 60Hz 4k one. While it is nice to have the extra smoothness, I like the increased clarity of the 4k display as I don't notice an increase in skill with 120Hz. It just seems more satisfying and marginally better looking over 60Hz. The 4k one on the other hand tends to really help in games featuring lots of foliage like warthunder, arma, or battlefield as I can see much clearer if someone is in a bush or not, as well as just spotting moving targets in the distance. This may be a one sided argument because 120/144Hz 1080p displays are around $300 and my 4k 60Hz one was $600; however, you can get 1440p 120Hz displays now though in the $500+ range which may be more comparable.
An additional bonus of 120/144Hz is that they are both multiples of 24 (120Hz with 60/30 as well). This enables movies to be marginally smoother on these types of displays, however you can generally underclock your displays to 48Hz(or increase to 72 in some cases) if loosing a few runt repeated frames is a big deal for you.
i had 144fps demo'd to me with world of warcraft, and, honestly, i wasn't sure if i liked it. i've always been susceptible to this odd rushing feeling where it feels like the world goes too fast around me, especially when laying on my side. watching 144fps wow and 48fps the hobbit trailer both induced that feeling in me, even though it's purely based on what i'm used to and seeing more info in the same time.
when youtube first introduced 60fps video some people's 60fps footage did that to me too, though some people's didn't and i'm not sure why. today i'm never super sure if i can notice the difference to 30 except when it's footage of the binding of isaac.
i suspect that some of the footage that fine to me at 60fps (though it did at 30 too) was because i could play it at 60 on my own computer, but maybe some i end up becoming used to slower frame rates.
i only recently discovered by looking at the info panel in vlc, a lot of anime runs at 24 (well, 23.9997) because it's less frames to animate, i had just assumed it was 30 like the broadcast television standard.
interestingly in all of this i also don't usually notice if something is in 25 for european tv or 30 for american tv, though when a monitor is on 50hz i notice compared to when it's on 60. i guess it's the way the mouse moves and stuff, just like you dragging the windows around.
and yet i can perceive a definite difference in that 48fps hobbit trailer, and 144 felt weird to me too. i wonder if i could measure my "hz sensitivity". if i went through a bunch of tests i'd probably focus on it more and get it right more often than when i'm just watching things for fun and only occasionally wondering what the thing says it's actually running at.
That's just motion sickness. 144 Hz is much closer to convincing motion than 60 Hz. If your eyes tell you that you are moving and your inner ear tells you that you are stationary (or vice versa, as in sea sickness), your brain interprets this as if you ate something poisonous (which often causes this mismatch) and you feel ill.
Try increasing your field of view in games. That usually helps people who are sensitive to "artificial motion". On a monitor up close on your desk, you want 90-110 degrees. Games with less than 90 degrees FoV are made for consoles, where you sit further away and there is more fish eye distortion with high fields of view.
I'm not very senstive to motion. When I play a *very* uncomfortable VR experience on my Vive (i.e. a game not made for VR, but modded to work, just barely in most cases), like Half-life 2, I get cold sweats after about half an hour; if I were to keep playing I expect I would feel really ill pretty quickly.
If you're ever going to try VR. Start with something that has been made with room-scale, natural locomotion in mind; not something with artifical locomotion where you are using gamepad or mouse and keyboard to move. Rally and racing games are more tolerable with artificial motion as you are mostly moving forwards without awkward rotations and you have a dashboard, roof window frame etc. that grounds you and lessens the mismatch.
FYI even if you're on a 60hz monitor, you CAN (in some games at least) still benefit from higher fps.
I play on a 60hz moniotor and If I use 'fps_max 60' in CS GO, I can clearly notice a decrease in smoothness. So I play with uncapped fps (usually sitting between 160 - 300) which definitely feels smoother.
I'm not 100% sure, but AFAIK this is because the extra frames are still buffered in VRAM. Having more frames to "choose from" allows the video card to send them to the display at more even intervals, aka improving "frame-timing" and thus minimising stutter and/or input lag
Oh and btw, I do get lots of screen tearing, but I'd rather have tonnes of tearing than dealing with vsync (the input lag is VERY noticeable in shooters I find)
I really should get a 144Hz monitor :p,
I've wanted one for a long time, and since I mainly play online shooters (CS GO and BF4) I reckon I really would benefit from the extra Hz ^^,
Iorveth Basically, it's because you are creating a large buffer pool of frames. Triple buffering will give you a 180 frame buffer at 60Hz. So, if you're running at like 400 frames, you are going far and beyond triple buffering. As you noted, if you have a large pool of frames to pull from, you can more reliably draw smoother transitions from that available pool.
Hey Super Bunnyhop, can you review the Jagged Alliance series as well since you like thinking man's games like Rainbow Six just like me? :)
0:05
I have almost the same monitor shown here (mine is an Hanns-G HW221D). Also had the problem with some of the capacitors failing and causing the monitor to not power on. It was actually a pretty easy fix. Just used a soldering iron to remove the bad ones, and replaced them with equivalent capacitors I bought online for about $5.
I had a CRT that did 100fps, and i've struggled to get back into console gaming or upgrade to decent TFTs for a long time.
i waited ages to get my first flat screen and am pretty happy now that 120-144hz screens are available.
but as you said, it really does create an expensive requirement if you cant go back. a bit like internet speeds!
4k @ 120+ fps will be quite hard to run in the foreseeable future anyway, the screens cant do it with a single panel yet and there aren't many graphics setups capable.
not to mention the fact that common HDMI and display port struggle to output that kind of bandwidth.
Great video. This is the conversation we need to have, not defending 30FPS limits lmao.
A good video, and also a good point to be made. I made my decision differently at the time, as framerate doesn't matter to me as much (I know I'm not going to break 60 FPS with all these console ports, so why bother trying, after all), but I've found, given a year to get used to it, that resolution matters.
I'm still a bit old-school when it comes to resolution. I'm rocking 1680x1050 monitors. I know, 1080p is the standard, but at the time I picked 'em up, they weren't expensive. My FPS is capped at 61hz native, but my effective primary resolution is 5040x1050.
I'm convinced, and I know it's only my opinion, that triple-screen gaming is the way to go. Like you had with your higher framerates, I feel like I have more time to react, but it's because I can see more, process more information at the same time. The side monitors give me a huge advantage when I can see someone approaching between containers when they think they're geing sneaky, when I'm playing FPS games. For MMO's, I see more of the battleground and know when my teammates need more assistance without being burdened with a screen full of clutter. And when I'm playing my good RPG's, I'm immersed fully in the experience, as most of my field of vision is bombarded with information, allowing me to be the character instead of just playing the character.
Sure, refresh rate is important, and I'll agree. It can smooth things out, give you a split second advantage, and otherwise make games look better. I just find extra resolution to be an easy way to gain a minor advantage in the moment. And for me, I find myself enjoying my games more when they're spanning three screens in a glorious display of nVidia Surround.
also it is seen how much it smoother when you show it from camera pov. super low quality but really looks more responsive than actual gameplay footage
how most games capture the camera movement is by resetting the mouse cursor to the center of the screen and then as you move the mouse it will once per frame reset the cursor to the center of the screen and the distance of this determines how fast and in what direction the camera moves for that frame.
In this situation the frame rate becomes the camera movement sampling rate. In games without hardware cursors it also caps how fast the cursor can move across the screen and how smooth that animation is. Diablo 2 offline single player for example caps the frame rate at 25 becasue it uses per frame logic and moving the cursor around feels constrained and imprecise. However in 'multiplayer' lan mode the fps is capped at 60 for Direct3D or whatever your Glide or OpenGL Glide wrapper settings cap it at but the game logic runs at 25fps still resulting in a much smoother UI experience.
This also means that to get the absolute minimum amount of camera movement as per your camera sensitivity setting you would have to move the mouse cursor only one pixel per frame. So assuming 1° of camera movement per pixel of mouse movement (illustrative only i don't actually have any examples from games and they probably wouldn't line up to leave the math as nice) you end up with this. At 30fps with a frame time of ~33ms it would take (360/33) 10~11 (1/3 of a second) frames to turn around fully. At 60fps with a frame time of 16~17ms per frame it would take half the time it took at 30fps to turn with the same precision. When you double the frame rate again to 120 and the frame time is only 8ms the time doubles again taking only 1/4th the amount of time to turn 360° compared to doing it at 30fps.
2021:
TV: 60 Hz
Laptop: 60 Hz
Monitor: 120 Hz
Phone 120 Hz
Older titles: Play them at 120 fps
Modern titles: Play them at 60+ fps
Console emulation: Play them even at 30 fps. With perfect frame pacing, gameplay is still fine.
You're right the experiment, you conducted isn't revealing anything because the sample size is far too small with only one participant.
Agreed on the Desktop. The difference is night and day between 60 & 144; the only time things get choppy is when the system is under severe load, which doesn't happen often on my PC (outside of having a ton of programs running simultaneously). Even just minimizing and maximizing got me giddy for a while after I bumped up the framerate
This helped me immensely. The last two minutes are perhaps the best summary of why or why not you should be in the market for 144Hz. I mean running two Titan or 980 GPUs is not going to guarantee enough fps to justify a 144Hz purchase with triple-A titles in mind. Especially with the pathetic nature of the large developers seemingly taking large steps back every year in how their products perform day one and the horrible nature of PC ports.
Unless you put huge amounts of stock in older first person shooters like CS, there isn't a huge amount of justification to go 144Hz unless, you do want a better overall Windows experience that mostly encompasses scrolling.
And some of the proprietary technologies that manufacturers like BenQ are putting in their 60Hz monitors along with the fact they are also 8bit (vs 6bit 120-144Hz panels) and reproducing colors close to IPS standards. They are providing a close to 120Hz experience with much better colors, contrast and black levels. Of the gaming monitors, 60Hz is still going to produce the best image because they can be 8bit and those 8bit TN panels are approaching IPS color standards.
If you are not reasonably ready for 120-144Hz then something like the 60Hz BenQ RL2460HT is a great option when it is under $200, keeping in mind that the popular Asus 144Hz monitor can go as low as $240.
Hey, your old monitor is the monitor I'm using now! Hanns-G HW191D!
...I wonder how much time mine has left before it dies.
Hey George, I saw in this video you talked about nitronic rush. Have you played Distance? I think it's made by the same folks that made nitronic rush. I really enjoyed it and I think 144hz really benefits its gameplay as well.
Good video. An essay could be written about the relationship between 2D fighting games and a strict 60 FPS environment, and generally I would much prefer it if fighting games stayed at a consistent 60 FPS.
I don't want one frame links to be reduced to any more of a stringent input timing, to be honest. I've played SF5 for half of a decade and Guilty Gear for god knows how long, I still miss those from time to time. I think it's because of this that I tend to worry less about games being locked at 60 FPS, it's what my "natural environment" is I guess I could say.
Seems there's a huge problem with just getting games to run at 60 FPS if you play on a console these days, though.
HEY GEORGE. I JUST CAME HERE TWO YEARS LATE TO POST THAT AT THE TIME OF THIS VIDEO'S UPLOADING, TH-cam ACTUALLY CAPPED THEIR FPS AT 60, NOT 30.
After getting a 165hz 2k monitor I was genuinely shocked. I never really gave that much thought to higher resolution, or 60+ fps, I figured 1080/60 was good enough for me...well it's not! The higher frame-rates are way more immersive to me, it's feels amazing! I'm really surprised how much difference it made, it's really the next step in gaming. The only downside is you do have to tweak files a bit, and some games lock specific parts of the game (hair, wheels, clothing) to 30fps no matter what.
I do love high fps. I think even with just watching something it just looks a lot better. With a 60 fps camera I do notice how much more awesome certain things look, like moving hair. I think something running at 60fps at 720p looks significantly better than something running at 30fps at 1080p. High frame rates make things look a lot more real.
I would be very interested to see a more rigorous experiment on the effect of frame rate on player performance. I personally think it's mostly a placebo, but I could easily be wrong.
It doesn't really affect me at all though since I don't play competitive games much any more and even if I did my internet connection would be a much more limiting factor.
I think input lag means more for perhaps playing better. Personally, I wish 60fps was standard everywhere... maybe with the Xbox Next and PS5 since that will be first gen since the xbox/ps2 where added power is being thrown at the same resolution instead also be thrown at a jump to 720p, and then 1080p.
The issue of tying frame rate to game logic stems from a programmer's lack of experience with modern software architectural patterns, namely MVC, which strives to make independent the data (model), data manipulators (controller), and the user's view of the data (view).
What happens in these poorly developed games is that the model or model's controller and the view become fused (or confused), and the model uses the view's timer for calculations. In good practice, the game should "feel" consistent at any frame rate, while only *visual* bugs should occur if the view wasn't polished enough in time for launch to handle higher a frame rate or unexpected configurations.
Another widespread issue with many modern games is that user input, a component of the controller, shares a thread with the view, so enabling features such as v-sync causes input latency. If those systems were properly isolated, your input would be processed, and the model updated, in spite of whatever your GPU is currently doing.
It's not a console vs. PC issue. It's good programmer vs. bad programmer.
Apparently, console programmers are allowed to get away with a lot of smells because they don't have to worry about platform independence outside of this hardware generation. As a result, porting to PC will highlight their bad design practices.
Devil May Cry 3 60 fps and it has a turbo mode that goes beyond 60fps in the older generation consoles.
I really like the idea of frame rate being and aesthetic or mechanical choice for games. When they decided to lock Bloodbourne at 30fps because "it's best for action games" that made a lot of sense to me. Maybe not the blanket statement so much, but for something like Dark Souls it sure does. The 60fps versions of DS and DSII don't look right, it's like their speaking in a dialect I don't quite understand; I'm reading the game differently. And that even opens up possibilities for new challenges using framrates.
That's only because Dark Souls was initially designed for consoles and a lower fps from the start. If it was designed to cater to higher rates or a range of rates from the beginning, it would be fine. As an action game that relies quite heavily on precise timing and reactions, I can assure that it would greatly benefit from higher fps if the mentioned issues (bugs and design limitations, really) weren't present.
Building a game that requires precise timing is worse at lower framerates. Framerate affects input lag and increasing the framerate reduces said lag.
For moba games I think high frame rates is a good thing but the twitch movements you have to make is more of reflex and guess work not based on fps. Good video.
Separating logic and rendering has its own problems. The most common way is to fix the logic to a timestep (often 16ms). That usually means any extra corrections from extra frames are lost anyway in between the steps of logic. It also introduces temporal aliasing, which means you have to interpolate object positions visually by where they are between logical steps. Since you can't know the state of a future logical step, you wind up being up to a full frame of logic behind.
The only way to avoid those problems is to run the logic at a variable rate. The problems with that are myriad, physics simulations such as arcs or velocity gain can fluctuate depending on your framerate, so that's hardly ever a great solution.
So from a software design standpoint, this is actually a really difficult issue to solve.
Traditional film movies compensated for the low framerate by the fact that the camera shutter was open long enough to blur the motion in each frame. So, a low frame per second game isn't "cinematic" in the traditional sense unless perhaps the developers add motion blur to the game engine. Still, considering that it's an interactive experience, a higher framerate overall would be preferable in games than what is considered normal in television and movies.
Dave Leitz If people really need their motion blur in movies, you can add that shit in post and still have a high framerate. Of course the film industry is still falling behind progress.
Part of the problem with higher frame rate being considered "un-cinematic" is simple cultural perception. Traditional film had higher quality and production standards in general than the old television standards. Film simply cost more, and the 24 fps standard developed in a time when that cost determined the technological standards.
So, despite the higher frame rate of television, in itself a good thing, the traditional cultural perception of it is associated with the lower quality of old fashioned video capture and display.
Now we are no longer bound by the cost of film, but game developers are being bound by the limits of console hardware. They could decide to design games with 60 fps at 1080p if only they would limit their designs somewhat. Yet they attempt more "realism" at the cost of frame rate with the flawed excuse of it being "cinematic." However, they are just putting an expiration date on their own productions since the technology keeps advancing, making their efforts look dated and often ugly within a few years time.
Ironically, low frame rates will some day be viewed as a sign of low quality productions, which is a complete turn around from the way it was in the 20th century.
I have a 144hz monitor and it doesn't really effect me when I'm playing in games capped at 60 fps. I don't notice it too much anymore.
it makes peasants eyez hertz
I think you answered your own thing about where the 60FPS myth came from, and as I learned it, 29fps. It's a matter of lifestyle and experience how many frames you can really pick up on, so in the days of the older tech, that likely WAS the most people could really pick up on, but as we're getting more and more used to 60 and above in some cases, we're adapting. Call in minor evolution even if you will, but we're learning to pick up on things faster. That all said though..... I actually would have gone resolution over frame-rate, as I've always found the extra pixels to be WAY more helpful than the frames, cause I have more accuracy and can pick up on smaller targets that may have just become nothing at a lower resolution. Personal taste I know, but both are big factors in how smooth a game feels, so kind of a pick your poison thing.
Frames per second doesnt always ties to the console. Sometimes its hard to program stuff based on frames per second as well. When you lock it down to 60fps, it just makes thing easier... But yeah, I will consider programming for higher fps as well :)
finally got my first 144hz. the difference is night and day. spinning the mouse on my desktop is buttery smooth, and just that alone makes it worth the money
Please someone tell me the name of the futuristic racing game at 9:15. Please. It reminds me a bit to trackmania, and I would like to try this game.
By the way, I tried some 120Hz and 144Hz monitors, and Yeah, its absolutely noticable even on desktop, how smoother it is than 60Hz. 200 or (native) 240Hz would be stil not stupid I say. 60fps is enough for 5-7 inch mobile devices, but not the best for 27 inch or larger...
Well I'm now considering to buy a 120 hz or 144 hz monitor for Christmas ^^
So I do have a question though: If you have a 120hz monitor and you play a game that is capped at 60 or even 30 FPS, how does that look? Do you get the feeling the game stands still periodically or do you simply feel the game is slow?
Hold on, George. Didn't TH-cam add 60 FPS video support just a couple months ago? I certainly remember watching a 60 FPS video of Titanfall on YT back then (I checked in the "stats for nerds" section just to be sure).
Both Twitch and Nicovideo can run videos at 60 FPS, so surely YT should be able to do that too?
If you want to see everything, check out Killing Floor 2. They are going crazy with the amount of frames for gun interaction (shooting and reloading)
After getting a CRT that supports 160hz at 800x600, I have been wanting to unlock frame rates and get maximum fps in every game I play now. 1280x960 120hz playing call of duty is so buttery smooth and responsive that it’s my favorite display to play games on, not to mention it looks incredible with the motion clarity and black levels of a CRT. I really want to get a high refresh rate oled or lcd for normal desktop use one day tho
Going over the default FPS in Dark Souls 1 has also led to issues where players would clip through the floor when sliding down ladders.
GutenTag That's because it's a garbage console port :^)
That's just an unrelated bug iirc, what happens in dark souls is that your jumps actually become shorter at higher frame rates.
It's admirable that you've tried to correct the video but you've really just replaced one error in use of research with another. The table you show from the "Conservation of temporal information" paper concerns audio stimulation, not visual and even where the study did visual experiments it was assessing if people can detect variation in stimulus ordering not whether they could see the stimulus at all. Neither of the papers actually address the question of what the human threshold for experiencing a qualitative difference from increased framerate is.
Actually, the difference between 30/60/120/144 FPS is that it looks just a lot smoother, althought it does not change nothing in overall capabilities. Your K/D, accuracy is the result of your own skills, not about the FPS you´re playing in. That smoothness and key/play response is just an illusion, after quite a few time, your brain forgets about the smoothness of 60/120 FPS and it makes it look like of 30 FPS.
+Moisés de Oliveira Bullshit. Since getting a 135Hz CRT monitor, my K/D in TF2 has yet to go worse than breaking even. I used to consider 4-16 a "good" ratio, now I counsider 27-15 a good ratio. That's only if you're good at the game anyways, though. It won't make you suck any less, but it will make you better, if that makes any sense.
+Moisés de Oliveira that makes no sense what so ever, please no pseudo science we get enough of that crap from publishers.
Finally! Someone in gaming talking about something other than GamerGate!
bought a CRT for $50 purely for overwatch, but I hadn't realised how great they are for non-reflex dependent games. The lower resolution means lower hardware requirements and with a bit of calibration it has a better image quality than any LED/LCD display I've come across. Just be prepared to experience certain games not allowing anything over 60hz and damaging your eyes.
My first real demonstration of the whole "frames as time" and why it's so annoying actually came with the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. I mean, yeah, I was vaguely aware of frames being significant for fighting games, but fighting games were (and still are, to an extent) a genre that would occasionally interest me, but never hold it given the complexity and arcane knowledge they entailed.
But then Mass Effect 3 came along, and there was a subtle but distinct divergence in certain viable tactics between the console versions and the PC version. Near the end of its lifespan, people finally figured out why: timing was tied to frame rate. On higher frame rates, enemies' had faster detection rates, giving them laser-like precision on the player's position. Certain damage effects varied significantly across FPS, with 30 being gimped and 120 being a fair bit (but not hugely) more powerful than at 60 FPS. The health and shield gates, things that basically prevent the player from getting killed in one hit, got really screwy at FPS higher than 30.
What was really hilarious was that this was tied to the host's FPS. If the host's game was at 30 FPS, you could enjoy the look and feel of higher FPS, while having easier enemies, a more functional shield/health gate, and certain combat elements being slightly less damaging.
Personally, I could have gone for less variation in the experience across fps rates.
Look, I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps, there is a difference, 60 is better then 30, and 120 is better then 60. I fully acknowledge and understand these facts.
I just. Don't. Care.
I've never in my life had a problem with 30 fps, I've been playing games on both consoles and PCs for nearly two decades now and until people started talking about it a lot in the last couple years or so I never even knew frame rate was a thing in games provided it wasn't too choppy to play.
Also, I hate online multiplayer games, and since those tend to get the best results from higher fps I guess it really isn't something I need to worry about.
Anyway, great video as always George! Keep 'em comin'!
TB sent me here
If i'm lock as 60fps, can i see the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz in game ?
I can't differentiate any framerate above 50Hz. Is there something wrong with me?
Holy fuck! When you slow this down.... this is exactly the issue I experience but could never explain. It gives me headaches.
Gonna get a 144 right now.
My performance in different framerates are the same, I'll stick to my 60Hz terminal instead, it's good enough.
I had to manually cap skyrim at 60 fps because a higher framerate fucked with the physics engine for some reason
I'm actually having a debate right now, in the near future i'm planning on buying a new monitor, because my geforce 980 that I ordered, is overkill for 1080p 60hz gaming. And you can't really find 120/144hz /4kp in the same monitor, its one or the other.
I kinda wish I could have both features. But if I had to pick one, which should I pick. I remember playing unreal tournament back in the day on crt with high framerate, but its been so long I couldn't swear by the difference. I can defiantly tell between 30 and 60 though. Walked into friends room a few weeks back he was playing Left For Dead 2, at 60 fps, and first thing I thought/ said was "Holy shit, since when did left for dead play that well", because I had really only seen/ played the 360 version of the game that runs at 30 fps.
On the other hand, during skyrim testing when I got my 1080p display, I tried skyrim at 720 and 1080, at 720 it sure did look good, but at 1080, its like bam "wow there are details on those floor tiles I couldn't see before, even at 720".
Maybe it'd be best to go with 4k resolution simply because as you said, most games are designed for console anyways, and designed to run at 60, or if you're ubisoft will frame cap the pc versions to 30 just for the hell of it.
Oooh the MASTER RACE!
As I recall the human brain can process a certain amount of information at a certain time period. If you have more information on the screen like a movie filled with diverse images it will be harder to notice the frame rate because our brains don't have time to analyze each frame specifically. If you have a white screen with an image popping out during one specific frame it will be easier to notice because there isn't a lot of information for the brains to process. Also if you are doing an experiment with frame rate you must make sure that the observer doesn't know the frame rate because... ahhh it's basic science you know why. As far as reaction time to events goes I don't know anything, there hasn't really been a proper study in frame rate affecting reaction time.
Interesting. Im actually interested in that acer monitor as it is the cheapest 144 hz monitor available. The other options(Benq-Asus) seem a bit too pricey. Im aware that TN panels have shitty colors compared to IPs but i just want good frame rates of my old CRT days.
acer monitors usually have more ghosting than the asus or benq equivalents.