Gaming at 30 FPS Reduces Visual Quality
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 11. 2023
- A clip from our latest podcast episode: • Is 30 FPS Gaming Actua...
Join us on Patreon: / hardwareunboxed
Join us on Floatplane: www.floatplane.com/channel/Ha...
Buy relevant products from Amazon, Newegg and others below:
Radeon RX 7900 XTX - geni.us/OKTo
Radeon RX 7900 XT - geni.us/iMi32
GeForce RTX 4090 - geni.us/puJry
GeForce RTX 4080 - geni.us/wpg4zl
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti - geni.us/AVijBg
GeForce RTX 3050 - geni.us/fF9YeC
GeForce RTX 3060 - geni.us/MQT2VG
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti - geni.us/yqtTGn3
GeForce RTX 3070 - geni.us/Kfso1
GeForce RTX 3080 - geni.us/7xgj
GeForce RTX 3090 - geni.us/R8gg
Radeon RX 6500 XT - geni.us/dym2r
Radeon RX 6600 - geni.us/cCrY
Radeon RX 6600 XT - geni.us/aPMwG
Radeon RX 6700 XT - geni.us/3b7PJub
Radeon RX 6800 - geni.us/Ps1fpex
Radeon RX 6800 XT - geni.us/yxrJUJm
Radeon RX 6900 XT - geni.us/5baeGU
When to expect Nvidia's GeForce 4000 SUPER Series?
Disclaimer: Any pricing information shown or mentioned in this video was accurate at the time of video production, and may have since changed
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn a commission on some sales made through other store links
FOLLOW US IN THESE PLACES FOR UPDATES
Twitter - / hardwareunboxed
Facebook - / hardwareunboxed
Instagram - / hardwareunb. .
Music By: / lakeyinspiredg. .
Probably one of the biggest reasons why I moved from console to pc
That and the lack of polished, good games. Microsoft completely ignoring VR was the final straw. When I saw racing games on PC doing VR, my mind was blown. I swore I'd never go that route. Never say never.
@@eeeeyuke you made a good choice, as someone who only got into gaming only a couple years ago, and having the choice of console or PC with no previous bias towards either side, PC was an absolute no brainer.
I often times prefer running 1440p ~160fps low-medium rather than 1440p 60fps all maxed. Often times people underestimate the value of clear and fluid graphics over detailed hair on a caterpillar or something.
Tho on the other hand, it is true that there is a high price attached to quality fast panels
Also to add, games are now all using some form of temporal data for upscaling, for TAA etc.
With more frames the differences between each frame is less and makes the image more stable in motion
many TAA implementations add blur
It's something I noticed in games starting this year. They are built on the assumption that upscaling HW and high refresh rates etc will be used so when this does not happen it looks like you are drunk so blurry it gets.... sometimes turning the upscaling on actually makes it worse. This seems to be the games generation of cut corners. Previously games on low settings just looked kinda ugly but everything was clear and well defined.... now you have to squint to make sure you are seeing what you think you are seeing.
Me and my friends in 2003: "can you imagine how games will look in 20 years from now?"
2023: "flickering, blurry, laggy mess from basically console tech made of upscalers and frame interpolation to reach 30fps".
My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
and yet Digital Foundry still think Devs are not using DLSS and frame gen tech as crutch to avoid optimisation🤣
@@George-um2vcI mean, a $200 RTX 3060 can run 99% of games at 60 FPS with decent quality. The RX 7800 XT reached $400 recently and can do any game at 60 FPS with even better quality settings. What 30 FPS games are you talking about that bring your GPU to a halt?
Havent had a super low end pc playing at 20-30fps low for most of my life until i recently built an rx 570 pc, I mostly improve the visuals to high or something and just set games to 30 fps, and I play with vsync because i can't get over the tearing when i get more than 60fps on my 60hz monitor.
What!!?? 30fps is kinda slide show!!
Imagine being this privileged
Personally I can play fine at 24fps as long as it's reasonably stable.
I played GTA V at a solid 20 FPS back in the day. Explosions and smoke would being it down to a painful 7fps.
Really as long as the game doesn't slow down, and the frame rate doesn't fluctuate, 24 FPS is totally playable
Where's the privilege? I played X dev made Y it doesn't perform to my standards so I do not buy the game or refund it.
@@notfunny3397what are you smoking? Lmao. A rx580 is like $60 right now and will play most games at 60. The era of 30fps is gone. 30fps on a modern screen is an absolute disgrace to all things gaming. It's not privilege to have a GPU that costs 1% of the average persons income.. for a single month. If you can't do that.. you are the exception and PC gaming isn't for you. I am so far from an elitist. I have a 3 year old cpu and 6 year old GPU and I run most all my games 60 and up to 144 fps. come on man..
@@notfunny3397it’s not about being privileged. You just have very low standards. The average pc specs is a rtx 3060 and it will do 60fps in most games all day. That is the standard.
@@nuddin99 the average steam user has an rtx 3060 you mean.
The average pc doesn't even have a dedicated GPU.
Intel still has the highest market share of GPU I think.
Could someone please elaborate on this "30 fps looks blurred" take? Tim's explanation there feels like I'm being gaslit into some bs. Is it something that some people see and others don't?
30fps takes a MASSIVE hit on visual quality, especially these days when much of the image quality is built on temporal data (TAA, FSR2+, DLSS2+). I personally never had a problem with FSR2's image quality, but that mainly has to do with how I play games. I generally try to target 1440p+, ~120fps+, and at those resolutions and during those framerate the temporal resolve is quick, and the image quality isn't drained by blocky low resolution... it's only when you are running at 1080p or lower, and when you come down to
2:34 INDEED 30fps on CRT actually just double the image for your eyes in motion, and it's very ugly. You can get the same effect on a modern display with BFI at 60hz with 30FPS content. Needless to say, that's unusable, and people only tolerated 30FPS on CRTs because CRTs were generally so small you had an harder time seeing the doubling of the image in motion.
Today for 30FPS you just have to deal with the image looking very blurry and flickery in motion. You can actually still see the picture doubling in motion on a modern LCD, but it's hidden with the LCD blur. This is why game developers further add motion blur effects to be more filmic and hide the doubling and flickering of the 30FPS motion and honestly it is the only thing you can do. After all people are fine with 24FPS movie simply because of the natural motion blur.
I agree. I have several systems. Older laptop, Rog Ally and then my main desktop has a 3080 so I've played games at 30 fps all the way though 144fps which is what my monitor caps out at. The difference in smoothness going from 30-60fps to me makes more of a difference to the experience than moving the graphics from medium to ultra. 60-120fps is a noticable jump up but not as drastic as 30-60. I was a console guy most of my life before jumping over to PC but even I struggle to enjoy 30fps gaming in 2023.
I have 3 modern PC's notice zero difference! I think it is Placebo effect 10000000%
why not have everything?
i got myself a ps5
nintendo switch
series x
and 7700x-7900xt
7900xt is the same as the 3090ti in perfomance
30FPS could be playable but this to me is about the capability of GPU and clean frames in unison frame time. Most GPU's need lot more to get rid off the stutter for example. Human eye can't see more than 30FPS but we do see if there is gaps. I find that 30FPS for any GPU is a bit low but at the same time in my opinion ARC you can play with less FPS and still be playable. Not 30FPS of course but around 40FPS it starts to be OK where as AMD/Nvidia I feel it takes at least 60FPS to have the same experience.
But, but the cinematic effect...🤣🤣🤣
I think the discussion might be more profound than this.
Movies still use 24 fps, many said it was cost effective, but after some new movies at higher fps failed, we can observe that 24 fps has some psychological effect, i would even say an hypnotical effect, i guess looking at a lower fps content probably slows down your own "computational" speed, so it allows you to relax somewhat and let more information enter on you subconscious mind, since you are not processing everything normaly.
Im very certain that conventional media want a more emotional and interactive way to inject more information on your subconcious. So a 30 fps mode could be a deliberate choice... This allows more graphical fidelity in a way for sure...
Most devs probably arent aware of this fact, or at least dont look like it.
The issue there is input. It's not unbearable watching 30fps content. Most of YT is 30 fps for example, including a huge amount of the game footage, and it's not at all unwatchable. The issue is that when you are the one in control of the inputs, especially constant inputs to the game, like movement, aiming e.t.c. that you might do in anything from a platformer to a shooter, that's when low FPS feels horrendous. If you want to make a Telltale game style experience. Maybe a relaxed walking simulator, something that does not require precise or fast inputs, I think someone could potentially make the low fps argument that you are. If it's anything realtime though, I don't think you can make that same argument due to the input taking players out of it just as much as any effect of low fps could bring them in.
@@DawnSentinel Hey, thx for responding my comment, though i dont think you read it. The topic is about image quality not responsiveness. Its obvious that input response is very important, but it can be tackled even with 30 fps games.
@@MarceloTezzaHello my dude. I did indeed read your comment.
The video is about image quality yes. You are making a point outside of the premise of the video, by including psychological effects of low fps on the perception of media in the viewer. That's beyond the scope of the video. Due to that being beyond the scope and in favour of low fps as an artistic choice, I thought it pertinent to mention the main detractor of low fps as a choice in any game requiring at all precise inputs. You can't look at any of these things in a vacuum alone, when deciding the priorities of making a game. They all matter, and you have to choose what is more important.
What do you mean by saying that 'bad input response can be tackled even with 30 fps games'? In theory you could render a game at a higher fps and then choose the most accurate frame given to render it at 30 fps I suppose, but that still wouldn't get rid of the issues. It's simply an issue of your brain not getting enough data to properly process what is happening. Where is the target, where is my current point of aim, how are those two things moving in relation to eachother, are adjustments needed, am I on target, fire. At 30 fps you simply get less data to work with to try and figure out the answers to those questions. That isn't something that can be fixed, so when you have to do all of those things in a fraction of a second like you might with a very precise sequence in a platformer, or a series of fast flicks in a shooter, you have to wait for more frames to render to actually figure out what's happening, which makes things feel like you are lagging, or you have to do it blind with no feedback.
@@DawnSentinel Thats correct, there are different type of games that need different type of precision or reaction times, those games are generally done at 60 fps.
I dont really think that's the point.
Image quality is an abstract concept.
My point is directly related to image quality, is about the choice of what the dev want to provoke on the viewer. Is not like 60 is alwats better than 30 like the video induces to believe...
Motion resolution is an aspect of image quality but can be worse for some type of experiences.
Input lag, input response, etc... Is not directly related to image quality.
@@MarceloTezzaMy point is that you cannot separate the two of those things. Games are not a distanced visual medium. They involve the player providing input. On top of that, even in distanced visual media, these things still matter (an example is Christopher Nolan's choices on audio mixing only for specific cinema setups, resulting in a lot of viewers finding that they simply cannot hear his movies properly, and thus appreciate them less).
An example: You could write the most incredible, insightful, thought provoking book ever. The book is a 10 in theory. If you wrote it in Shakespeare's prose, a large portion of the people reading it would not fully understand it, and thus their experience of reading the book would be impacted. In reality, for these people the book would be a 4-8, not a 10.
Similarly with a game: You could make the most incredible, artistic, immersive game, with amazingly thought out gameplay systems and the most incredible story ever. The game is a 10 in theory. If the game feels like shit to play, or has performance issues, a large portion of the people playing it won't be able to fully enjoy it, and thus their experience of playing it would be impacted. In reality, for these people the game would be a 4-8, not a 10.
My point is that you cannot look at these decisions in a vacuum. The way that people interface with games, films, art e.t.c. is just as important as the art itself to the objective, which is the impact of the media on the person. A dev, or artist, or filmmaker, can decide to put their value on any part of the scale with these decisions, or choose which target audience they are aiming for, but they do need to consider what these things will do. If they didn't care about the impact on the person interacting with the media, it would not get released or sold.
I agree! I recently played Split Second on PC capped at 30fps PS3 style framerates and graphics...but when modified it to 60fps graphics improved and ran smoother
Never!!! I thought at 60fps game is dropping frames!!
@@FakundoAnanas not from my experience...also the CPU and graphics chip plays its part too
@@RAM_845 Seriously!! Can't be 🤷♂😏
@@FakundoAnanas I noticed the difference easy
It really doesn't matter that much if you're chilling on your couch with a controller taking in the whole image of a game like RDR2, it's similar to watching TV. The problem is there, but becomes more apparent when you're hyper focused on a single moving object like a football which has a high contrast with the pitch, or any similar simple image setup. tennis ball on a court, a high contrast between the object and a simple background.
For the average person, the more layers of information the eye has to take in, the less noticeable the problem becomes, until you fall down to very old rolling film with mechanical limitations, then there's no hiding it.
It does, I've been saying this for a long time.. 30fps makes most frames blurry in a game with movement in it.
Spiderman Miles Morales is a good example of this, because it has lots of moving effects like snow and rain, and it just happens to have both a 60fps and 30fps mode.
In addition to that it's worth mentioning 60fps based animation system and the precision and timing these offer compared to a 30fps based animation system. That's why games that need precise response and timing, like say Tekken games, have always used higher framerates. Not only such games can benefit from this precision and timing, but most games can.
Anyways, if I take a picture with a camera, say very high resolution, and it's blurry/unfocused, I will always throw it away. I'd even rather have a lower resolution crisp and clear photo.
Perhaps I'm overoptimistic, but I hope 4k@120fps will become standard in the next cycle, and that "quality mode" will be higher details/resolution at minimuk 60fps.
Well, I've played game on the Amiga 500 with perhaps 1 - 2 hz refresh rate (3d vector graphics, 320*200) on CRT-tv. I guess this is classified as "retro" today - lol am I that old 😅
Regardless of the blur from displaying it, there is also the issue of literally getting half the animation detail when going from 60 to 30.
Said it once I'll say it again, 60fps is the absolute minimum for gaming, no mater the game, for the reason you just gave, and so many more.
30fps isnt any clearer on crt than sample & hold unless there is some seizure inducing crt that lets users put the refresh rate at 30hz. On 60hz crt you see 60 double images per second that are clear individually but result in a blur due to the overlap, because at 30fps each frame has to be shown twice. You end up with something like this: frame 1 -> fade to black ->frame 1 again->fade to black->frame 2, an entire impulse gets wasted and motion gets ruined. For someone who hasnt seen this/doesnt own a crt, you can just imagine extremely harsh and obvious crosstalk.
With tools like VRR and DLSS/FSR we shouldn't be seeing 30fps as it makes no sense anymore even on consoles. It was just an arbitrary number at this point barely above a playable level.
40+ for VRR should be the floor at this point. It should be the new 30FPS if devs insist on putting a game at such a low framerate. You can squeeze another 10+ fps out of you game just to get it up to par and the graphically difference will never out weight the playability at that point anyway.
30FPS serves no purpose especially with newer TVs/Monitors where it feels like ass to play these days.
This is a point that always fails to get across for some people. For a game to be palatable at 30 fps you need tons of motion blur which makes everything a blurry mess and effectively ruins quality when you're actually moving and playing. It either looks choppy or blurry, but bad nonetheless.
@hubclipschannel a side by side of the same fps on each panel type at 30, 60, 144 and 240 would be great. I never really considered how much of a difference the persistence time made.
I am sorry, i just don't see the giant blurry mess that is 30fps. Depending on the game, I would rather play at 1080p 30fps than 720p 60fps. The image is too soft. Add resolution scaling to the mix and the image is even worse. I guess I am lucky that I am not sensitive enough to noticing this stuff.
I am playthjng MKX which during fights can go to 30FPS during the bone breaking moments and I am barely seeing this blurriness that is being brought up and this is at 4k with a 55in TV. This is a 120hz tv. You don't see as many frames, but I wouldn't call that blurry.
Conclusion: spend 500+ $ for a monitor and buy the aliexpress combo + a shitty old graphics to play battlebit remastered at potato settings to have the smoothest experience for best resoult
An evenly frame paced 30fps with a controller can feel decent. I just put 160 hours in tears of the kingdom and i rarely thought about it because it never jumped to 60 so i could see the difference lol
Is that game considered "Evenly frame paced" I thought the switch gets some frame drops on that game.
@@Enzed_it is evenly frame paced like 95 percent of the time. Certain spots hit the teens but its the exception. 60 fps is way better but 30 can be ok for certain styles of games with a controller
30fps is fine on console. Most of the time your brain calibrates your playstyle to cope with the low fps. You'll likely stop swinging your camera left and right and adopt a move, pause to look and move approach. Its not ideal, but still not that bad. FPS games have aim assist etc integrated to compensate for the reduced responsiveness.
On PC, its more of a mess. M+kb doesn't feel great until 40fps, no aim assist to compensate, and unlike console games that have motion blur tuned to 30fps - motion blur is usually made for 60fps on Pc games, and when the FPS is at 30, it usually blurs the image too much between frames because the steps are larger - so unless the game has a blur quantity slider, it'll probably be bad at 30fps.
30fps can only "work" on controller because your movement is limited with the thumbsticks. Even 60fps feels terrible for me with mouse and keyboard but I'm more than happy with 60fps with motion blur on a controller.
30fps higher latency, 60fps and above latency decreases
@@RAM_845he saying you feel that latency on a mouse far more because you have a 2d 1 to 1 input. Controller allows for reasonable controls with more late cy.
@@christophermullins7163 From experience gaming at 30fps using controller its slower than gaming at 60fps using controller so yeah, faster the frames the input latency is less. and yes depends on certain games.
@@RAM_845 well yeah. That's how PCs work. More frames is always better up until about 150 - 300 fps depending on the abilities of the user. I can personally see the difference when my 165hz monitor defaults to 144hz in the windows setting for whatever reason.. I noticee it and change the settings back.
Other reason can be mouse pulling rate. that's limited to 1000hz but controller thumbstick have like infinite pulling rate so overall camera movements feel linear and smooth on controller
When I went from a 70hz monitor to a 144Hz monitor it was the difference between me averaging 5th to 7th in the team to 1st to 3rd in the team.
Yes the difference is that huge.
I can only imagine what 540Hz is like, but I can tell you now my next monitor is gonna at least be 240 Hz.
Only in competitive shooters using what 1080p monitor so image quality does not matter or you would use a 1440p or better yet 4k monitor! And you would not use a keyboard and mouse!!
@@jmangames5562 1440. and yes keyboard and mouse still way better
for any game not ported from console.
I've bought game after game on steam and once you realise it is basically console game controls or it's crap to play on pc they just get dropped from my rotation.
The problem is 30fps on an oled feels like 10fps due to the extremely fast response times of the panel
wth that cant be the case right?
You've got a messed up oled monitor lol. The response times only help.
@lachlanB323 oleds make each frame instantly clear, you don't get any blurring of the frames which would actually help hide the low framerate
@@lachlanB323 Unfortunately that's not correct (I wish it was!). The increased response times reduce the amount of screen blur on an OLED which makes 30fps look even more stuttery and juddery. I have a Plasma TV, various LCD monitors and an OLED and 30fps on OLED is worse and more unbearable than on those other screens.
Yes, thats the real problem, i have been saying that, the frame gen technology to me is mostly for oleds, even 60 fps on Oleds feels really strange, 120fps should be default. The image persistence on oled is almost none so you can see the frames between...
People don't necessarily see the blur unless they've experienced that same game at a higher frame rate. Console "peasants" that term reflects this, though it's not a term I use or invented.
I see the logic behind it's creation - because once you move to 60fps locked you won't want to go back.
watching someone playing at 30fps is easy but playing it for yourself in big ass 32inch monitor is painful.... the delay and the frame pacing feels like shit
I set max fps to 30 from the NVidia control panel and I didn't see any quality difference. Of course It was not as smooth as 60 fps.
Mostly 30FPS is hard with controllers. When played The Witcher 3 on PS4 I've had hard time to control Geralt. I've stopped playing it. Then I've sold PS4, bought PC, low spec and started The Witcher 3 again. Was playing 30FPS with lower high settings. Had problem wit controls again. Lowered quality to mid and start playing around 50-60FPS. It was playable finally.
I basically can't be bothered to play games at less than 75fps. I can still see the small frame drop you get at 30fps, at 60fps as well. So I sacrifice on resolution to use the 75hz mode on my screen instead. The quality difference?
Negligible (with my screen at least). If anything, a lot of the older games look 'right' as I remember them looking on the old TV this way anyways, since it's a 5:4 aspect ratio I am using. For most games except newest ones, I just turn the graphics settings to maximum and make use of the extra anti-aliasing options in my graphics driver if the games own options are not good enough.
End result? Basically 1080p~ish gameplay on a lower resolution at a higher refresh rate than the usual 60hz on cheap monitors.
Oh, and this mode on this monitor gives it full access to not just 10 bit mode for colour range; but 12 bit mode.... that I think is probably just 10bit with frc added. Seems to work... I think.
But I'm looking to upgrade here soon. So this all may change for me eventually in a few months.
Sure in motion this is true. But for slower paced games where you aren’t in motion as much, there really isn’t diminished image quality.
I will say Alan Wake 2 with all the bells and whistles looks significantly better than without. Even on PC, I try to maintain as much of the visuals as possible and I have a 4090. It isn’t a locked 60 but I’m not going to cut all the settings down in a game where you’re primarily walking around & exploring for better clarity in motion.
40 FPS is the bare minimum in my opinion where it does not look as choppy as 30 FPS. I can play single player titles all day on 40 fps but anything lower I can see choppiness
What annoys me is when people say that "Oh back in my day we played games at 30 or even 24 FPS and we had a blast but kids today complain when it falls below 60"
First of all games in the 90s and early 2000s were designed around those figures and most people couldn't even experience what above 60 feels like.
Recently I played Lords of the Fallen and my average FPS was around 80 but out of curiosity I tried locked 30 and it felt shockingly bad. Input lag also massively increased.
All games are the same. Input lag always decreases when framerate increases. And higher fps always lead to smoother animations and less blurred image during camera rotation. It is just a matter of habit. Going down to 30 fps from 60 fps might feel bad at first. But after some time you get used to it. This is how a human brain works.
It's another matter if you just do not want to play at lower framarate. But it is solely because of your preferences. There is a big difference between ability to do something and preference not to do.
I'd say, going from 30 fps to 60 fps feels weird too (for a short period of time). It seems like everything moves faster than before and controls are too responsive. 😂
If you have a choice, you obviously choose a better option for yourself. But if do not have any choice, then you just play the way you can. For example, a few years back there was no way to play Uncharted 4 at anything but 30 fps on PS4. It does not mean that 60+ fps in this game feel worse. Quite the contrary, now, when we can play it on PC at any desirable framerate, it is great. Back then we did not even have a clue, that this game will ever be released on PC. So if you wanted to play it, you had to do it at 30 fps. And I do not remember anyone was complaining about it.
I remember getting in the mid 40's with a TNT2 and it was god tier. Even then the difference in frame rate between 28fps and 44 fps was huge.
@@AndyViantYeah in the lower regions even 10 FPS is night and day difference. BTW I used to be a guy that thought anything above 60 is just marketing BS but strangely enough when smartphones with 90hz displays started to appear on the market those made me realize how much smoother it can get.
Finally someone saying the obvious. 30fps mean you get far more motion lcd blur than 60fps and especially, 60fps WITH BFI ON, at 60hz
Which on the supporting monitors and TVs means you effectively go from around 150FPS of effective motion clarity down to just 30FPS of effective motion clarity.
It is a gigantic difference but of course the monitor industry being the joke that it is, nobody mentions BFI, because then more people would save money and we can't have that. So for most people it's really just 30 vs 60 fps but even then there's a big difference. Just not as big as 60fps with 60hz BFI.
Mainstream game marketing is all about visual presentation. Normies will automatically be more interested in a game that looks more impressive on screenshots and trailers. Hence why Sony is so focused on making graphics as fancy as possible, while keeping gameplay more or less the same for 10+ years in their exclusives.
60 fps unplayable
- The Hobbit + Avatar 2: >30 FPS is mandatory to view content properly. Let's do it!!
- 99% of movies: 24FpS Is AlL YoU NeED!!!! ㄟ( ▔, ▔ )ㄏ
You say this but I notice ZERO difference playing at higher FPS! ZERO! Looks just as good at 30fps to me and well that is ALL that matters. I play games I do not have 3 screens running side by side so I can pick out the very very very minimal differences lol. This is the issue. Also if you play with keyboard and mouse your hurting your own game experience! Period! Only time it makes any sense to use them is competitive shooters where your a pro, you dont care about visuals and thats why they use mouse and keyboard and 1080p monitors. I cannot see any difference or feel any with my controller, games look amazing, smooth and I have a BLAST!
30fps = 70 % coverring your eyes = To 60fps = 30fps Less Crap in Your Eyes / 30fps = 70 % fog / 60fps = 40 % fog / 30fps = 70% to finish / 60fps = 40 % to finish =
WHAT DO PEOPLE " NOT GET " ?
Refresh RATE / Timing is Only how Many frames it Can Render = but Limited to WHAT = In game FPS !
It actually depends. Now don't get me wrong. I am the nazi of FPS. I just wish 30 FPS as a terminology and standard would die a horrible death. Not just 30 but 24 fps as well. The lowest I accept is 60 fps and 120 fps should be a defacto standard for all content that has FPS be it a show a movie a video game etc. I'm such a FPS Nazi that I don't care whoever says anything how "24 gives more dreamy and steady imagining" or how "30 is cinematic" i just hate it. I just hate all of it anything sub 60.
Now since I am not living in MY WORLD i'm imagining where minimum for anything is 60 and defacto standard is 120... I have to still accept 30 (video games) and 24 fps (for movies and shows).
In my experience 30 fps truly depends now how fast paced the game actually is. Lets take a look 2 most recent games. Alan Wake 2 and Spider-man 2 (neat how they both are first sequels).
Spider-man 2 is extremely fast paced game where you are swinging, gliding, moving ad ludicrous speeds. Camera is all over the place.
Alan wake 2 on the other hand is very slow paced game. You are mostly at walking speed looking for clues, inspecting environments, investigating. Even when there is a shootout with ghosts and people it is still very much steady and slow paced as targets are either staggered or slowly approaching you to give you time before they start running to stagger them.
Now spider-man 2 has interesting 40 fps mode which is about 50% improvement over 30 fps (now you may ask how on earth is that 50%? Well FPS number is not logarithmic scale where every FPS gives same improvement, it is more of an exponential scale, and when we convert FPS to an actual USABLE form and more logical called frame time we get more of a logarithmic scale, where we can observe that 30 FPS gives us 33ms of frame time while 40 fps gives us huge decrease of 25 ms of frame time (basically right middle between 30fps and 60 fps where 60 fps is 16ms) and is rather usable "quality" option where you still get maximum visual fidelity with a 50% increase in motion response which is USABLE and I chose to play in that fps since 60 fps just sacrificed too much for me as I wanted to get all the visual goodies when watching cutscenes and seeing all the reflections while swinging etc.
But for alan wake 2 I opted to go 30 fps route... Why? Because Path tracing. RTX 3090 luckily is capable of producing somewhere between 30 and 50 fps (depending on map, forest maps are just fps killers really goes all the way down to 29-30 fps at 1440p DLSS balance). And for Alan Wake 2 30 fps is still fine as 99% of the time i'm just walking around carefully looking for any clues and visual details are always present and I want to enjoy path traced details. And I will probably go 40 fps with alan wake 2 as soon as I get the damn HDMi 2.1 cable to run my TV in vrr mode and get that sweet in between fps.
But all in all what I'm trying to say is it still depends how fast paced the game is and how much visual fidelity there is to cram in 30 fps 40 fps or 60 fps container. If the game is very fast paced then no matter how much visual you crank up you will miss most of it in motion persistence blur. If the game is slow as heck then even 30 fps cannot hurt (much) as long as you can crank visuals to 11 like in AW2.
It's true I've been saying it for years