SHOULD You Care About Frame Rates?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2024
- PC gamers seem to care A LOT about frame rates, but Brian from @BPSCustoms thinks they shouldn't....
*This video is sponsored by SilverStone. The innovative IceMyst all-in-one cooler allows you to stack RGB fans on the water block, which easily allows direct airflow to any hot spots on your motherboard, VRM or DRAM. Pick up the IceMyst AIO today and equip your PC with this unique high-performance cooler: www.silverstonetek.com/en/pro...
Buy PCWorld merch: crowdmade.com/collections/pcw...
Follow PCWorld for all things PC!
--------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE: czcams.com/users/pcworld?sub_c...
TWITTER: / pcworld
WEBSITE: www.pcworld.com
#ces2024 #fps #interview - Věda a technologie
I used to care about framerate, but in this economy, if I have a roof over my head (irl) I'm happy. A gaming computer that can play the games I want is a luxury. I have a nice AM4 platform that I will likely use til AM6.
Am4 can last forever
AMEN !!!
I have thankfully no money issues and I too am on AM4
high fps smooth consistenty is the goal
On the topic of consistency, reliability is up there for me. Way more important than having the best performance is just having something that performs reliably day in day out. Unfortunately there is little appetite for this type of testing so you kind of just have to hope for the best.
You can boost reliability (considerably) by going kinda high on hardware, and then doing gentle undervolt, underclock, and ticking thermal max down a bit.
I'm about 6% undervolt, 5% underclock, and limited thermal max to 80C all around so paste will last a long time. (I have overkill cooling, so it's not that limiting).
Also avoiding "silent mode" which can cause fans to kick on & off (kinda use-specific, depends what you're doing), causing wear, instead opting for a low constant rpm, which ramps up kinda late in thermals (cpu/gpu can do 60C all day every day for years). Just trying to get the fans to hold up longer.
On paper, "in spec is in spec", but off paper, driving it hard doesn't last as long.
Oh, and have much more PSU max than you need. A PSU near max output is dirty power delivery and poor electrical efficiency. PSU won't last nearly as long at near-max either. And get the better ones with japanese caps. Look for refurbished psu's for sale, and then buy a new psu which is a model that has zero refurbs on shelves ;)
Anyway, I see about 95-97% on bench, but I'm using like 100 watts less, not making a sauna of the room, and fingers crossed, should see deep longevity.
For reference though, the RTX 4000 series & RX 7000 series gpus, and 13k & 7000 series cpus, are all going HARD overclock by default in firmware (fierce performance competition). If you want longevity, you gotta reign that in.
Oh, and vertical mount your gpu if it's heavy, or get a "good" brace & use a level to set it right (not too much or too little lift).
@@kathrynck thanks I'm aware of all of these tips but my point was we have little empirical evidence out there of what actually works, what doesn't, what brands are reliable, what are not. This is from a lack of appetite for that type of testing and well as a myriad of challenges/complexity that is faced by performing such testing. The closest that comes to mind is Rtings with their extreme burn-in testing for TVs. For example, in PC hardware, one thing that is hard to be sure of is if a new piece of hardware is definitely going to work with your existing set up.
@@adpt_music True. With computers it's always "This _should_ work", never "this _will_ work" ;)
For longevity though, I mostly just shop extensively for refurbished products ...and then avoid those products like the plague ;) If enough of them fail (either break, or suffer compatibility issues) to make a refurb-line profitable, I don't want that model hehe.
Oh poor Keithlet 😂🫶🏻
Who?
As much as I call myself a computer enthusiast, I don't benchmark my systems, I don't use framerate counters, I don't do overclocking apart from setting some knobs in the BIOS/UEFI. Perceived performance is a better indicator for me than any quantitative measurement.
In this hobby, it's way too easy to get caught up in "bigger number better" but I've found that there are rapidly diminishing returns the higher you go. It's why I find the low end market way more interesting to follow than the high end.
Even low end can maximize lowest input delay with highest frame rate with a constant frametime, butter smooth fps gaming
I'd say frame rate counters are good in the first week or so after a build or an upgrade, to check that it all works well, and cross-check with a reputable review. But yes, after that I will not touch a frame rate counter, unless the game I'm playing seems to not have good performance.
I run Afterburner in the background but not on the screen. If something doesn't feel right I can hit the hot key, it pops up, I see what the issue is. I use a freesync monitor so it has to drop down to just under 50 fps for me to notice it.
Frame rate is much more important than resolution or graphics IMO. I need 120+ fps to be happy.
Even using a mouse on a desktop at 60fps feels gross. Nothing should be below 120fps.
Adam, don't read this part....(even films)
Having rivatuner open shows what percentage of your hardware is being used, whats the bottleneck, making sure your avg is 144hz or higher, like its extremely important. I always have it on. Even emulators.
For me it really depends on the game I am playing. Stuff like shooters or competitive games I am sensitive to the latency and really care, but single player stuff I just want a smooth experience that looks good.
1:25 "Like a halfling..." -Karlach
After my initial goal of "this is what I want to have performance wise," I bought the parts, put it together, and as long as the stuff works, matches the benchmarks of good reviewers, I leave it alone. Maybe I'll pop it on during a non busy part of the game to look briefly, but now I just enjoy things. Hope to do so for a long time
I don't count FPS. I want them game to be smooth and look good. If the game isn't smooth I'll turn in an fps counter while I tweak settings. On the desktop or running apps I like 120hz+ as it all feels smooth and more snappy. Woot for Switch!
Well then you do
I do both shooters and racing, and racing you want smooth and consistency, i always lock fps unless i'm on console. And when comes to shooters, i go for the max FPS whatever that may be.
I like knowing the numbers but for actual gameplay I don't usually care. I will check on FPS whenever I change out hardware to know what improvements I'm actually getting but then I stop looking at it. I have that little single number FPS counter Steam provides in the corner of my screen but I'm using an ultrawide, it's so far away I have to actively look for it to even be able to notice it. Generally I more like play and don't care until it starts acting choppy and then I look at the statistics to see what's going on.
I like a mixture of smoothness and fps. At first, with my 12900HX and 3080ti m, I was getting around 80 fps in Horizon: Zero Dawn at High with DLSS: Quality (it was barely above 60 without). At first, it was GPU limited, then I tweaked some GPU settings. It went up to around 100 fps, with the CPU being the limit. After some more CPU tweaks, it went up to a slightly stuttering 130 - 150, with the CPU still being the limit. I just capped the fps to 120 and it feels so smooth now. The fans aren't even maxed out, either.
I Think If it runs good It IS GOOD! I have a 6950xt/5800X3D and have FOMO about a 4090 I could of got a 1600.00 and didnt. I Play Racing Sim games in 4K 144hz and Its smooth as Butter. I also use my XBox X on 60hz TV and to Be honest I could not tell you the difference. I have givin up Chasing FPS. I will do a Benchmark and then just keep it moving. Great Conversation Guys !
When I first do a build I’ll run a couple benchmarks and check FPS counters across some games just to get an idea. After that though, I turn it all off and just play my games and just enjoy the smooth experience of pc gaming. I feel like so many of us get so caught up in performance numbers that we often will feel unsatisfied like we need to keep upgrading thus never truly enjoying what we have. Just play some games and enjoy your machine.
In slower paced cinematic single-player games I cap my fps to 60 and enable motion blur to have that nice cinematic feel to it (on a 4090). I just like it that way. I don't want that game to be literally sped up. In MP games it's a different story.
Poor Keith... 😅
Nobody puts Keith in the corner!!!
I’m not sure who that is
I'll use a framerate counter on initial setup of a game, or if I'm trying to figure out why something is funky. Once I'm all set up and happy, I turn it off. I do want to enjoy the game, and it's hard with a bunch of graphs and stats on screen.
I have the overlay on while I dial in settings and once the frame rate is where I want it to be for a game turn it off. AAA stuff I just want it to be around 60 and not dip below the VRR window. More actiony stuff I'll dial it into 144 then stop worrying.
Frame times and latency are important to me, but I'm not constantly tracking it. I don't care one bit about raytracing. AI is fun but not my field of expertise. If I could afford a 500 fps monitor, sure I'd be on board, but 100+ with adaptive sync is fine. I miss my old 2560x1600 CRT, but I'm not in a hurry to pay the resolution tax on high res monitors, so I'll stick with 1080p for the next few years. My next planned PC will contain mostly 2-3 year old parts in an 8 year old PC case, will cost about half as much as an entry level AM5 build, and will easily play any game I'm interested in at medium-high settings. Good enough for Canadian dollars.
this makes it better for the cheaper options to be actually good value versus the newest and greatest
I tend to pay more attention to 0.1% and 1% fps rather than top fps counter
I live in that middle ground. I like to know what's going on with performance and settings, but I don't obsess about it. "Smooth enough" with settings optimized to hit a balance of visual quality and performance.
i just pissed on my wall
Full Tilt Poker hat lmao
I would say if you hit 40-60 FPS that's sufficient. Eventually you need to upgrade to enjoy the newest games. I always vote for the mid range because not all of us millionaire and cannot afford to buy the newest things always. I'm running a GTX 1050 2BG laptop. I am not able to play the newest games to hit 30 FPS sadly. If you have family and this harsh life nowdays I'm still quite happy with what I have.
Always be grateful for everything you have
Factors you need to consider to be able to answer this questyion:
The type of game you're playing - trading FPS for image quality (fidelity, effects, resolution). Different games
The competitive level you're playing at - amatuer or professional
Your preferred resolution to play at, when factoring how capable your hardware is, and what your preferred FPS is for a particular game type
The maximum refresh rate your monitor is capable of
Personally I see around 100 fps as my lower level, preferably, but dependant on the game 75-90 fps is fine. I struggle to enjoy 60fps in 90% of titles.
yeah 70 fps in MHW or The Witcher is fine. But I'd like my 240 fps in Overwatch and Valorant.
I agree console games are made to be just fun and just work, but I can never really adopt the goddamn joystick and lack of tinkering available. I just cant.
It depends on the game.
🎉 Brian nice to see you brother. You are miss. And you are 100% correct. And i am with you there. The rest i will keep it for me
Performance is King
Not gonna lie: My Homepod told Keith it can answer his question if asked on my iPhone...
I turn the counter for a new game, while I dial in the settings. Then I switch it off and just enjoy the game.
Sometimes too much information is a bad thing. I've sort of become addicted to the overlay. I ought to turn it off and just enjoy.
As to accepting low FR on handhelds, well, it's a 3-800 dollar portable device. Compromise is baked in. With May on that.
function over form
However this is a running debate over in the audiophile sphere wherein gearheads burn the ears off of the music purists
Come on, you can do many more things with a PC than a handheld!
Examples? You can edit photos, draw, make music, build 3d models, use a spreadsheet, write a document, edit audio, listen to music, surf the internet and edit a video on a pc.
I don't think you can do any of this on a SteamDeck. Well, perhaps surf the internet. Maybe listen to music. But the PC is much more versatile!
czcams.com/video/PxLB5khCmGo/video.htmlsi=2G_wZTXMY9MoFiz-
No. You need more power, its never enough.
Depends on the Game
His video about not always focusing on FPS and focusing on enjoying the games is very great and refreshing. it was need for us in this "PC Master Race"
There are a lot of PC “gamers” that don’t enjoy games. They enjoy watching their pc they built go to work. Watching frame counters, temperatures, etc.
The guy on the right is 100% correct. At some point you need to stop worrying about that and enjoy the game themselves lol.
Hi!
- The guy on the right
Who says you "need to" though, can't everyone experience and have fun with their PCs in different and unique ways? Who are you to tell someone how they need to enjoy games or their PC? Just some food for thought. We all enjoy things in different ways, and that is OK, lets not villanize people for their choices in how they experience gaming.
@@JusticeGamingChannel The problem comes when they declare someone's setup as trash because they can't hit stupid fps standards that are at best arbitrary and at worst completely subjective.
Smooth for me is about 90fps and above, 60 does not cut it, only in MMOs they get a pass because it's mostly hitting your CPU more. With competitive FPS games you really should be well above 100FPS, and I always have my FPS counter on with Reshade😎
You do realize the fps counter reduces performance. It can be up to 10% based on how many metrics you are displaying, not to mention the streaming software.
@@jokingtiger Oh with Reshade it's just the FPS counter, along with graphic settings like FakeHDR, Bloom, etc. I remember Overwatch had it's own in game counter. But I see no hit with it or without it.
I think we need to a bit more granular on what we are talking about here. I think it is perfectly OK to desire the best performance, and desire the ability to play games with all the bells and whistles turned on at the highest game settings, with Ray Tracing, and resolutions, and refresh rates. That is what a lot of enthusiasts are after. The difference is, once you achieve that, and verify it, do you still then play games with an FPS counter on, pixel counting the framerate and analyzing it, or just enjoy the game at that point.
However, you don't know, if you are hitting your goals until you try it, so it's ok to test that performance first, and verify with reviews that your machine is performing at the level it should be, and not bottlenecked or broken in some way, so looking at the performance is OK for verfication. Once it's verified, and running at max settings smoothly with the performance you desire, then you can turn off the frame counters, and enjoy the experience of gaming.
So, overall, the answer to this question is that it is 100% dependent on the desired outcome for you, and your reasons and goals for watching framerate while gaming. If it's to verify and test and benchmark, then it's fine. But you probably don't need to leave it on, once all of that is done, at that point, you can now enjoy your gameplay experience. There's nothing wrong with testing though, and we shouldn't villainize the desire to test and verify.
Plus, as a reviewer myself, it's kind of your/my job to test and verify, so performance and the experience HAS to be measured in some way. We have to relate that experience, to the readers in some format that is understandable by people.
And to add, on the topic of high refresh rate, it actually does help on displays because of how current LCD and OLED technoloyg work, higher refresh rates create reduced motion blur and make the image actually look clearer and sharper, you need really high refresh rates to achieve motion clarity on current displays, so there is a real-world advantage to high refresh rates on current display technology. It's about motion clarity, this isn't related to game settings, it's a display thing.
As long as I'm above 60 FPS ..I'm good
More things like ai overclocking and a less of a space heater option for those who don't want to become an engineer just to play a few games...since everything is pushed to the max, having GPU run a 875mV vs 1093mV is huge for your room
Anything above 60 is pointless...
Just because the buy in to fully appreciate it is extreme. I push 120 easily in 2k with my 7800x3d+ 4070 at high settings. It's fine but I can't appreciate it as my monitor doesn't have the color range to notice high frame rates and has mild ghosting + is g-sync less. Not to mention I'm a gamepad user so high refresh + mouse isn't a selling point.
It's all about the smoothness of the game. Till the time it is 60 or above its all good. And ofcourse if there are not sudden changes in fps.
Frame rate is important to me but in combination with a stable frame rate and good frame pacing. Depends on your monitor too because high refresh on a garbage monitor doesn't really benefit that much compared to a good response time and less inherent screen blur in motion. I can really notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz on desktop though, especially as my old tv was a Panasonic plasma that i just replaced with a Samsung S95C OLED. The plasma was amazing with video but at desktop you could see the mouse wasn't nearly as smooth at it's naitive 60hz. The Steam Deck OLED apparently just feels a little more responsive with the OLED even at the same FPS but i've only ever used a regular Steam Deck and it's good but you have compromises.
Some games like cyberpunk run fine 45+ as long as it’s smooth consistent frames . I keep it on because I like seeing how heavy some seems are . But I do try to aim for 60+ , on competitive it’s the only time I care about frames like Valorant and cs2 where they do count .
Could someone please tell Gordon not to shake the camera so much.
I am used to 30fps console games and they do feel more cinematic then the smooth 60fps games.. For example I dont like the 60fps Dark Souls 2 version. I got a bit dizzy.
Different story for shooters.. With shooters you need at least 60fps..
I'd argue that it's reasonable to care about framerates to a point. Low framerates feel jarring and weird when you've experienced better ones. I recently went back to some retro games from my youth. SNES titles (which ran at 30 or 60 fps) aged pretty well, but I was surprised by how badly many of the N64 titles aged: many of them have extremely choppy performance, like sub-20 fps, and aged worse than the pixel graphics of the SNES. There were a few good games on the system, but the technology wasn't really mature and it shows in retrospect.
This isn't a statement about needing more power, so much as a statement that AAA publishers care too much about making the prettiest screenshots and are doing this at the cost of a smooth framerate. But they just push responsibility for this downwards, telling us to shell out for extremely expensive hardware if we want a smooth experience. It's reasonable to expect a norm of 60fps, with 30fps or 40fps being a compromise for things like demanding titles on _handheld_ form factors or extreme budget systems. And it is reasonable to be critical of a failure to meet at least the 30fps threshold. To bring the Steam Deck into it, for instance, it's reasonable to hold the position that games that can't meet at least 30fps most of the time should be labeled "playable" with a note for poor framerate rather than "verified."
Framerates do hit a point of diminishing returns above 60fps for most use-cases, though. I have turned into one of those people who can tell the difference between 100fps and 60fps and will use upscaling tech even if I can hit 60fps natively, but I don't consider 60fps to be unacceptable.
Mid -high range pc but limited to chill fps of 60 - all my games can use all settings i set no problem. Spare your hardware and components and the electric bills and your wallet
What I don't understand is how in reviews they say a card is say 10% faster than another card and therefore is a better card but, there is like a 5fps difference which makes no discernable difference to gameplay. I doubt the majority of gamers would notice the difference between 55, 60 or 65 FPS unless the overlay was on.
Not just that
Good reviewers justify the price to performance ratio decreasing year after year alongside a reduced power draw
And only then call it a good GPU
Anyways 5% is very much discernable to everyone for that game on that particular mission and for those accompanying settings
Smooooooth 30 lol
😰
dmn, send me a screen so i can test
Only if consoles had options to scale like PCs. If you set a game to "Quality" mode on console but lower the output resolution you don't see a bump in FPS and that's so annoying! If a game is locked at 30fps in 4k but if you lower the resolution to 1080p output, you will still be locked at 30fps unless you set to "Performance" mode which has degraded graphics optimized for higher resolutions. ANNOYING!
Like 200
Video started with "I turned off my FPS counter", but ended on "if meth-heads can do this, so do I".
Sounds like a win by default for Gordon...