-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
40fps are the way forward for consoles and handhelds
- Thread starter Red Kong XIX
- Start date
I'm saying CRTs had better tech with natural VRR and didn't need VRR not that 60fps doesn't matter.
It means what it means, performance mode and graphics mode should both be present and the performance mode should lock at a reasonably stable 60 fps.
40fps felt like magic to me in Miles Morales, i had to triple check it wasnt the 60fps mode, because i couldnt notice a difference.
so yes give us that option please devs. especially Rockstar i hope you're listening, GTAVI with a 40fps mode would be amazing.. smooth but not having to sacrifice much detail or image quality. i'd pay extra for it, seriously.
so yes give us that option please devs. especially Rockstar i hope you're listening, GTAVI with a 40fps mode would be amazing.. smooth but not having to sacrifice much detail or image quality. i'd pay extra for it, seriously.
make it the standard, if you don't have a VRR 120 screen, too bad. It's a good reason to get one. Like when HD resolutions became the standard over SD, just gotta upgrade to get the best of it.
For handhelds maybe? I dunno about that.
But for everything else, nah. I'm not interested in supporting or advocating for a standard of less than 60. Just target 60 and if it's unachievable, then we'll take it case by case.
But for everything else, nah. I'm not interested in supporting or advocating for a standard of less than 60. Just target 60 and if it's unachievable, then we'll take it case by case.
most people upgraded cause it was worth it, same for ghosting you're asking them to go beyond what they already have.
I'd rather advocate for more options across the board.
Have their resolution mode, quality mode or RT mode, idgaf but IMO all hard caps should be optional and selectable, whether its 30fps, 40fps, 60fps, 120fps or no cap at all to take advantage of VRR etc etc... it just makes way more sense than nonforward thinking hard caps and then calling gamers entitled for asking them to update their titles on new hardware to take advantage of the power. Console only problem here but when you have devs charging for upgrades, making you buy a new unrelated game you don't want and tying updated versions to it, releasing new versions you have to pay for when some would be happy enough with just a selecting a new cap, it's pretty shit situation IMO. If I could opt to avoid shenanigans, that seems like a better move for consumers.
Have their resolution mode, quality mode or RT mode, idgaf but IMO all hard caps should be optional and selectable, whether its 30fps, 40fps, 60fps, 120fps or no cap at all to take advantage of VRR etc etc... it just makes way more sense than nonforward thinking hard caps and then calling gamers entitled for asking them to update their titles on new hardware to take advantage of the power. Console only problem here but when you have devs charging for upgrades, making you buy a new unrelated game you don't want and tying updated versions to it, releasing new versions you have to pay for when some would be happy enough with just a selecting a new cap, it's pretty shit situation IMO. If I could opt to avoid shenanigans, that seems like a better move for consumers.
Last edited:
It should definitely become more common at the very least. Obviously it doesn't have to be the default mode, but there are enough 120hz displays out there in 2023 to give people the option. And theoretically, with enough time, most modern displays should eventually support 120hz anyway because of increasing standards — though that's likely a decade away or more.
But there's literally no reason handhelds can't have 40fps though. The worry about variation in consumer displays isn't there since the hardware manufacturer is in complete control.
But there's literally no reason handhelds can't have 40fps though. The worry about variation in consumer displays isn't there since the hardware manufacturer is in complete control.
At the very least, 40fps modes should be an option. It felt really good in Rift Apart, and I've used it a bit on Steam Deck too.
I will still always choose 60 over 40fps.
I've tried the 40fps modes in Ratchet and Uncharted on my PS5 and they're still very clearly inferior to 60fps.
Now if a dev has prioritized visuals over gameplay, and the only option is 40fps, I'll certainly take that over 30, but 60 will still always be my first desire.
I've tried the 40fps modes in Ratchet and Uncharted on my PS5 and they're still very clearly inferior to 60fps.
Now if a dev has prioritized visuals over gameplay, and the only option is 40fps, I'll certainly take that over 30, but 60 will still always be my first desire.
I think the option is worthwhile, but not really feasible for folks because 120hz TVs aren't exactly cheap.
Developers making sure their 60 fps modes are working properly should absolutely be the standard and everything else can be an option, though.
Developers making sure their 60 fps modes are working properly should absolutely be the standard and everything else can be an option, though.
I hear people stating 60fps should be standard/"floor", as if it had no relevant impact on visuals/physics or any other asset that requires processing. And who gets to decide 30fps makes gameplay IMPOSSIBLE? Since when?
As I said a few days ago elsewhere:
Why are you bringing up a movie when it is completely rendered as a whole vs a game which is real time.
Because that's how it feels regarding visuals/animations whenever I hear this 30/60 fps conversation. It's an analogy mixed with a little bit of hyperbole.
Feels and is are two different things.
This debate has always had hyperbole fueling it though especially in the age of image construction where both sides could be appeased doing things better. I thought this gen would settle it but decent consoles and IC won't end a debate steeped in ignorant tribalism at this point.
I have a LG C2 and G2 (where I game most of the time).
40fps is the absolute minimum and a good compromise and I prefer it actually sometimes if the resolution difference between 40 and 60fps is significant like in Insomniac games, but I love that they give you the option to have RT and 60fps. Thank you!
This was the way I played through R&C before I got my first Oled TV. Nowdays LCD look simply awful even though I have an LCD with FALD and a VA panel, with an comparatively decent contrast ratio for an LCD, that is now in my guest room.
I get that the devs want to give us as much eye candy as possible, but why don't enable an unlocked framerate mode with VRR and LFC as an option for the enthusiasists that have a compatible TV?
40fps are actually quite ok on an oled. 30fps are not
40fps is the absolute minimum and a good compromise and I prefer it actually sometimes if the resolution difference between 40 and 60fps is significant like in Insomniac games, but I love that they give you the option to have RT and 60fps. Thank you!
This was the way I played through R&C before I got my first Oled TV. Nowdays LCD look simply awful even though I have an LCD with FALD and a VA panel, with an comparatively decent contrast ratio for an LCD, that is now in my guest room.
I get that the devs want to give us as much eye candy as possible, but why don't enable an unlocked framerate mode with VRR and LFC as an option for the enthusiasists that have a compatible TV?
40fps are actually quite ok on an oled. 30fps are not
Last edited:
Maybe in 20 years when cpus have enough ipc that minimums don't matter. a lot of devs don't enjoy the luxury of aiming for 60fps cause it will always get in the way of bigger goals. It's a luxury that requires overhead and a well made engine along with many other caveats. I play on 240hz screen and drive most of my pc games to 80-120 before the final peak.
I'm not against it but I enjoy it on platforms like pc where I paid for vs an expectation on cheap apus that were never built for it.
If you got a solution I'm sure any AAA will want to see it same for the makers and how it could help them design their firmware or sdk tools.
I'll gladly take 40FPS over 30FPS on Consoles, especially with 120hz VRR Displays, but I still think all games should aim to at least offer a 60FPS performance mode and I'm not ready to give up on that any time soon.
Last game I made an exception to play at 30FPS was Red Dead Redemption 2 because there was no PC version at launch. Of currently announced titles nothing would make me make a similar exception
Last game I made an exception to play at 30FPS was Red Dead Redemption 2 because there was no PC version at launch. Of currently announced titles nothing would make me make a similar exception
40fps and 1440p are my respective performance and resolution sweetspots where everything above is a "nice to have" but I wouldn't want to come at the cost of graphical effects, scale, detail, complexity or interactivity.
Of course it's not exactly like that.
The point I'm trying to make with the exaggeration is that it seems some folks would take "anything" as OK/Acceptable/Good/Amazing, including products with questionable visuals/physics/etc, as long as the FPS counter hits a "solid 60" or the resolution is through the roof.
I'm probably not going to buy console until 60fps is the minimum standard for that device. I haven't played at 30fps in over a decade... longer. I'm okay with missing games because there are so many alternatives.
Yeah I played Jedi Survivor and a number of other things at 30fps on my tv and it was perfectly fine to me
There is a common misconception and lot of confusion regarding the smoothness of 40 FPS related to 30 and 60 FPS that started appearing about 2 years ago. The confusion comes from the observation that 40 FPS is the halfway point in frame times between 30 and 60 FPS, as shown in this diagram from the digital foundry video OP linked:
From this people and even professional tech focused outlets incorrectly conclude that going from 30 to 40 FPS means half the benefit of 60 FPS in terms of smoothness. Or that the increase in fluidity is more than the 10 FPS imply. Some quotes as examples:
Short Explanation (TL:DR)
In theory: since fluidity and framerate are linear, they always share the same midpoint. Thus 45FPS is the midpoint between 30 and 60FPS in terms of visual fluidity, not 40FPS.
In practice: actual perceived fluidity is not linear and can't be described with math due to the complexity of human sight. Thus neither 40FPS nor 45FPS is the midpoint in percevied fluidity.
diagram to visualize it:
even shorter TL:DR
40 FPS is just 40 FPS, no more, no less
My comments and thoughts in bullet points to keep it short :
Math & Theory
- visual fluidity, as in how smooth the motion of the video playback is, is expressed through framerate and consistency in frametimes
- the shorter the interval between frames, the more/faster frames are being displayed, the smoother the motion of the video
- frametime is the amount of time a single frame is being displayed -> for this topic we are assuming consistent frametimes: they are key for smooth video playback
- framerate is the average speed at which frames are being diplayed one after another
- both are 2 individual metrics that describe 2 different things, with the following relationship:
- FPS is the inverse value of frametime (assuming constant), e.g. 1 / 25ms = 40 FPS (this is the main reason for the confusion)
- fluidity in relation to framerate is linear (proportional) -> doubling the framerate from 30 to 60FPS doubles the fluidity
- this means the midpoint in framerate will always be the midpoint in terms of fluidity
- framerate and fluidity in relation to frametime are non-linear (reciprocal) -> doubling the framertime will halve the framerate
- this means the midpoint in frametimes can not be the midpoint in terms of fluidity
- detailed math: https://old.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/udthpo/confusion_regarding_the_40hz_hype/jrbd8s4/
- the formula for the difference in fluidity (dF) between framerate A and framerate B is:
dF = frameTimeA / frameTimeB = frameRateB / frameRateA
- example: 33,3ms / 16,6ms = 60FPS / 30FPS = 2 --> 60FPS is twice the fluidity of 30FPS
- thus 30 to 40 FPS is a 33% increase in fluidity (33,3ms / 25ms = 40FPS / 30FPS = 1,33)
- in other words: the rate at which frames are being displayed one after another is increased by 33% > the video displays 33% more frames/information > 33% increase in motion smoothness
- in frametimes, this is a reduction of 25% ( 25ms / 33,3ms - 1 = -0,25), i.e. frames are being displayed 25% shorter or: the intervall between frames decreases by 25%
- relative to 60 FPS, 40 FPS has 67% the fluidity (16,6ms / 25ms = 40FPS / 60FPS = 0,67)
- looking at the frame times isolated is where the confusion comes from
- constant 25ms frame times results in the speed and fluidity of 40 FPS, "just" a 33% increase from 30FPS
- conclusion: 40 fps being the halfway point of 30 and 60 FPS in terms of frametimes does not mean it's the halfway point in terms of fluidity (45 FPS is)
- it incorrectly implies that 40 FPS is 50% more fluid than 30 FPS and has 75% the fluidity of 60 FPS
- a more obvious example would be the midpoint of 30 to 90FPS:
- 60 FPS is the midpoint in framerate: (30+90)/2 = 60PS
- and since 90FPS is 300% the fluidity of 30FPS, 60FPS (200%) is also the fluidity midpoint
- expressed via percentages with 30FPS as the base: (100% + 300%)/2 = 200%
- while the frametime midpoint is : (33.3+11.1)/2 = 22.2
- 1/22.2ms = 45FPS -> just 150% of the 30FPS base framerate
The gap becomes bigger the higher you go, so just by seeing the numbers it's immediately clear that frametime midpoint is not fluidity midpoint:
- example: jump from 30FPS to 300FPS
- midpoint in framerate and fluidity: 165FPS
- midpoint in frametimes: (33.3 + 3.33)/2 = 18.3ms which is just 55FPS
This analog example of a driving car might make it clearer:
Perceived Motion
- the actual perceived difference in fluidity we are seeing can't be described with a number
- it is influenced by how the human eye and brain works which is complex
- and aspects such as display size and type (OLED vs LCD with high response times), type of content (fast-paced 1st person action game vs side-scroller with slow camera movement and mostly constant camera speed), the game's motion blur setting and display's motion blur reduction option, control method (M&K with erratic movement vs gamepad with mostly linear movement)
- in this specific topic, we are assuming conistent frametimes (inconsistent frametimes can be perceived as stutter, judder, chopiness; VRR can help mitigating it)
- perceived fluidity is largely subjective: some see 60 to 120 FPS as a big increase while others can't even tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS
- the higher the base frame rate, the less noticable an increase in fluidity will be (30 to 60 FPS vs 120 to 240 FPS - in both cases a 100% increase, but the former will be more noticable) until a certain threshold where no human is able to tell a difference
- so in conclusion, the perceived fluidity going from 30 to 40 FPS is neither a 33% increase, nor 50%, nor the halfway point between 30 and 60 FPS, nor is it more than the 10 FPS increase implies
- the viewer can only describe it in words, such as "this looks a lot smoother" or "this still feels choppy, barely any difference"
- informative articles that talk about this topic:
www.pcgamer.com
From this people and even professional tech focused outlets incorrectly conclude that going from 30 to 40 FPS means half the benefit of 60 FPS in terms of smoothness. Or that the increase in fluidity is more than the 10 FPS imply. Some quotes as examples:
source: https://techteamgb.co.uk/2023/02/13/steam-deck-40-fps-is-the-new-60/
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeckT...psa_theres_a_reason_why_40_fps_feels_so_much/
Short Explanation (TL:DR)
In theory: since fluidity and framerate are linear, they always share the same midpoint. Thus 45FPS is the midpoint between 30 and 60FPS in terms of visual fluidity, not 40FPS.
In practice: actual perceived fluidity is not linear and can't be described with math due to the complexity of human sight. Thus neither 40FPS nor 45FPS is the midpoint in percevied fluidity.
diagram to visualize it:
even shorter TL:DR
40 FPS is just 40 FPS, no more, no less
My comments and thoughts in bullet points to keep it short :
Math & Theory
- visual fluidity, as in how smooth the motion of the video playback is, is expressed through framerate and consistency in frametimes
- the shorter the interval between frames, the more/faster frames are being displayed, the smoother the motion of the video
- frametime is the amount of time a single frame is being displayed -> for this topic we are assuming consistent frametimes: they are key for smooth video playback
- framerate is the average speed at which frames are being diplayed one after another
- both are 2 individual metrics that describe 2 different things, with the following relationship:
- FPS is the inverse value of frametime (assuming constant), e.g. 1 / 25ms = 40 FPS (this is the main reason for the confusion)
- fluidity in relation to framerate is linear (proportional) -> doubling the framerate from 30 to 60FPS doubles the fluidity
- this means the midpoint in framerate will always be the midpoint in terms of fluidity
- framerate and fluidity in relation to frametime are non-linear (reciprocal) -> doubling the framertime will halve the framerate
- this means the midpoint in frametimes can not be the midpoint in terms of fluidity
- detailed math: https://old.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/udthpo/confusion_regarding_the_40hz_hype/jrbd8s4/
- the formula for the difference in fluidity (dF) between framerate A and framerate B is:
dF = frameTimeA / frameTimeB = frameRateB / frameRateA
- example: 33,3ms / 16,6ms = 60FPS / 30FPS = 2 --> 60FPS is twice the fluidity of 30FPS
- thus 30 to 40 FPS is a 33% increase in fluidity (33,3ms / 25ms = 40FPS / 30FPS = 1,33)
- in other words: the rate at which frames are being displayed one after another is increased by 33% > the video displays 33% more frames/information > 33% increase in motion smoothness
- in frametimes, this is a reduction of 25% ( 25ms / 33,3ms - 1 = -0,25), i.e. frames are being displayed 25% shorter or: the intervall between frames decreases by 25%
- relative to 60 FPS, 40 FPS has 67% the fluidity (16,6ms / 25ms = 40FPS / 60FPS = 0,67)
- looking at the frame times isolated is where the confusion comes from
- constant 25ms frame times results in the speed and fluidity of 40 FPS, "just" a 33% increase from 30FPS
- conclusion: 40 fps being the halfway point of 30 and 60 FPS in terms of frametimes does not mean it's the halfway point in terms of fluidity (45 FPS is)
- it incorrectly implies that 40 FPS is 50% more fluid than 30 FPS and has 75% the fluidity of 60 FPS
- a more obvious example would be the midpoint of 30 to 90FPS:
- 60 FPS is the midpoint in framerate: (30+90)/2 = 60PS
- and since 90FPS is 300% the fluidity of 30FPS, 60FPS (200%) is also the fluidity midpoint
- expressed via percentages with 30FPS as the base: (100% + 300%)/2 = 200%
- while the frametime midpoint is : (33.3+11.1)/2 = 22.2
- 1/22.2ms = 45FPS -> just 150% of the 30FPS base framerate
The gap becomes bigger the higher you go, so just by seeing the numbers it's immediately clear that frametime midpoint is not fluidity midpoint:
- example: jump from 30FPS to 300FPS
- midpoint in framerate and fluidity: 165FPS
- midpoint in frametimes: (33.3 + 3.33)/2 = 18.3ms which is just 55FPS
This analog example of a driving car might make it clearer:
- a car is increasing the speed from 30km/h to 40km/h
- that's an increase of 33% in speed (analog to framerate and fluidity)
- in terms of drive time per km (analog to frame time) 30 km/h is 2 min, 40 km/h is 1,5 min and 60 km/h is 1 min
- so going from 30 to 40 km/h is a difference of 0,5 min, same as going from 40 to 60 km/h
- in other words, 40 km/h is exactly the halfway point in terms of drive time
- it does not mean that it's the halfway point in terms of speed (45 km/h is)
- the speed increase is 33% when going from 30 to 40 km/h and 50% when going from 40 to 60 km/h
- 40 km/h is 67% the speed of 60km/h
Perceived Motion
- the actual perceived difference in fluidity we are seeing can't be described with a number
- it is influenced by how the human eye and brain works which is complex
- and aspects such as display size and type (OLED vs LCD with high response times), type of content (fast-paced 1st person action game vs side-scroller with slow camera movement and mostly constant camera speed), the game's motion blur setting and display's motion blur reduction option, control method (M&K with erratic movement vs gamepad with mostly linear movement)
- in this specific topic, we are assuming conistent frametimes (inconsistent frametimes can be perceived as stutter, judder, chopiness; VRR can help mitigating it)
- perceived fluidity is largely subjective: some see 60 to 120 FPS as a big increase while others can't even tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS
- the higher the base frame rate, the less noticable an increase in fluidity will be (30 to 60 FPS vs 120 to 240 FPS - in both cases a 100% increase, but the former will be more noticable) until a certain threshold where no human is able to tell a difference
- so in conclusion, the perceived fluidity going from 30 to 40 FPS is neither a 33% increase, nor 50%, nor the halfway point between 30 and 60 FPS, nor is it more than the 10 FPS increase implies
- the viewer can only describe it in words, such as "this looks a lot smoother" or "this still feels choppy, barely any difference"
- informative articles that talk about this topic:
Frames per second, or: The Illusion of Motion
The story of why we perceive film as moving pictures, how TVs work, and how our brains create reality.
paulbakaus.com
How many frames per second can the human eye really see?
30 fps? 60 fps? If you've ever debated framerates, the cognitive researchers we spoke to have some complex answers for you.
Last edited:
Two extremes blinded by reality, I can jive with that.
Deck is a great example of it's utility. Sure I love 60fps not when it's gonna kill battery life on device that needs it more than the performance. It's less of a drain than res but neither get in the way of me getting decent hours and brightness out of me in mobile form.
this is why options are good when possible fits different needs alienates very few.
Yep, exactly.
Yeah it beats 30 but definitely far from perfect.
Ha, exactly my thoughts as well.
Pretty much, going from less than 60 is hard unless the game only gives you a 30/40 fps option.
