How many FPS do you need?
What's the perfect amount?
I think it might be higher than people realise.
I game at around 200 FPS normally, but I got myself a 4K screen and at that resolution,
my FPS dropped to around 100.
You'd think that would be fine since the screen can only support 60, right?
Wrong.
If I used the SAME screen but at HD resolutions, it was very noticeably smoother and the mouse
movements, more responsive.
This made me think: what if my normal 200 FPS still isn't enough for perfect gameplay?
I lowered all of the options and got about 400 FPS average.
And to my surprise, it felt smoother still and the mouse movements more precise.
But it wasn't as obvious an improvement as the jump from 100 to 200.
I have nothing to prove that this jump was anything other than placebo.
It just... felt good.
Like one of those super smooth 60 fps gifs, but smoother.
I know this sounds incredibly elitist of me.
A lot of poor and underpriveleged console owners struggle to get even 60 fps and yet,
here I am moaning about hundreds of frames per second.
100 FPS is definitely playable. 200, even more so.
But if you want the ABSOLUTE edge when aiming in-game, maybe you have to go higher still.
You know that widescreen VS 4:3 argument that's raged for years?
What if gamers playing at 4:3 actually DO play better?
2kliksphilip thought it was because it made everything wider and therefore easier to hit...
but what if this wasn't the reason, but instead, 4:3 resolutions make you BETTER because you're
playing with more FPS and therefore find it easier to aim?
My FPS almost doubles by dropping from full HD to 1024x768 and I believe this increased
smoothness does make me a better player!
Of course, if both options gave me the same FPS then widescreen wins hands down.
But they don't.
So what's the reason for all of this?
Why isn't 60 FPS enough for a 60 HZ screen?
It's called FRAME LATENCY.
Or maybe it's called something else.
Whatever.
I'm talking about the amount of time between you performing an action and it being shown
on-screen.
There's generally a delay since your computer first has to RENDER a picture and then it
has to be shown on the monitor.
Thing is, these two things don't necessarily produce a new frame at the same time.
A basic monitor will refresh every 60th of a second but it can only display the latest
picture your PC has rendered, which could have been at any time within the last 60th
of a second- this variance can result in jerky animation or delayed mouse movement.
If your computer was running at, say, 600 FPS, the monitor would have 10 pictures to
pick from and the chances are, the latest of which will be more up-to-date than if it
just produced one every 60th of a second and will thus result in smoother, less variable
animation.
The simple solution would be to sync the computer and monitor up so that they produce a picture
at the same time.
V-sync does this badly by delaying when a new frame is shown, leading to very obvious
input delay.
This isn't what we want.
G-sync and freesync, in theory, REDUCE delay by making the monitor refresh the moment your
computer has a new picture to display.
But in practice, it doesn't for some reason.
At low frame rates it makes things feel smoother, but at high FPS, it actually INCREASES the
input lag!
There's a lot more to these technologies than what I've just said, I'm sure people looking
to inflate their e-peen will attempt to assert their dominance over me by talking about screen
tearing and limiting FPS to certain amounts.
I just don't care since for the sake of this video, brute force is still the best way to
go for the smoothest gameplay.
Your computer can't predict how long it's going to take to render a new frame.
It's best that it gets on and does them as often as possible so that, when your monitor
is ready to update, it can show the most recent picture possible, rather than one that's been
needlessly delayed.
Now I KNOW how picky this sounds.
We're dealing with a variation in the matter of milliseconds here.
But please, if you have a PC, see for yourself what difference this can make.
Type net_graph 3 into the console and you'll see how many you're getting.
If you're getting low FPS, like say, below 100, turn down the settings and lower your
resolution and see if it makes a difference to how easy aiming feels.
On the other hand, if you have a powerful PC, turn on Supersampling or DSR to reduce
your FPS.
You WILL feel a very noticeable difference when trying to aim even if the framerate is
still beyond what your monitor can output.
It's too big a difference just to be a placebo.
High refresh-rate screens reduce how bad this feels, even at lower FPS, but I personally
believe that I can still feel the difference when jumping from 200 to 400 FPS.
I have no way of proving that there IS a difference.
But I urge you to at least try it for yourself.
We need to stop seeing 60, 120 or 144 FPS as being good enough.
Because they aren't.
In short: I believe that you can never have too many FPS... unless you're Ubisoft.