The drama over 30fps gaming

[Satoru]

Let me start by saying that I'm primarily a PC gamer, and then play some games on my PS5 and Nintendo Switch, so this opinion should be considered at the very least platform agnostic. That said, why do I mean with "the drama over 30fps gaming"?

Well, even though most of my gaming is done at 60fps or higher, as I have a 144hz monitor, I find that there has been a narrative created against consoles, which have usually preferred graphics over framerate, that games running at 30fps are "unplayable". From mentions of motion sickness to having a hard time adjusting to "paltry framerates", a lot has been said in what I feel is an attempt to detract from console games - when the issue with low framerates causing motion sickness are usually tied with input delay, which can trick your senses and cause said MS.

Yes, some games are definitely more enjoyable at higher framerates, like FPS, Racing and Beat-em-up, but I have personally never met IRL someone that claimed that 30fps destroy their experience and that they refuse to run games with that framerate. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but seems like these claims have been blown out of proportion as some sort of statement that consoles are inferior. They are not, they are cheap boxes that are worth more than the sum of their parts and provide a quick and easy way to experience games that even someone that can barely open Wordpad should be able to enjoy.

Finally, I must say I have no problems adjusting to lower or higher framerates on the fly, and will usually prefer eye candy over higher framerates, unless the higher framerates option provides a comparable experience graphics wise. This is why I'm a big proponent for upscaling technology on new console games (and even PC games) instead of the asinine focus on native 4k experiences - Give us the frame goodness with the added eye candy.

Do you agree with my assessment?

A couple of GIFs by @ethomaz

 

[BloodMod]

As long as the framerate is stable, it's still playable.

But 60fps is objectively better.

 

[Satoru]

But 60fps is objectively better.

For games? Most of them, agreed.

 

[Sircaw]

Higher will always be better, but too much emphasis is put on this.

I have seen so many threads, videos too, like digital foundry saying this is the best place to play said game on, when i look at what they are talking about sometimes it is a measly 2-3 frames.

I remember those video comparisons of 400% zoom and telling people this is just better-looking bla bla, its the same shit. ( if you need a magnifying glass to tell the difference, its not a god damn difference.

At the end of the day, as long as the frame rate is stable, no massive dips in performance, i don't mind what the game runs at.

There are of course will be some big differences, especially in competitive games, shooters, beat em ups, every little bit helps with giving you a competitive edge but for the normal joe Gamer, just make good games.

 

[Satoru]

I have seen so many threads, videos too, like digital foundry saying this is the best place to play said game on, when i look at what they are talking about sometimes it is a measly 2-3 frames.

I remember those video comparisons of 400% zoom and telling people this is just better-looking bla bla, its the same shit. ( if you need a magnifying glass to tell the difference, its not a god damn difference.

At the end of the day, as long as the frame rate is stable, no massive dips in performance, i don't mind what the game runs at.

This, all this. Only warriors seem to be concerned for a 2 frame difference or a slightly sharper tree at 1 billion X zoom. Nobody cares, and these subjective (best place to play) analysis are created with two purposes: a) to generate clicks and b) to sell a narrative.

I find it very curious that these super analytical analysis often times ignore how comfortable the remote is, sound quality, input lag, etc. The experience as a whole should determine the best place to play, not a couple of frames per second which let's be real, virtually nobody will notice.

As per the last line, fully agree. Especially if input lag is low.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Just this:

The Brain adapts.

So annoying.

 

[Satoru]

Just this:

The Brain adapts.

So annoying.

This is very true.

 

[nominedomine]

30fps can work obviously but these day the dev better justify if with mind-blowing graphics because we already have absolutely stunting games rich with details running at 60+fps on consoles. In the games that let you chose between 60fps and 30fps so far, the 30fps mode gets completely outclassed, you have to be completely out of your mind to chose to play on that mode.

When you show up with a 30fps game and it looks as bad as Starfield something ain't right.

I play PC at 120fps sometimes and maybe it improves my performance on games but it's not night and day compared to 60fps, it's just slightly better. 60fps to 30fps is noticeably better. First person view at 30fps should be banned.

 

[ethomaz]

Games are playable in 30fps just fine as 60fps.
60fps is definitively better for motion but it is not a deal break like some try to push.

The issue imo is how much you need to trade for 60fps... and it is a lot.

One of the reasons people are not impressed with the graphics show in this generations is that some games usually played at 30fps in PS4 now is pushing 60fps on PS5... that basically decreased a lot the room you have to improve graphics over what you saw on PS4.
The situation become a bit more trick due the PS4 Pro... here if you have a PS4 Pro game at 30fps... a sequel in 60fps for PS5 will basically have very little improvement in graphic department due the GPU hardware... so 60fps basically kills the overall game improvement in game graphics this generation.

That is not a issue for games that stayed 30fps or games that were already 60fps last generation.

BTW you framerate example in the OP is always trick because it doesn't really show the actual scenario... a better example should be the same ball animation at the same speed just with double the frame due 60fps.

 

[BigMclargeHuge]

I've never been that overly concerned about framerate. As long as it's stable and doesn't affect gameplay, I don't really care if it's only 30fps or whatever.

 

[ethomaz]

Better gifs examples.
Same speed, animation... that is how games nowdays differ in framerate between 30 and 60fps.

The OP GIF is made in different speeds/animation to highlight the differences... it is lower when compared in the same terms.

 

[Satoru]

One of the reasons people are not impressed with the graphics show in this generations is that some games usually played at 30fps in PS4 now is pushing 60fps on PS5... that basically decreased a lot the room you have to improve graphics over what you saw on PS4.

No, it really didnt'

The situation become a bit more trick due the PS4 Pro... here if you have a PS4 Pro game at 30fps... a sequel in 60fps for PS5 will basically have very little improvement in graphic department due the GPU hardware... so 60fps basically kills the overall game improvement in game graphics this generation.

There are no PS4 Pro games. There are PS4 games running at higher res or framerates on the PS4 Pro.

And I wouldn't call proper cross-gen games lacking in the graphics department on current gen. Just look at Forbidden West.

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

The "30 fps is not playable" is a myth for single player games.
For multiplayer,,,,, it is the same because cheating is what makes the difference

 

[ethomaz]

No, it really didnt'



There are no PS4 Pro games. There are PS4 games running at higher res or framerates on the PS4 Pro.

And I wouldn't call proper cross-gen games lacking in the graphics department on current gen. Just look at Forbidden West.

What I said is computationally true... I'm not sure what you are disagreeing.
And it is not related to have PS4 Pro games or not... it is pushing 30fps graphics with a 4.2TFs GPU.... where PS5 will have to do 60fps graphics with a 10TFs. GPU.

Basically you loose most of the room to improvement in graphics because you need now twice the compositional power with 60fps than you required with 30fps.

Essentially a 30fps game on PS5 has twice the computational power to graphics than a 60fps game on PS5.
And people used to play 30fps games on PS4 Pro are having a hard time finding improvements in graphics on 60fps games on PS5.
Are there improvements? Yes but it doesn't feel like a generational jump.

I will argue that even PS4 1.8TFs 30fps to PS5 10.3TFs 60fps won't feel a generational jump... it will be like 3x better graphics power to use.
PS4 1.8TFs 30fp to PS5 10.3TFs 30fps is more like 6x better graphic power to use.

 

[nominedomine]

Better gifs examples.
Same speed, animation... that is how games nowdays differ in framerate between 30 and 60fps.

The OP GIF is made in different speeds/animation to highlight the differences... it is lower when compared in the same terms.

It's not just about animation, simply moving the camera/looking around is going to be drastically better at double the framerate. Animation is probably the least important improvement (assuming the game takes proper advantage of that).

 

[ethomaz]

The "30 fps is not playable" is a myth for single player games.
For multiplayer,,,,, it is the same because cheating is what makes the difference

To be fair the advantage in MP games with higher framerate is not about what you are looking at (graphics motion)...
But now fast you input will be executed... in a shooter for example in 120fps you basically has a game logic running 4x faster than at 30fps... so the time you hit the button and the action happen is 4x faster in 120fps.

That is a bit desvantagem in player vs player matches.
Because your shot takes more time to happen and so you can be killed first by a higher framerate guy.

That is of course if the players have the same skill... skill still wins over framerate.... a good skill player in 30fps will adapt his skill for the lower input and predict them winning over most players with 60fps or 120fps... the issue is when that guy get another good skill player in 60fps or 120fps.

Different framerate in multiplayer games is unfair.
But seems like this gen that basic rule was killed for marketing reasons... you have 60fps gamers playing agains 120fps players lol

 

[Satoru]

What I said is computationally true... I'm not sure what you are disagreeing.
And it is not related to have PS4 Pro games or not... it is pushing 30fps graphics with a 4.2TFs GPU.... where PS5 will have to do 60fps graphics with a 10TFs. GPU.

Computationally true? On one hand you have 4.2TF CGN and on the other you have 10.3TF RDNA 2. RDNA over GCN has a performance uplift of around 25%, and then you have an additional performance uplift from RNDA to RNDA 2. Additionally, Teraflops are a terrible measure of performance, so this discussion becomes muddied.

Just considering efficiency gains alone, the PS5 would have a graphics card comparable to a 13 to 15TF GCN card.

More important though is the difference in caches, memory bandwidth, speed, etc. The PS4 pro version of games usually runs at higher res and / or higher FPS, but the graphical uplift is little to none.

ssentially a 30fps game on PS5 has twice the computational power to graphics than a 60fps game on PS5.
And people used to play 30fps games on PS4 Pro are having a hard time finding improvements in graphics on 60fps games on PS5.
Are there improvements? Yes but it doesn't feel like a generational jump.

Also wrong, it's not a 1:1 relationship. Some games are CPU bound, some games are GPU bound. The CPU uplift from Jaguar to Ryzen was immense and it's not even a contest. While both the PS4 pro and the PS5 have 8-core CPUs, the amount of work each CPU can run, both single and multicore, is many multiple times bigger on the Ryzen.

As an example for my argument, Horizon Forbidden West on the PS5, performance mode, runs at the same target resolution as the PS4 pro with double the framerates and better graphics on top.

Case in point on Ryzen vs Jaguar.

AMD Jaguar vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600 - GadgetVersus

Comparison between AMD Jaguar and AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with the specifications of the processors, the number of cores, threads, cache memory, also the performance in benchmark platforms such as Geekbench 4, Passmark, Cinebench or AnTuTu.

gadgetversus.com

 

[ethomaz]

Computationally true? On one hand you have 4.2TF CGN and on the other you have 10.3TF RDNA 2. RDNA over GCN has a performance uplift of around 25%, and then you have an additional performance uplift from RNDA to RNDA 2. Additionally, Teraflops are a terrible measure of performance, so this discussion becomes muddied.

Just considering efficiency gains alone, the PS5 would have a graphics card comparable to a 13 to 15TF GCN card.

More important though is the difference in caches, memory bandwidth, speed, etc. The PS4 pro version of games usually runs at higher res and / or higher FPS, but the graphical uplift is little to none.



Also wrong, it's not a 1:1 relationship. Some games are CPU bound, some games are GPU bound. The CPU uplift from Jaguar to Ryzen was immense and it's not even a contest. While both the PS4 pro and the PS5 have 8-core CPUs, the amount of work each CPU can run, both single and multicore, is many multiple times bigger on the Ryzen.

As an example for my argument, Horizon Forbidden West on the PS5, performance mode, runs at the same target resolution as the PS4 pro with double the framerates and better graphics on top.

You can add these 25% more at the maths if you wish... we are talking about generational jumps... 800-1000% or even more.
The difference between GCN, RDNA, RDNA2 won't even close to make up for that giant gap.

Ohhh and I posted 3x (300%) and 6x (600%) already accounting for the 25% marketing jump.... it was 2.7x and 5.5x.

 

[mansoor1980]

30 fps is fine , but i hope 40fps is the new standard soon

 

[Satoru]

30 fps is fine , but i hope 40fps is the new standard soon

Question for the illiterate in me - Will a regular TV (not a VRR ready 120fps TV) support 40 fps fine?