Is 30 FPS Gaming Actually Unplayable?

[@MilesMetal]

I think perhaps what you're trying to articulate is that a mouse is a more direct input device when compared to a controller. With a mouse, your physical movement of the input device directly correlates to the same movement on screen, whereas on a controller you move the analogue stick in one direction then wait until your PoV has moved to where you want it to be. This is why it's easier to feel a low framerate on PC because there's a disconnect between your smooth physical movement of the mouse compared to the choppiness you see on screen.

[@giglioflex]

Yes, controllers pan whereas mice point.

[@Collin_J]

actually a great observation. Probably a big part of why 20ish FPS on the deck feels okay

[@paulszki]

@@Collin_JI remember playing Cyberpunk via Stadia on a Tablet with a controller attached and it felt like the future of gaming. Then I swichted to streaming the game on my old PC with keyboard and mouse (at the time) and was disgusted by the input lag. So yeah, 100% agree.

[@zodwraith5745]

Well put. Doesn't help that you can constantly see the contrast between near instant latency with regular desktop use and games that are running poorly. If the desktop had the same latency it would likely not be as noticeable. But you also have to take into account those of us that are older and played games for years on KBM at sub-60 and even sub-30 fps. No one was playing Unreal at 60fps in 1998 because hardware didn't exist that could do it. GPUs didn't exist yet. We only had accelerators and even then often couldn't maintain 30fps, let alone 60. As insulting as it is that new games too often release horribly optimized, there's definitely a layer of entitlement among the player base that isn't helping the problem. I saw one clown bitching that his 1050 should be able to play Cities: Skylines 2 but couldn't because it's unoptimized.

[@didamnesia3575]

Definitely a good opinion there. I use a controller on pc in 4k

[@Wrackey]

Regarding the car example: It's not completely analogous though ;) Tim says "I'm not sitting here saying: My car is just as good as your car, which is definitely not true" or getting offended by Baelin saying: "My car is better" (or "Mornin! Nice day for fishing ain't it?") ... but that's not where it irks people I think. It's more like Baelin looking at Tim's car and saying: "That's undrivable" ... It's out of touch, and a bit rude. Sure that doesn't mean one has to take offense, but it's still a bit weird to say to someone.. especially if they are driving it just fine but cannot afford better. "Your best is not good enough".

[@gamingmarcus]

I played a fully modded Skyrim on 40fps and decided to take the hit in fps over graphical fidelity. But I also want 200+ fps when playing counterstrike. Hell, some MMOs I played dropped into the 20s when a bunch of stuff was going on and you almost couldn't tell from the barrage of visual effects. Genre makes a huge difference. But the biggest point (and I think you didn't touch on this) is that moving up never feels as much of a difference as going back down. Our brains get used to whatever we are experiencing for the longest time. If you only play on 30fps then your brain is accustomed to it. If you're playing on a TN panel your brain is accustomed to it. And even once you make the switch you often don't notice the differences until you have them side by side because your brain is already getting used to the new reality and doesn't remember what the old thing looked like. My brother recently got a 42" LG OLED. He bought a bad DP to HDMI converter (why do GPUs only come with one HDMI these days by the way?) and it didn't go above 30Hz. He told be that it "felt a bit slow" but he didn't think about it twice because up until that PC upgrade he was still using a 970 and was used to low fps gaming. That's why reviewers are so important. Because they have all the products side by side, they keep switching between products much more frequently than a consumer so they have the experience. But it also means that your view on products will never be the same as the view of the average consumer. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It's just different. And that's why objective data should always be the #1 priority of reviews.

[@DailyCorvid]

THANKYOU somebody sensible at last. People are like wooooo you peasant you play FTL without 200+ FPS. Here's me who's spent 99% of his life with shitty hand-me-downs with NO graphics and made do with it. And 4 years ago went and bought a monster PC. So yeah it's NICE to have 60FPS when you're playing turn based board games lol but really, some games 5FPS is fine. These children are all about Fortnite and Starfield and the new PC daddy just brought them, and it sucks. Wait until you have to buy your own shit kiddies!! Lol.

[@mjc0961]

GPUs probably come with more DP and less HDMI because people are more likely to do multi-monitor with DP than multi-TV with HDMI.

[@mjc0961]

@DailyCorvid L take bro. Many of us who want higher framerates are adults who paid for our own stuff and don't want to get low framerates after investing in high refresh rate displays and high end graphics cards

[@philhabib4434]

To somewhat echo what Tim and Steve were saying, going back is what's hard. When tech makes a major jump it just doesn't feel the same on earlier hardware. Like going from black and white TV to color, or even from radio to TV. Low def 90s panels to modern 1080p and higher. Once you experience the major upgrade, most people don't want to go back.

[@DailyCorvid]

Depends on your game! You try playing emulated N64 games on your flashy new 60in OLED; those resolutions and graphics look WAY WAY better on OLDER hardware screens because that is what they were designed for. It's not about the jump in technology, it's about the game playing as it was intended or better. But what I am finding out recently is "better" doesn't always mean "newer". Like I said with emulation if you're playing a game that renders at 680x400 with round sRGB pixels, but you only have a 4K OLED screen - you are gonna be looking at the ugliest version of that game. Like OG Super Mario Bros - that looks terrible when you're upscaling it to 1080p or 4K because the pixels are now square. But it was designed for round pixel screens, so it's never gonna look better than it does on a CRT at 4:3

[@TheShitpostExperience]

​@@DailyCorvid That argument doesn't really hold though, I could use it the other way around and say that most screens are 60Hz or higher so any game that doesn't run at 60 or higher FPS do not meet standards, or games are made with high definition textures for native 4K rendering so using upscalers goes against game design, even if the studio recommends to use upscalers because they couldn't optimize the game to a point where modern hardware can run it at 4K60fps native. I do get what you mean, I play a lot of retro games using CRT filters because sometimes they look better, but that's not always the norm, and even then some games will look ugly because art direction wasn't really a thing back when resolutions were 480p with 8bit colors, they just did with what they had. I think that the point that shouldn't be missed is that studios use features like global illumination, superhigh poly counts, high definition textures and so on, without considering that most hardware will not be able to run it properly, and when they have their first playable builds, they probably are like "what do we do" and the answer to this question has gone from "scaling down features or using workarounds to fix them" to "let's just recommend to use upscalers at the balanced/performance setting and say that the game is intended to run at 60fps on low, and 30fps from medium to ultra".

[@philhabib4434]

@@DailyCorvid you are correct in those particular use cases, however they are also very specific and niche. As a general trend, modern panels are far preferable even if they make an N64 experience worse, since the vast majority of experiences are better. The exception does not outweigh the rule.

[@issaciams]

They are arguing from a very privileged PC masterace perspective and it's honestly gross.

[@DailyCorvid]

@@issaciams wait so a tech channel that reviews all the best hardware and specifically targets the best performance.... Is gross because they are discussing how to get the best performance on the best hardware? I don't get it.

[@zodwraith5745]

As someone that has powerful enough hardware to run anything I want above 60fps even with RT enabled, and I love gaming at 120+, the "30fps is unplayable" view is deeply seated in subjectivity and admittedly comes across as kind of entitled. I'm glad to hear you're very self aware of that and should probably think of trying to say "more enjoyable" as you've said rather than playable or not. My kids are perfectly happy playing games at 30fps because they aren't hardware enthusiasts and care about _games_ first, not the framerate, and I'm perfectly happy sitting down with them and playing along side them. When my daughter's computer was down she was still happy playing Roblox on my old laptop with an iGPU at 15-20 fps while we waited for new parts to show up. Neither my kids or my wife care much about the difference in 30 and 60fps, let alone 120+. High refresh gaming is very much an enthusiast preference. While you can make the argument that competitive shooters are the most popular games and you "need" high FPS for them, you also have to take into account that the most prevalent hardware is NOT running them at 100fps+. Many people are playing those games because they're _free_ as well as they're the only games they _CAN_ play on that old hardware. I can't imagine many gamers on a 1060 or 1650 are playing Cities: Skylines 2 or CP:2077, but they offer a perfectly playable experience in CS:GO, Rocket League, or Fortnite. They're just happy to play a game and don't care if they're super competitive with a turbo alpha quadruple platinum ranking. It's funny that you mentioned cars while I was typing this and thinking of the same analogy. If you reviewed cars instead of PC hardware how much would it alienate the viewer if you said any car that isn't a Ferrari or Lamborghini was "undrivable"? Many people watch that content because they like to fantasize about owning supercars with no actual intent to buy one regardless if they could ever afford it. Hearing a reviewer shit on their Kia cause it's all they can afford is off-putting and likely makes them feel excluded from the hobby. You can still be a car enthusiast without owning a 6 figure car as much as you can be a PC gamer without a 4 figure GPU. The last thing you want to do is call a viewer poor. The only times I use the term unplayable is if you're talking about _really_ low FPS that makes it so you're unable to effectively control the game, or VR where sub-optimal framerates will cause motion sickness and _literally_ makes it "unplayable."

[@noer0205]

Well put man. Using the term "unplayable" really comes off as entitled, just like calling a person's car undrivable, assuming the car is serviceable and road legal, would. We know Steve and Tim are dedicated to guiding viewers into making the best decision for themselves through the years of dedicated work they have put into this channels great content. But I think here they would save themselves from much complaint by just changes the way the express themselves to be more into something like; "I/we wouldn't recommend playing said game at 30 fps or less". Or similar. If I recall correctly, Tim is even great at explaining it in this way when he reviews upscaling take. I recall him then saying something like; I don't recommend using FSR/DLSS performance at 1080p or 1440p as I find it makes the game appear blurry" This in my opinion is a great way of putting it and by what I can tell they didn't receive much complaint about said recommendation in those videos. Keep up the great work, HUB. I know you mean very well in all your guidance and love you for all you have done for the community

[@tomvandongen8075]

The thing about going up in resolution and framerate being a bit "meh" compared to downgrading being immediately awful is precisely why i haven't gone down that rabbit hole; I play at 1080p 60 fps and for me, that's totally fine. I have two kids to feed and limited time and budget to game and for me I'd feel very irresponsible chasing high resolutions and frame rates. I don't know what I'm missing and for me, that's probably a good thing tbh.

[@jemborg]

The only thing "terrible" about this gen of graphics cards is that they are priced too dearly. If they were a lot cheaper (edit: with at least 12GB vram) we'd be in love.

[@mjc0961]

Agreed. If I see a decent Black Friday/Cyber Monday deal on a 4080, I'm jumping on it.

[@jemborg]

@@mjc0961 yeah... 16Gb ftw imo 😁👍

[@jaleshere]

@@mjc0961prices have shot up so much online I’m seeing some 4080s the msrp of the 4090 I don’t have any local places either, it’s rough out here man. I wish you the best luck.

[@tunin6844]

The fps thing is definitely subjective. For me, the "smoothness" or consistency of the frame rate is more important. Motion sickness is a thing for me, so a stable 30 fps is going to be easier for me to play than a 90 fps with lots of slowdowns during rapid screen/perspective movements. But... I don't play competitive games at all, so higher frame rates aren't at all a "need" for my gaming. I'm currently playing Starfield at 1440p on modified high settings at around 50 fps, and it is a very smooth experience (r7 5700x/rx 6800) with motion blur turned off. For the most part, as long as I am not getting headaches and nausea, I am content.

[@TheFluffyArmadillo]

As an ex Playstation One programmer 30 fps was one of the targets and if you couldn't get there you aimed for 25 fps. So with the hardware nowadays, you get to feel entitled. We had do lots of great coding optimisation to get there. Nowadays I just don't believe that happens

[@joel3683]

Thank you for making part of my childhood, seriously man. Just wanted to say that because I feel like you guys were the unsung heroes, the corporations you work for shouldn't get all the credit, it's the people that work hard to make all this tech and develop these games

[@aviatedviewssound4798]

​@joel3683 When it comes to performance, the driver also matters a lot. I understand that a lot of developers butcher the optimization side of their game, but having a very optimized driver can greatly help because it will make sure that the game uses all the available instruction sets that the GPU ships with for a high performance. Back in the days developers had to target one hardware type and they had time to fully study the hardware they were developing for, while also reporting where they don't excel at so the company could improve upon it, that why Nintendo and PlayStation shipped development kits before they shipped their consoles.

[@termitreter6545]

The PS3/Xbox 360 actually had a ton of games that were more like 20fps and sometimes lower, with horrendous input lag. Many PS2 games had better peformance than the following generation. Going SNES > PS1/2 > PS3 was actually a degradation of performance. PS1/2 at least had the excuse of being early 3D, but PS3 games just performed like garbage. Looked horrible, felt horrible, and then they tried to make it look smoother with motion blur. Which looked even worse.

[@TheFluffyArmadillo]

@@aviatedviewssound4798 we will still targetting more than one system but it was mainly PC, Power Macs and Playstations. And we knew the limitations and also how to get the best out of each. The available graphics memory on the PS1 was ridiculously small compared to anything nowadays

[@aviatedviewssound4798]

@@TheFluffyArmadillo Yeah but having Nvidia for example shipping graphic cards with a small memory is very disappointing, also texture can greatly improve the visual quality of a game. 3D model optimization is actually done on the modelling software but special effects like ambient occlusion, shadows are done by the engine which are the effects that are mostly taxing on the GPU and certain AAA games not having multithreaded physics engine that can work in parallel on cpu cores.

[@singular9]

1080p 30 fps should not be the target. Upscaling should not be the norm. End of story.

[@vensroofcat6415]

Steve has been gathering the Australian Strategic tools reserve for the next Mad Max apocalypse. Responsible survivor type right there 👍

[@gamingunboxed5130]

You're on to me :D

[@AStickOnCheese]

That response from the Dewalt rep is absolutely wild. Could not have been more tone-deaf and corporate.

[@Baralis]

I think it is a matter of perspective. When you come from a very budget restrained position and all you have ever known is sub 30 FPS things seem very playable at that level. Heck I used to play World of Warcraft at 8-12 fps and while it wasn't ideal it didn't bother me to the point it was unenjoyable because this is what I was used to. Now that I have had better it would be very difficult to go back to that level and not feel the experience lacking.

[@skilletpan5674]

It's about frame delivery. How consistent is the frame delivery? Think about 24fps movies. The old movies at around 24fps still look really good even when upscaled from 720p. Why? They are exactly going to be delivered to the screen at the set interval. Games look terrible these days because frame delivery isn't smooth. I do like ~40+ fps (I'm still on an old gpu) as long as the delivery is smooth. More smooth frames is better though. 60+ is noticeably better for action games like gta 5 or shooters where you need to jerk around. What I'm trying to say is. If you are on a budget then looking for a good frame delivery card (1% lows) can be an important factor when deciding on your card. Things like hardware decoded video is also good because when you have dual monitors like me and like to watch tv etc on the 2nd monitor while playing then that helps with it still being ok.

[@zodwraith5745]

I think this is the biggest issue. We all played games for decades at low FPS, but once you've become accustomed to 60+ it's hard to go back. We've become entitled, but even worse expect hardware to last much longer than is realistic. Someone still playing on a 1050 shouldn't be expecting it to play new AAA games.

[@issaciams]

Either way they (Tim and Steve) are coming off very privileged and judgemental. Really crazy. We can't all have 4090s and 540hz monitors.

[@zodwraith5745]

@@issaciams While I understand their positions because I'm not willing to put up with 30fps myself, the elitist disconnect is when they say other people shouldn't put up with it so you need to spend more money. While I prefer a minimum 90fps my wife and kids DGAF if it's 30 or 60, let alone 120+. Saying 30fps is unplayable is like saying any car slower than a Ferrari is undriveable.

[@issaciams]

@zodwraith5745 exactly and I didn't think they were like that. Very unfortunate to see them like this.

[@MrMuggsly]

I feel like this is more therapy for you guys and is very cathartic for the both of you. It's funny hearing the tone change as the podcast goes on and going from annoyed to jovial talking about the same topic.

[@JackJohnson-br4qr]

Yeah I see it the same way. 😉

[@pf100andahalf]

And I've noticed before this that that's what you have to do if you want to be interesting in a techtuber video. Everybody is bummed out about the state of gpu's high prices since the mining boom and ever increasing gaming requirements and it's annoying but it's the same as if you're having a bad day with everything going wrong and you just try to stay positive and make jokes about it. So the trend I'm seeing with the more successful tech youtube channels is that it may start off talking about annoying things but then they pick it up and become jovial. It's a pattern that to me seems to work well for any channel.

[@issaciams]

They are coming off as very privileged and it's honestly gross. I did not know they were like this.

[@GoldenSun3DS]

I disagree on the definition of "unplayable". If the game is so unenjoyable that you turn off the game and stop playing, that IS unplayable. You're not playing it because of it, so it's unplayable.

[@Kinslayu]

If you're shooting, platforming, racing, or doing fast paced action, 30fps is unplayable

[@konczdavid]

30FPS is the lowest framerate that is compatible with most TVs and, at the same time, displays images fast enough that it becomes motion in front of our eyes, with an acceptable response time / input lag. That being said, it's anything but ideal and in my eyes, even unplayable in cases if it's combined with a low FOV or with strong motion blur that makes the image a mess whenever you turn the camera. As someone who plays with a controller at ultrawide aspect ratio both on my monitor and my TV, I consider 60 the bare minimum for an okay image smoothness and response, but ONLY without V-Sync and with an external frame limiter (RTSS). 90 is quite good, and I need at least 100-120 for first person titles. I see further benefits from higher framerates too. But at least at 120 (without V-Sync) the simple act of movement in games becomes extremely enjoyable.

[@saphyre-l4w]

You need Vsync (+limit your fps a bit below your monitor's refresh rate) if you have a VRR display to avoid tearing and to minimize its input latency.

[@konczdavid]

@@saphyre-l4w I meant no in-game V-Sync and V-Sync in control panel and cap framerate below refresh rate I just didn't want to write an essay

[@tinto278]

👏👏👏👏👏👏🧐🧐 Well done old chap.

[@KoeiNL]

It doesn't become motion in front of our eyes....it also introduces a ton of input lag.

[@sombrabombra4042]

I am not sure about why we even have a discussion about 30 FPS. I myself abandoned consoles in 2011 after I saw what Dead Space looked like on PC. Never again. 60 is the bare minimum. I rather not play at all and enjoy my social life than play on less than 60 (I prefer my single player titles on 90-120 as my comfort zone and multiplayer on 180-190 cause I have 180hz display). Also I am not a rich guy so have AMD 7900xtx instead of 4090 nVidia (got it for 900 USD) - went there from 1080.

[@AndersHass]

I think the rise of PC handhelds has also pushed more towards 30 fps gaming. Because on such device you would want to save on power, the lower the frame rate the less power is used by the screen and probably also by the APU (depending on graphics settings then it could push the iGPU power high). Then there are also some very demanding games were even at full power it will be around 30 fps (or even lower). It is definitely better to say you find 30 fps unenjoyable (especially when not using controller and not consistent 30 fps), than saying unplayable.

[@jaleshere]

Yeah on the steam deck somehow (I guess the smaller display) makes 30fps seem enjoyable i assume it just depends on the hardware and personal perspective.

[@AndersHass]

@@jaleshere the smaller screen does limit how many details you can notice in regards to resolution and smoothness of the refresh rate. You could still want higher FPS for the lower latency it brings (when not using frame generation, lol). But then using controller instead of mouse and keyboard might make the need for lower latency less important.

[@boriskamenov1842]

You don't know, what you don't know. When i was young, i was playing in PC CLUB, QUAKE 2 and i was SUPER IMPRESSED from the 30fps in FPS, because i haven't seen better :)

[@RobBCactive]

Yeah, the original Elite could end up at 1-2fps in some space battles, lag is something you can learn to live with.

[@Lishtenbird]

Your monitor also wasn't a wide 32" 4K LCD. Physical size and display technology itself matter, current screens require different framerates for a similar perceived smoothness.

[@castroeddits]

Lowend upgrades are so exciting. I remember back in the day I was from a gt 210 to a gt 710 and the jump was astronomical. The amount of games that instantly became playable at that time was incredible.

[@UpcycleShoesKai]

Radeon 9250 to gtx 1060 6gb. Went to heaven

[@richardhunter9779]

Via onboard to GeForce 6600. INSANE.

[@zodwraith5745]

Matrox PowerVR M3D to Voodoo II, and then dual Voodoo IIs in SLI. Yes, I'm old.

[@user-jdr93q8yer9g]

30 fps combined with a narrow FOV make me nauseous and I have to take frequent breaks.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

1. Get a Cyrix-CPU-based PC with S3 Trio "3D" 2. Play Half Life 1 in Software mode @20fps 3. Go back to your 30fps Starfield 4. Profit

[@sergioav7278]

The thing about 30 or even 25 fps being unplayable is that it means gaming on console is unplayable. I don't think anyone on earth would agree that his experience with a ps3, ps2 or ps1 were unplayable. In my opinion the issue is fps drops rather than constant "low" fps.

[@kenshirogenjuro873]

People can have their opinions. But whether we want to acknowledge it or not, every console generation we see what developers do. And whenever given the choice between a 30fps experience with the best graphics they can stuff into that framerate, vs a 60fps experience that degrades, even if relatively mildly…the dev chooses the 30fps experience. And in a generation where gamers are finally actively given the choice to make themselves, console players choose the 30fps experience. This in an era where devs optimize for consoles first, PC second. And a generation where the console CPUs aren’t any impediment to 60fps gaming either. It really is that most devs and console gamers alike choose 30fps with the mildly better graphical quality. And probably, looking at the ubiquity of GPUs even weaker than the current consoles that dominate the Steam surveys, most PC gamers are likely making these same choices as well. Love it or hate it, for most people who game, 60fps might be nicer, but 30 is still “enough”. They want the graphics. Now there’s another side of the discussion that isn’t happening to come up here, and that’s the fact that the real instigators and antagonizers of what’s ultimately fanboy nonsense are the self-anointed “elitists”, of course most often “PCMR” stooges, historically often also Nvidia or Intel fanboys depending on when the denigration of other people’s platforms of choice offer opportunities to portray their hardware as superior. Now full disclosure, for myself I very much like at least 60fps but subjectively don’t consider much above that to be that big of a deal. I might have some fairly high-end PCs, but consider the “PCMR” behavior of insulting other gamers on classist metrics regarding their choice of console or grade/make of GPU to be pretty crass, pathetic behavior. It’s probably the most fundamentally detestable component of gaming fanboyism to my eyes. So it’s not just a matter of people on more humble hardware getting needlessly offended, it’s fanboys going out of their way to antagonize them and then they feel as if they have to defend against that any time the topic comes up no matter how innocuously.

[@conza1989]

I'll say, I prefer 75-90+ FPS, 120 is where I think it gets good and above that I don't have the monitor for it (or the specs to run things at nice enough settings - and I just built a new PC!). Locked 30fps on a 2D scroller, platformer, some Switch games even, if it's locked locked, smooth, I think it is playable. If it's a 1st/3rd person PC game where I'm shooting a gun or, anything action based, yeah it's unplayable AND enjoyable.

[@AusKipper1]

My monitor tops out at 60hz. One advantage of getting older, 1440p and 60hz is about perfect, anything more is a waste because I can't see that well anyway. Cheaper computers and monitors are good enough.

[@PookaBot]

I think it's worth noting that precision platformers, even on the Switch, are usually 60fps eg Mario Wonder. I saw a hilariously dumb meme recently making fun of people who want 60fps like "oh back in my day 30 was fine" then they showed a pic of the SNES on which ALMOST ALL THE GAMES WERE 60FPS *face/palm*

[@edwardhood6252]

For me, if a game is " un-enjoyable " then it is also " un-playable " as well, since I'm not going to play a game I don't enjoy. I'm also a DeWalt fan. All my power tools are DeWalt, and I'll be upgrading my hand tools to DeWalt as I can.

[@liquidreality472]

Bloodborne runs at 30 fps on PS4, and it is some people's favorite game. Obviously, 60+ is preferable, but Bloodborne is certainly not "unplayable"

[@DeepfriedBeans4492]

I think 30fps on kbm is worse than on controller because you're expecting such a connection to your movements, and bloodbourne is playable sure but the frame rate massively harms the experience for me personally

[@TheSelleycopter]

@@DeepfriedBeans4492100%, back when I had a 1070 I played RDR2 on high graphics but low fps and ended up using a controller because it felt far smoother than mouse

[@Niko-qs1sl]

Zelda has entered the chat and it’s critic’s score would like a word 16:02

[@leonardomatheus1888]

By definition, it's absurd saying that 30fps is unplayable. Not enjoyable, sure.

[@jordandaniel8510]

I think controller absolutely makes 30 fps a playable experience. While never ideal, and 60+ is always going to be my target, I think there are valid uses for 30 fps on PC. With mouse and key though, I do agree 30fps is "unplayable" at least for me. Heck, the whole point of PC is the flexibility. If you're on a medium or low end tier GPU, you could absolutely see an instance where 30fps would be acceptible. Say getting better image quality and/or outputting at 4k if you were playing on a TV (I often do, just not at 30!). Or, if you're comfortable playing something like Alan Wake 2 (since it is slower paced) on controller, you could tap into some of the higher end/future looking rendering fearures. Don't sleep on 40fps on 120hz panels either. Especially again on controller. I think the main benefit of PC is getting a better than console experience, and that can mean comparable or better image quality at higher frame rates, or it can mean higher visual quality or rendering features than consoles are capable of at 30/40fps. Its all up to the end user. Even as an RTX 3090 owner who sometimes plays on a 4k 120hz LG OLED the thought of playing at 30/40fps briefly passes through my head when I see just how good path tracing looks in Cyberpunk or Alan Wake.

[@Sargentwhitey]

Personally, 30fps is playable if it's a non-fps on controller. If it's mouse controlled it's a nonstarter.

[@mintparfait]

The level of subjectivity is high for whether or not it's playable sure. But I don't think it's subjective to say that 60 always feels better than 30 if it's possible. Which is why it bums me out to see raytracing being pushed well before the majority of people can use it. A bunch of console games having no performance mode but using ray traced shadows. Alan Wake 2 seemingly being designed around Ray tracing. Giving disgusting shadows without path tracing, and really really bad reflections. I might just be a doomer, but it feels like the industry is trying to push 30 raytracing as a standard, when I just really really want 60, even if it's a boring old rasterized image. At least until it's feasible to run more at higher rates. Edit:Should of watched longer, you kinda touch on some modern games advertising they are designed for 30fps. Edit edit: Also yeah it's weird that the industry as a whole outside of gaming recognizes high fps as being a nice experience, monitors and phones especially. But in the gaming sphere every single generation, performance is pushed, and instead of wanting smoother experiences, we push for increased visual fidelity at expense of frames. People claim you need those visuals to sell copies. But I'd love to see stats on that, because I really feel like those idiots commenting lol ps2 game under every trailer aren't the people buying anyway. Edit edit edit: As for not thinking it's high end people asking for 30fps experiences. If you look at the digital foundry videos on Alan Wake 2 you will see soooooo many people saying they prefer the pathtracing 30 fps experience on the 40 series. I really don't get it. But they exist.

[@PabloB888]

In the PSX / PS2 / PS3 era, the game engines used to have less input lag, so gaming at 30fps was much more acceptable. For example GTA5 on PS3 run at 20-30fps and yet the game was more responsive than PS4 version running at locked 30fps (I could easily free aim on PS3, but not on the PS4 version). On top of that 30fps on CRT or Plasma looked perfectly sharp during motion unlike LCD or OLED TVs. Now 30fps gaming is different (worse) experience, therefore I no longer accept 30fps. Now I want at least 40 fps (theres's noticeable less input lag and judder compared to the 30fps), but honestly even at 170fps motion clarity on my 170Hz LCD (nano ips with improved pixel response time) looks like blurry mess compared to my panasonic plasma GT60, or CRTs at just 60fps/Hz (LCD need 1000Hz to match blur persistence of 60Hz CRT, that's how insane the difference is).

[@Cakebattered]

Exactly. Sounds more like flaws with LCD tech than a flaw of the framerate.

[@termitreter6545]

You are misremembering, at least when it comes to the PS3. That console had horrendous input lag. Games like Killzone 2 dropped to single digit framerates sometimes, the game was so laggy it was hard to even aim. Some people measured 250ms of lag even in the better areas. Even The Last of Us had sections in ~20fps. And those games had zero motion clarity either, because they tried to "smooth over" the horrible performance with motion blur. When you turned, you couldnt see anything, because it was so visually disruptive. Thats part of what pushed me towards PC, because PS3 games felt so much worse than PS2 games. Eg Ratchet and Clank on PS2 looked amazing for the time, and ran 60fps (with drops tbf), while the PS3 titles got downgraded to 30fps. I imagine a lot of people grew up on PS3/360, and just thought the bad performance was normal. But with experience, you just get a better feeling for whats wrong. Idk about the bit with motion clarity. CRTs were great with a lot of stuff, and it sucked to go to LCDs (except for beign affordable). But for the last years even LCDs are kinda awesome. Make sure to disable motion blur/DLSS/etc, on TVs activate game mode, and you should get very low reaction times and generally good motoin clarity.

[@PabloB888]

@@termitreter6545 I played PSX and PS2 games before the PS3 purchase. The vast majority of PS2 games run at 30 fps with frequent dips to sub 20fps. Some games indeed had 60fps, but besides the biggest AAA games like Gran turismo 3/4, MGS2, Tekken, the framerate in 60fps games was all over the place. What's more I still have the PS3 connected to the CRT, so I played PS3 even recently and therefore have a fresh comparison. The vast majority od PS3 games were perfectly playable at 30fps, at least on my CRT (this technology has zero additional input lag). The developers of Killzone 2 deliberately made aiming in the game "heavy" (laggy). TLOU1 was also more laggy compared to the other PS3 games, but compared to killzone 2 I could still aim fairly easily. TLOU PS4 remaster is less responsive in 30fps mode, but fortunately it has a 60fps mode so I played it that way.

[@PabloB888]

@@termitreter6545 And BTW. on my panasonic GT60 plasma it doesnt matter if game has TAA or motion blur, because the image quality during motion is still much better compared to what I can see on my 170Hz LCD nano-IPS monitor and 120Hz OLED.

[@termitreter6545]

@@PabloB888 Thats not the issue with KIllzone 2. Yes, the sensitivity is really low and theirs acceleration. But the real problem is that there is also 250ms untiil the game even registers your input, and that is compromising your abiltiy to aim. And PS3 games almost always had some kind of VSYNC, which combined with not holding 30fps, did create a a ton of lag. Usually >100 ms. I think that was a big factor of what made them quite laggy, they used a ton of prerendered frames because Vsync couldnt hold up. PS2 generally didnt have that issue, evne if some games ran of course bad too. I mean its totally fair if that never bothered you and you dont got a feel for lag, im not telling you you shouldnt enjoy the games. But the lag in many PS3 games was crazy bad, regardless of TV.

[@ygny1116]

AAA games sold way more on console at 30fps compared to PC, imagine PC peons who play games with RTSS fps overlay on matter.

[@kaylee42900]

bang on. Input lag is way more heinous with a mouse vs. a controller. So while I would play 30fps no problem with a controller, it's horrible in a mouse game.

[@adhdengineer]

Depends on the game. Shooter? Unplayable. Turn based strategy? Fine.

[@HCGonzalezJr87]

30-60 FPS is playable, technically. As mentioned it's a trash experience that's generally unacceptable to most PC gamers who've had 60FPS+ since the 90s. (Remember 85hz CRTs?) Also you can play TOTK at 4K 60 FPS, use your imagination.

[@CobraF1]

Agreed, the 30 fps debate is a matter of preference. 30 fps is playable but whether or not it's enjoyable is personal opinion. For me, when I first tried Alan Wake 2 with my RX 7900 XTX, I was able to hit a perfectly smooth 120 fps at native 1440p (the max refresh rate of my LG C2 OLED) when I TURNED OFF all raytracing and put all other settings to MAX and... it was nice. But the feel of the game is very different without raytracing and especially without the path tracing which adds realism and a "vibe" to the scenes... So then I set ALL settings to max including path tracing (using upscaling to 1440p or 1080p with FSR 2) and the fps dropped to 35 fps on average... But to my surprise, it still looked good (a bit less detailed) but still smooth and pleasant (to me). I think AW2 has superb motion blur implementation from the developers, which makes 30 to 40 fps still look smooth (*and I do have a VRR display so that likely helps* and I play on my couch in front of my TV with a controller so that surely helps too vs. a mouse). Personally, I don't mind a slower frame rate if I get to keep all the "bells and whistles" such as advanced lighting, as long as it feels smooth. Another example of an amazing 30 fps experience is The Order 1886 on PS4 / PS5 (very smooth). An example of a TERRIBLE 30 fps experience, is in Last of Us 2 on PS5 (in Quality mode)... it looked like a choppy epileptic slide show when panning the camera side to side because I think the motion blur was not done right by the devs. In that case you need 60 fps. After 10 years of being spoiled with 60 fps + and 4k for a while now on my gaming PC, I find that a game's artistic presentation is way more important (+ consistent performance) than just fast FPS and high resolution.

[@billsouza4457]

Raytracing...I get it but to me it hasn't lived up to the hype. The huge hit to performance for something you wouldn't actually notice all that much(for me anyway) while actually playing a game is simply so overrated.

[@CobraF1]

@@billsouza4457 I know what you mean. After messing around a lot more with the settings in the game (Alan Wake 2) and checking side-by-side comparison videos I'll admit the hit to performance for raytracing is crazy vs. the modest extra graphics boost you get. It may indeed be worth it turning off all raytracing for 3 times the fps.

[@CobraF1]

UPDATE: for anyone interested, after more hours of playing with the graphics settings in Alan Wake 2 I came to some conclusions. On any AMD GPU, it's not worth it to enable Path traced indirect lighting (pathtracing). It's an extreme hit to the performance. To make that work you'd have to lower the resolution a LOT (while upscaling) and indeed playing at 30 to 35 fps at low res when your GPU can do 100 fps + without raytracing isn't worth the huge hit. To use Pathtracing you need frame generation to bring back up the fps and AMD GPUs don't have FSR3 in this game. Nvidia GPUs can try doing Pathtracing in this title though with DLSS3 frame-gen. So in the end, on my setup (Ryzen 5 5600x + RX 7900 XTX) the 2 ways to go are either: 1. turn OFF all raytracing and then you can play at FSR2 Quality 4K with all max settings (except raytracing) at 65 to 80 fps (or at a constant 120 fps with FSR2 Quality 1440p if you prefer). OR if you want raytracing... 2. FSR2 Balanced 1440p + all settings high except volumetric lighting at medium, raytraced direct lighting set to high, Transparency (RT) at high, all RT denoising high, but Pathtracing OFF - and with a capped framerate at 40 fps (through AMD Adrenalin Software). I went with the 2nd option and the fps never goes under 40 fps but all the settings are high and resolution is sharp while keeping all the standard raytracing at high. I play with a controller and at a locked 40 fps it feels quite smooth and cinematic on my 120 Hz VRR TV. But for those who are bothered by playing at under 60 fps, just turn off all raytracing and it still looks great but the fps will shoot through the roof.

[@didamnesia3575]

Ive been running AW2 at 4k ultra top settings, no dlss, yes to vsync. Honestly the game looks great at 30fps. Yeah if i turn a cpuple things down it goes to about 70fps in 4k (4090)... so ive left the settings at 4k ultra and usually i get 30-40. Thats not great, but ill sacrifice my frames temporarily to enjoy the work of the devs

[@alchemystn2o]

The thumbnail with the exaggeration of Tim's face is priceless 😁

[@DrearierSpider1]

If not unplayable, it's unquestionably an awful gaming experience.

[@swordofkhaine8464]

it depends on game. Out of interest i locked 30 fps in valorant and moving around everything felt like motion blur. In Cities Skylines 1, I had 35-40 fps but it was smooth so it didn't bother me so much.

[@DavideDavini]

It depends. For me it’s definitely worse than 60 but not worse than having it go up and down between 30 and 60. In that case I prefer to cap it. Provided it’s not an FPS, in which case it just makes me nauseous if it’s not at least 60. As per most things in life: your mileage may vary. Cheers.

[@Coffeeandacigarette]

This. I owned a ps1 and 30 fps was the standard. The first time i played a 60fps experience I never wanted to go back. 60 is below anything i want to experience any more

[@RobBCactive]

In strategy games it often doesn't matter.

[@peterwstacey]

Doki Doki Literature Club and The Sims are fine at 30fps. It depends what games you are into

[@jad1079]

Tim be driving a 30 FPS car. 😂

[@AusKipper1]

I'm older, my eyes are at best 1440p, anything more is a waste (on a 34" monitor or smaller anyway), and pretty sure anything more than 60fps is wasted on me as well, 30fps is adequate for me on strategy games but I do appreciate the extra on more action/shooter games but I wouldn't ever call it unplayable.

[@gohansan7544]

Hey guys, would you be able to review the Acer Nitro XV275UP3? Mini-LED VA 1440p 170Hz monitor that's sub-$800 in Australia like the Cooler Master Tempest GP27Q. I believe it might be using the same panel as the AOC Q27G3XMN in the US selling for sub-$300 USD. Thanks!

[@leventebandi]

I rarely disagree with you guys but this, 30fps unplayable thing is pretty baaaaad :D As I'm using high-end gamer laptops for a decade at this for my gaming needs, I usually limit my fps to 30fps not stress thermally my rig to lenghten it's life. Did it when i had a 980M and doing it now with a mobile 4080 as well. Sorry but this "I can't aim because at 30fps enemies are blurry" is just screams git gud :D The input device matters thing is only a factor because of the auto aim console or gamepad optimized games are using frequently even without having an option for it.

[@mjc0961]

I have two stories that stick out in my mind regarding the great framerate non-debate (RIP TotalBiscuit) 1. Like Steve described, I have had times where for whatever reason, my display refresh settings get dropped from 144Hz to 60Hz, and I can immediately tell from moving the mouse around that something is wrong. 2. I was in the middle of playing GTA V's PC release when it was new, I upgraded my graphics card. This caused the game to refresh its graphics settings, and one of the things it did was lower the framerate to something stupidly low like 30 or 24. I didn't even get Michael out the front door of his house before I knew something was very wrong. Personally I will never understand people who say they can't tell the difference between 30 and 60, or 60 and higher refresh rates. I can understand people not caring about playing at 30 fps. Preference is fine, do what you want, it doesn't impact me. But being unable to notice?! Unless the reason ends up being "my monitor can't go past 30Hz so I've never seen 60Hz" I will never understand the claim of being unable to notice.

[@mjc0961]

For some reason I can't find the edit button on mobile today, but one thing I wanted to add: I was playing GTA V with a controller and I still noticed that it dropped the framerate on me.

[@jakacresnar5855]

some anecdotal evidence: I built a PC for my 12 year-old cousin and I got him a 1080p 75Hz monitor because of budget constraints. It was a VRR monitor so I forced V-Sync off and capped his framerate to 72 with RTSS, like blurbusters recommend. He called me once saying his games feel "choppy". I had a look and it turned out a Windows update reset his monitor to 60 Hz and messed up RTSS so it crashed on startup, and before that he accidentally hit default on his Fortnite graphics settings, so V-sync was on, meaning he was playing at a locked 60 FPS. That's a difference of 12 FPS. He's not a huge gamer or anything, and even he could tell the difference. Another one, in 2018 when I bought my PC with 8700K, 1080 Ti and a 1440p 165Hz monitor, I wanted to show my dad (who used to game a lot in the 90s) what a high refresh rate experience is like. So I booted up DOOM 2016 and before he started, I capped the framerate to 45 without telling him, just to hammer the point home. He played for a bit and said "it's OK I guess, but this isn't worth three grand". I then turned the cap to 162 and let him play again. His response was "holy shit I wish I had that in '96". 😅 The difference is massive. I think it's mostly trolls that have never actually played a fast-paced game at high FPS and on a good monitor who claim they "can't see the difference". Even my co-workers notice that "the mouse is smoother" on the very few correctly configured 120Hz panels we have at work.

[@HeretixAevum]

It's objectively a playable framerate, but it's a lot worse for some scenarios than others and is not ideal in any way - I'd consider it the absolute bottom of the barrel acceptable framerate these days. Hell, we played games at much less than 30 back in the 90s, just for a taste of that sweet 3D polygonal goodness. I'd been playing exclusively on PC for 12 years until this year when I bought a switch OLED, I've been able to enjoy 30fps experiences on there, but it helps quite a bit when the game is designed around it. For example, something like Zelda with a controller is far more tolerable than DOOM Eternal with a mouse, the latter of which I absolutely wouldn't put up with.

[@jaula420]

Playing with mouse and keyboard on 30 fps is totally different thing than playing with controller. Also with 3rd person games I often find annoying the lack of analog movement with keyboard.

[@mad3st]

Also times have changed games designed even to consoles today have usually higher expected fps than 30. Yes there are games that are nicely playable 30 fps but if you have experienced 144 it is really hard to go back < 100 fps.

[@nbates66]

yeah i think actually if the option is there on current consoles it might a choice of 60FPS quality or 120FPS performance, in some cases there isn't enough headroom to do beyond 60FPS.

[@soulreaperx7x]

Going from 144 to 60s isn't bad at all imo. I love playing at super high fps on fps games but I lock my games to 4k60 when playing single player to avoid the large frame time spikes. 60 fps is perfectly fine after playing at 144+ for many years.

[@corprall]

I think there are two problems with "30fps is unplayable" first is that the wording sounds like a statement of fact rather than an opinion, and second is the absurdity of that claim/opinion. Using words like "unplayable" or even "unenjoyable" is an extreme claim, and comes with implications that you would never play or could never enjoy a game under those conditions. Words like horrible, and awful would help as they seem more subjective than "unplayable" but it's still quite ridiculous, it might be unpleasant but it's still fine.

[@escapee909909]

Steve is like we don't even need to have this conversation, and dude is like yeah well we need to make a video so here's the same points again.

[@Hezzadude12]

36:20 is an interesting discussion. I actually have a friend who owns a 4090 because he just cranks every setting and runs every game at maximum refresh rate, yet he voluntarily picks 30fps in every single console game he plays. He seems to not be the only one either - a lot of people in Spider-Man 2 have been advocates for the 40fps mode (for a 120Hz display), which does look visually quite nice, but at normal viewing distance I just don’t see why people aren’t running the 60fps mode. It’s objectively just better in terms of image quality, but there really is a strong crowd of people out there who like taking still screenshots and using that as an example for the 30fps mode being “better”, and additionally some people prefer the game to look “cinematic” which I will NEVER understand, because cinema doesn’t have an input component, and the whole 24fps experience in cinema is part of the “dream experience” (as HDTV Test puts it), but gaming isn’t about that, you are physically interacting with the game. It just doesn’t make sense to me why people voluntarily pick 30fps when 60fps is right there, and in the case of Spider-Man, they BOTH have Ray Tracing, so why run the game at a lower frame rate??? It doesn’t make sense to me.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

Oh, man, the upgrade from a S3 Trio "3D" 4 MB (yes, that is 1000 times less than the "crappy" 4 GB GPUs of yesteryear) to a Riva TNT 16 MB! That was an UPGRADE!

[@garyb7193]

lol, you might as well be talking a foreign language for many of these millennials. The only thing they know in megabytes is their L2 or L3 cache. Things were so exciting back then. Nvidia was completely different when there were 12 plus other graphic chip manufacturers instead of 2 or 3 we have today.

[@montreauxs]

Riva 128

[@gravytrader]

I had that 3D "display card" lol. It's 'Interpretation' of 3D accelerated graphics was something, remember the blinding coronas in games like AVP😄

[@konstantinlozev2272]

@@gravytrader I think that poor S3 Trip "3D" had actually no hardware acceleration. It was the S3 Savage lineup that had 3D acceleration.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

@@garyb7193 haha, yeah, even Windows 2000 needed less RAM than current gen L3 cache on CPUs

[@thrashinuva]

Unwatchable podcast and should have been sourced entirely from Australia.

[@denvera1g1]

28:00 mathemmatically, for a monitor to dispaly frames fast enough for your eyes to not possibly tell the difference, at 600-800nits, it would need to be nearly 20K FPS, though the whole frame doesnt need to transition at that rate only where you're looking, if your eye is tracking a fast moving object, to keep that object from looking blurry, the monitor will need to refresh those pixels at up to 20khz, but how do you do just the part of the screen you're looking at? even eye tracking lacks in its ability to track where your brain is tracking because the eyes are just the lens with a reletively wide field of view, and your brain just makes sure what you're focusing on is within the high detail density portion of the eye, even on the higher detail-dense portion of the eye a large part of the screen will fall into it, so foviated refresh rate can help, but its not going to help as much as we'd like for this theoretical monitor.

[@Yuber898]

Lol of course it's playable. 90% of gamers have been playing at this fps rate

[@paulhellyer4518]

Taking into account the statements in this discussion like 144 over 60hz refresh is night and day in game play: Should there be more focus on Rastorisation in GPU performance reviews compared to Ray and path tracing abilities? The point being that even high end cards tend to drop the frame rate below these numbers with RT/PT enabled. Yes the image quality arguebly better, but is detrimental to the playability experience

[@registeredblindgamer4350]

I Have to agree that I do not understand how anyone could not see the difference between 60hz and 90+. Even 75 is a big jump over 60. Being registered blind and being able to see the differences so clearly and even issues like dark level smearing on VA panels leads me to believe anyone who can't see differences in refresh rates are not running their monitor at anything above 60hz. It simply makes no snse how you couldn't and that's coming from a legally blind guy.

[@jakacresnar5855]

VRR is also a huge factor that makes lower framerates more bearable. In 2018 I had to use my 8700K's iGPU to drive my PG279Q (1440p 165Hz, G-Sync) for about a month while waiting for my GPU, and I used to play Guild Wars 2 with it. Obviously G-Sync isn't supported on intel iGPUs, and the framerates weren't high, so I just capped the framerate at 30 to keep the frametimes consistent and played the game that way until I got my 1080 Ti. When I put the card in, I booted the game up and pressed a few buttons to walk, and the 1080 Ti was of course hitting the 30 cap with ease, but it didn't feel as choppy as the intel iGPU. The only thing different was the VRR support. Naturally I just uncapped the framerate and never looked back. Another situation - I tried playing the Far Cry 6 demo on my 1080 Ti and I got around 60-ish FPS on 1440p with dips to the high 40s/low 50s (on whatever's the first setting after Ultra, I think). It didn't feel nearly as bad as I thought it would. I remembered the GW2 situation so I tried turning G-Sync off to see how that would feel. The difference was very noticeable - even though the framerate was the same, VRR on was noticeably smoother and more consistent.

[@tinto278]

If you're wondering why 24fps looks so jittery. It's not because of the fps increase. It's because 24 doesn't go into your phone or computer's screen refresh rate which is generally 60 frames per second. It's a 1:2.5 ratio meaning that it will always be ahead or behind by one frame. If it was a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio like 30fps is then it would be way more smoother

[@yaythereal]

Curious, would 24fps look better on a 120Hz device than on a 60Hz one?

[@MasoMathiou]

So I guess if you play at 24FPS on a PAL monitor (50Hz) it should feel better right?

[@FLAXMS]

What about freesync/gsync/VRR?

[@montreauxs]

meh..

[@nimrodery]

@@yaythereal Yes.

[@UncleLayne]

Listen, Steve I'm all for you talking more about tools and your construction projects

[@martinbadoy5827]

To paraphrase Avicii, "We've come a long way since that day And we'll never look back at the 30 fps" :)

[@oldcroaker6033]

Tim, please do an optimization video on Alan Wake II. Everyone is waiting for it

[@THU31]

There's no point. The medium preset has the most optimized settings, it doesn't set everything to medium like most games, it has the best balance between performance and visual quality.

[@Hjorth87]

Can't help but thinking that if Linus was saying these things about framerate people would call him out of touch with average people or elitist. But haters gotta hate. That said, I think being a professional reviewer sharpens your perception and ability to discern these things, or at least makes you aware of how good it can be. I was playing RDR2 on a gtx 960 4 GB. At 29 fps. I could tell it wasn't optimal, but until I got my 3060 I didn't know how much it could improve, due to lack of a point of reference.

[@escapee909909]

There will be 30fps games until the end of time. Such a low floor, proven acceptable over decades now, gives them a resource/asset budget they simply can't ignore. These aren't my words, this is stuff said by nearly every design/technical lead I've read/seen give a deep dive or post mortem. Keep in mind the idea of cpu budget, per cycle - the low floor allows for more under the hood. "It depends" was never more relevant than when it comes to this topic.

[@bligh1156]

Gents, I think the problem lies in the lack of disclaimer. Almost all of your content is not opinions... it's detailed facts. You should likely disclaim 'in my opinion this is unplayable' when you switch gears to opinions.

[@gamingunboxed5130]

We almost always do just that, it doesn't help.

[@bligh1156]

@gamingunboxed5130 Hah. It would help if it was me making the comments, I would then differentiate the opinion from the factual content. I am different from the people that they are trying to address, in particular. Fair enough!

[@aftereight9143]

30 fps is factually not unplayable. People who say it is are being hyperbolic. How can it be unplayable if you can finish the game that way? Just say it doesn't feel that nice to play. Unplayable is slideshow territory.

[@DailyCorvid]

Most consoles until 2 years ago MAXXED out at locked 30FPS, even todays PS5's play Cyberpunk at 30fps or Starfield has moment below that even. Unplayable for me is having stuttering 1% lows below 30FPS. Locked 30FPS isn't glamourous but it works fine.

[@dcikaruga]

Anyone old enough to remember the 486 days? Back then 30 fps was awesome.

[@clintk4691]

Meh, 30fps is just fine. Got an easy 200 hours on starfield on an Asus ROG Ally which runs it anywhere from 14-40fps. Sure my PC is far better and I do agree higher framerate is better but anything over 24fps is still playable and can be enjoyable.

[@notchipotle]

30fps is playable when I was a broke high schooler, now ? sure but you have to put a knife on my neck

[@The_Trojan]

To be honest, with my 3 daughters having 10th gen intel/3000 series cpus and 2060super/6600/6600xt they are going to have to get used to 30fps in some games. It is getting to the point when consoles would be a better option.

[@GamingNStuff777]

when i had a budget pc i looked for 30 fps as playable. sometimes i even modded games to be able to play at 30 fps, that s how poor i was. now with a proper gaming pc 30 feels unplayable... it is a matter of perspective. and yah i miss (sometimes) that feeling of having to really squeeze the performance outta my pc.

[@issaciams]

Yeah but most people are still where you use to be. These 2 are coming off very "PC masterace" and it's very disheartening.

[@GamingNStuff777]

@@issaciams i was working and studying at the same time. Most of the time i would play yuri s revenge or modded fallout. Modded to make it play better. It took me years to be in a position to even think about having a high end pc. My 3080 ti has only 12 g ram and the way things are going i might have to upgrade sooner than later. All of this happening in Argentina with 130 % inflation. I know i sound like a boomer but... disheartening my rear end! Get out there, make money and buy the pc of your dreams.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

I have played hundreds of hours in Xcom Long War Rebalance on a Celeron CPU at 720p @ 15 FPS. Still enjoyed it immensely.

[@DailyCorvid]

SAME XCOM2 on a crap laptop for 3 yeears, I never saw high detail until 2021 lol.

[@syncmonism]

How consistent is that framerate? That's a turn-based game, so not the best example, but given that you need to almost constantly pan the camera around in that game, 15 fps would still be pretty bad, especially because if your average is 15, you're probably not getting a consistent 15 fps. That being said, a consistent 30 would definitely be very good in that game. It's one of my favorite games, and I definitely was playing it on an old, weak laptop fairly recently while visiting family.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

@@syncmonism well, I did not do mouse panning. Mostly WASD + TAB. At that framerate it's basically Chess mode 😁 The best thing was that 200 USD Laptop could play for 6h+ on battery. Fantastic for long trips. Since 1 year I "upgraded" to a Ryzen 5 Mobile APU (from the 3000 series) and 720p is like 25-30 and even more FPS. But I no longer get that playtime on battery 😔 Still, much better than my gaming laptop...

[@konstantinlozev2272]

@@DailyCorvid I have played XCOM2 on a Samsung Galaxy S(?). Talk about "low detail" 🤣🤣🤣

[@dcarpenter85]

The key to finding any sort of enjoyment out of 30fps on PC is using a game pad. I would agree that it isn't up to a playable standard when using a mouse, but the inherent lack of precision and smoother inputs that controllers have make 30fps mostly 'fine'. Not advocating for 30fps gaming, just adding some insight that I've found in my own testing.

[@bryanyokofich5021]

I totally agree with this. I always wondered why 30fps on my Xbox felt fine but 30fps on my pc felt so bad. The controller made all the difference

[@samiyanes1598]

40fps on 120hz monitor should get more attention, because it offers a sweetspot for low-end/budget oriented gaming with significant improvement to motion and latency

[@aviatedviewssound4798]

Say less, a game running at 40fps on the Steam Deck on 120hz Xreal glasses is chef's kiss.

[@beansnrice321]

It really depends on how stable the 30 fps is and how good the motion blur/TAA are. In Cyberpunk a stable 30 looks pretty decent.

[@jaleshere]

Cyberpunk these days I have to say has done some awesome shit with their settings.

[@fragkiskosvidalis8007]

12:20 Opinions are like a§$h😮les,everybody has one,so don't bother.Keep up the good work.

[@pf100andahalf]

Steve (paraphrased): If all games eventually start not offering their own native antialiasing like Alan Wake 2 and If nvidia's goal was to beat amd in benchmarks with their upscaling it would have backfired because amd is able to match or beat them by offering fsr2 (lower quality) native antialiasing that works with everything which gives you an accurate baseline of how the games perform and then the player can degrade the image quality to improve performance as they see fit. The only way to fairly compare gpu performance in benchmarks in that case would be with fsr native and dlss would be a disadvantage since it only works with nvidia gpu's.

[@TheySeeMeTrollen]

As someone who grew up playing goldeneye on the N64, a decade ago happily played dota 2 and half-life on a laptop at 15 to 20 FPS I can say, I will never go back to 30FPS gaming. My 1440p 144hz monitor has spoilt me.

[@Roy88772]

The big trouble in PCMR gaming in HFR is that graphics quality, especially in "RT quality". Graphics quality is a big drag on HFR, when Nvidia introduced RT it brought all PC gaming back to not only 1080p but also 60 FPS or less. And it doesn't look like anything will change in this matter, they use technologies such as DLSS or FG, but in the end it all worsens the image quality, the same can be said about turning off individual graphics options to increase FR.

[@aviatedviewssound4798]

Framerate depends on the game, but I will say latency is more important than framerate when it comes to character movements.

[@jaleshere]

I used to hit nearly 100ms pc latency and lord I hated that much more than lower frame rates. So yeah 100% man.

[@Gamer-q7v]

30 FPS is OK for puzzle or strategy games, but it's basically unplayable in any other type of game.

[@independentthought3390]

I'd add some of the RPG games to that mix, but yes, for every other genre, it's unenjoyable.

[@revyYT]

i think if you said something like "extremely compromised experience" or "unpleasant experience" instead of literally "unplayable" the response would have been less extreme

[@leyterispap6775]

For ppl still gaming at 60hz or below , im gonna say that i was playing casually and often fps games for more than 20 years until 3 years back when i got my first 144hz monitor . The difference is huge , no way around it . Once u feel that smoothness there is no going back to 60hz . Coming from a guy that used to "mock" high refresh monitors as " unnecessarily expensive equipment " for gaming . Totally wrong i was and totally worth the upgrade . 90hz should be considered minimum and all my settings are set around that mark , if possible i'm aiming for min 90hz for my 1% lows . Minimum..

[@McLongSausage]

I never cared about gaming at anything higher then 30fps as a console gamer but once I started building my own gaming pcs I have become a FPS snob, I just recently upgraded from a 1080TI paired with a Intel i5 7400 with Intel Oem Cooler, 12gb 2400 ram, Oem Asus Motherboard, Sata Crucial M.2 Ssd and a EVGA (RIP) 750 Bronze BQ in a Fractal Mesify C and a basic 5 year old 40" 60hz Samsung TV to a Aorus 4090 Master paired with a 7950X3D, 2 x 16GB CL32 6000Mt/s GSkill Ram, Aorus B650E Master Motherboard, 3 x 1Tb Samsung 980 Pro, EVGA 1300G+ Supernova, Artic Liquid Freezer II 420 in a Modded White Fractal Torrent all connected to a 65" Samsung QN90B Neo QLED and I will never ever go back to gaming under 120hz 4K again. I also run all the unnecessary RGB in a Royal Purple Pulse to Honor the Gaurdian of my GPU Shockwave, who stands guard on top of the GPU to make sure non of my FPS escape.

[@otakujhp]

I'm very split brained on the whole 30 fps thing. I play a lot of very old games on very old 90s hardware, so in that context 30 fps is completely fine. When I play a modern PC game however, I want the most performance I can possibly get.

[@kristiangurholt59]

The superiority of 60 over 30 becomes even higher when factoring in frame interpolation and BFI/backlight strobing. I hate 30fps, but 60 or even 120 isn’t clear enough on a sample-and hold display. However enabling frame interpolation AND black frame insertion is where the real difference lies, with the motion blur being reduced to that of 240fps. This is how I play all my 60fps games and it looks fantastic.

[@HartFalleon]

This conversation reminds me of when someone mentions stuttering in games. Now there are many reasons for it but for some it doesn't bother their experience. I've literally watched big content creators playing whatever new title and multiple noticeable hitches will occur and someone makes a comment about performance and the content creator says "Oh, it's totally smooth." And you'll run into multiple comments in discussion forums of games where those players that aren't noticing it are denying the validity of someone else who does bring it up, that does notice it and that doesn't like that with how much games and hardware can cost.

[@Celis.C]

I'm playing Pokemon Violet on the Switch as I listen to the FPS discussion. This is coming from someone who's used to 90+ fps on a 144Hz monitor. SV plays like slow motion for me, and it's just taxing on my patience. Sure, I can _play_ the game, but it really detracts from the _fun_ It just really depends on what you're used to. If you've experienced OLED, then regular LED becomes a lot more lackluster. If you're used to stale bread, then you can't go back after eating a sweet pastry.

[@Eepy-Rose]

I have more mid range than high end hardware (Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 3070 Ti) but I'll toss my hat in as one of the people with pretty good hardware that likes playing at 30fps sometimes. I don't really enjoy playing at 30fps when I'm on a low end PC and have to play at 30fps because the hardware can't do any better but if I'm using higher settings I kinda love playing at 30fps. It really feels like I'm pushing most I can get out of my hardware to get some really beautiful visuals and as long as I cap the frame rate with RTSS or some ingame option I can get used to 30fps pretty quickly. It's more about frametime stability than framerate really. The fact that I am willing to drop my framerate to 30 for better visuals is actually a large reason why low VRAM amounts annoy me and why I'll probably only buy a GPU with at least 16GB of VRAM next time. Too often I want to push the settings to the best I can get with a stable 30fps but I feel artificially limited by my VRAM to lowering textures, resolution, DLSS quality, or RT settings so my frametime doesn't completely die.

[@CommanderBeefDev]

tims list of apples good things was short

[@Driftwood420]

The only game where I've found 30fps to be sort of OK is flight simulator. Anything else including Alan Wake 2, even with a controller is just terrible. Constant juddering is not OK

[@kelownatechkid]

30fps on a PS2 game running on a CRT feels a lot better than a modern TV with game mode disabled running at 60. So there's definitely some wiggle room

[@URSet2Fail]

If the PC industry implodes, I would LOVE to watch you guys benchmark power tools. I want to see the price to performance on a leaf blower lol

[@tortugatech]

Steve: 30 FPS is completely unplayable in online shooters! The mil-sim community: 😬😬😬 Getting over 40FPS in Squad or PostScriptum while in the middle of a 100-player server with artillery raining down and tanks and field guns going off is impossible on any system below 2000$

[@mkatakm]

Once 30 fps was the golden standard. Tomorrow they will argue if 60 fps is playable.

[@gamingunboxed5130]

I've been PC gaming for 23 years. When was 30 fps the golden standard?

[@mkatakm]

@@gamingunboxed5130 I am playing since before first GPUs. Ever played the first Price of Persia on Mono/CGA monitors, or Wng Commander, Dune, C&C, Wolf 3D, Doom and even Quake on EGA/VGA display adapters? Then 3dfx rose to power while after that people were discussing if 32 bit color support was really needed or not, Nvidia smashed all disputes with the release of Riva TNT. 30 FPS? It was a luxury.

[@jonathanwilliams6328]

I don’t think 30 fps has ever been anyone’s “gold standard”.

[@mkatakm]

@@gamingunboxed5130 I have been playing PC games for 35 years. When I started there was no GPU. I am one of those who had a Voodoo card when it was released and awed by its graphics. 30 fps was a dream for most gamers when games like far cry and crysis were released.

[@captainfirst8527]

it largely depending on the refresh rate of ur monitor. if u check the UFO test, u see everything will get slower when u have high refresh rate monitor and capable of running it on this rate then play it on lower FPS game. so it is fully depending on the monitor u are using. the issue on lower rate is on the "lag" or precisely, the time btw rendering of the frame(GPU) and the refresh rate of a monitor. the answer is true, higher FPS is still good than lower FPS if all others things hold equal.

[@rolandohiebert2144]

I'm playing at 4k60 and I know exactly what you are talking about with regards to refresh rate and motion clarity because my phone is 120hz and just scrolling through anything on a 60hz phone feels downright bad. So I imagine 4k 120 would definitely be worth it even if I had to set a few settings lower in games. FSR helps my 1080 ti but the ghosting is pretty bad in the games I play so the benefits of playing at 60 instead of say 30fps aren't completely there with upscaling, curious how the rx 7800 xt I just ordered will perform.

[@carlkidd752]

My grandkids have it now, but I used an EVGA 1080Ti FTW3 way longer than expected (mining and scalping). My PG279 is back in its' box as I have a Hisense 4K TV 55U8G. Lots of reviews available, but I'm impressed. I had access to a 6900XT and a noticeable difference in performance, but I decided to wait for the 7900XTX release. According to reviews, the 7800XT is effectively the same performance as the 6900XT/6950XT. I bought the HellHound version, the 7800XT Hellhound $520-530. I think you'll be pleased with the 7800XT.

[@kristiangurholt59]

If your display/TV supports it, I’d recommend enabling both frame interpolation and BFI. 60fps then looks much cleaner.

[@kaecatlady]

Got to say it: no matter how much most developers may or may not care about putting out the best possible game, the reality is, the bean counters and CEO's (unless they themselves are long-time gamers or people who originally got into building tech because they love it) truly don't care. These corps want one thing: money. And they want them for the smallest amount of expenditure they can manage to get that money. If they can get away with forcing developers to skimp on building games that must use upscaling and the like to basically be payable, well... no skin off their noses. They're gonna get their bonuses, no matter what. This is the tragedy of a game studio succeeding to the point where an EA or whoever buys them up and puts their own top people in control. The corp itself, which is looking only to make money from these increasingly successful ventures, are also the ones who are planting the seeds of the dev studio's destruction, due to their short-sightedness and greed. Seems to me the only thing we as gamers can do to drag studios back from this trend toward building games that simply aren't ready for "Prime Time", for whatever reason, is to vote "NO!" with our wallets. We need to get out of any habits we're developing of buying their bullshit and we need to refuse to buy unfinished/badly optimized games, even if we've been looking forward to playing them for a long time. Mind, I'm not talking about games that have relatively few hinks and bugs; I mean games that are REALLY not ready, while the developers make excuses and promises to fix them "over the next several months" (looking at you, City Skylines 2). Then we need to let those companies, studios and stockholders know WHY we're not buying their broken/unfinished/full-price-beta-version games. If we don't settle and make excuses for whatever these studios choose to or are forced to put in front of us, and the corps don't make their money, then the top dogs who are rubber-stamping (or insisting on) these games' releases will either go back to releasing games when they ARE really ready---or find themselves being booted, to hopefully be replaced by people who understand that building good, finished games might not make them money as quickly, but it WILL make them more of it. That's a wild dream, I know... but hey! We can hope.