Minimum FPS you'd tolerate to play multiplayer games effectively?

[-]

Shirokami_Lupus@reddit

i play Deep rock at barely 30 fps regularly becomes 20 but that ain't the worst

I played unturned at round 14fps with over 300 ping as a kid, and I fuckin loved it (till the old laptop took a shit)

[-]

Le-Misanthrope@reddit

It's gonna sound horrible but I honestly think I'd rather go outside than play at 30fps or under.

[-]

cinyar@reddit

if you had no other choice you'd play morrowind at 15-20fps and love every second of it.

source: 90s kid from a post communist country and barely middle class family

Obviously I couldn't go back now, but back then I took what I could. Plus not like my friends had state of the art computers, internet was barely a thing so it's not like I had a frame of reference to spoil it for me.

[-]

le_sac@reddit

Wait til they hear about dial-up being the default connection method for a period of time

[-]

Hiker_Trash@reddit

14k modems for a while no less

[-]

clare416@reddit

Yes this. Idk how much FPS I got when I played Hitman 2: Silent Assassin 14-15 years ago on my dad's office laptop and enjoying it so much I played several times

It feels like many people just took up gaming in their 20s, 30s (most likely since the pandemic) where they already have own income so they started with decent hardware. Or youngsters who raised in middle income households, so that's why they feel anything under 60 FPS is literally unplayable

[-]

throwaway_uow@reddit

Damn right

Kids these days are spoiled just like americans were back then lol

[-]

randomhaus64@reddit

An interesting thing is that a lot of NES games ran at \~60hz (or 50 depending on where you were) then I think most SNES games were probably the same, but then you get to the race to be 3D and suddenly 30FPS and whatever it can crank out. SNES and NES games often had frame dips too.

[-]

AmIStillGingerIfBald@reddit

This was me and my brother, grinding through morrowind on the family computer meant for emails and paying bills, on a solid 20 fps. It was the fucking best and it was all we knew

[-]

BasedOnAir@reddit

lol kids born on silver spoons these days

[-]

clare416@reddit

It feels like many people just took up gaming in their 20s, 30s (most likely since the pandemic) where they already have own income so they started with decent hardware. Or youngsters who raised in middle income households, so that's why they feel anything under 60 FPS is literally unplayable

[-]

ThereAndFapAgain2@reddit

That's... not the saying.

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

no no he has a point.

[-]

greggm2000@reddit

Heh. I’ll skip the obvious joke and just say that it’s not the spoon. :)

[-]

JimmyGodoppolo@reddit

man gen z is soft

[-]

Le-Misanthrope@reddit

I'm actually in my 30's but yeah I've spoiled myself to 170hz 1440p, and 120hz 2160p. Both myself and my wife struggle at anything below 60hz, my wife won't even play at 30fps anymore. Mostly Nintendo games, we end up having to play with 60fps mods or skip the game entirely. I can't explain it. It feels nauseating, you literally "feel" the latency when playing.

[-]

BasedOnAir@reddit

Soft

[-]

Le-Misanthrope@reddit

Oh when it comes to my PC absolutely I'm "soft". I can get my 120hz at 4k on most titles. Why would I not want to play above 30fps. lol As a kid growing up on consoles I didn't notice at all. My brain now can't comprehend how I didn't get motion sick.

[-]

PiotrekDG@reddit

Yeah, Outside has much better blur effects even if motion feels less fluid.

[-]

BanditSixActual@reddit

I went outside once. The graphics were amazing, but the quests sucked.

[-]

S0ulSauce@reddit

The micro transactions are a bitch too.

[-]

Mesqo@reddit

But most of the gameplay is a walking simulator.

[-]

Avitas1027@reddit

You can get a decent bike to speed things up pretty easily, though the really good ones are priced as endgame items. There's also a bug where if you leave them somewhere for too long, they'll disappear.

[-]

Lognipo@reddit

Not a bug my friend, a feature. There are special quests you can do to get them back, but they can be hard and sometimes kinda dangerous.

[-]

BanditSixActual@reddit

And thanks to a recent rebalancing, fast travel has gotten really expensive.

[-]

PiotrekDG@reddit

Yeah, the grind is horrible. Poor design.

[-]

randomhaus64@reddit

Yeah man, it's so wild, human reaction time is like so slow, but our ability to perceive differences is so much higher. I'm a programmer, and I remember the first time I worked on a micro-controller with 10 ms response time.

I pushed the button and the light was on and I had heard a click. It was so fast and I was so unprepared for it to be so fast, I didn't actually notice the light had come on. My attention focused on it a little after I had pressed the button.

Not sure what the real-time situation is with Windows, lately, I think I can get into the 7-15 ms range with my audio interface. That can still throw off some musicians.

Apologies for anything wrong in what I've written here, it's been a little while since I did hard-real-time work and audio work.

[-]

2high4much@reddit

A couple years ago, I went from 240hz to a bad 60hz and I quit gaming for a year till I bought a new screen. 60hz is enough for single player, but I played rocket league and it wasn't remotely good enough. It also wasn't a preference thing, I just wasn't able to play. My skills were gone so I just took a break till I got a new screen lol

[-]

plumzki@reddit

It's over of the cases of you don't see it until you go back, I grew up on 60hz, it was fine, I went to 120, it was great, I went back to 60... It was basically a slideshow.

[-]

2high4much@reddit

That and the game I'm playing. While not being able to play rocket league with low frames, I could still play pokemon if I wanted to. It was a shit 60hz because of it being an old tv and not a monitor, much worse experience. It's also because I was the highest rank in rocket league and my muscle memory required the frames I'm used to.

My tolerance for low frame gaming was fine, but I mainly played rocket league and got depressed when I couldn't. So I just took a break from gaming till I could play again. I was playing several hours every day, waking up at 3am to play before work at 7 am and then rushing home to play all night lol a break ended up being good for me.

Aside from that, I won't touch a 30hz experience anymore. 60(ish) is my limit.

[-]

Dependent-Plant-9589@reddit

The most underrated comment.

[-]

guntanksinspace@reddit

My younger brother and I powered through TF2 at I think 640 x 480 on a potato emachines laptop. Everything cranked to low, at an unstable 24fps lol

That dude's gonna be fine (and the leap to getting a machine that can run games extremely well is gonna be very felt lol)

[-]

shitshow225@reddit

I remember playing AC Black Flag on integrated graphics when it came out. I remember playing it lower than 720p with black bars on the top and bottom of the screen at around 25fps

[-]

Shirokami_Lupus@reddit

yeah most my life gameing was spent on console Im perfectly happy with 30fps for most stuff, 60 fps is nice and I can notice the diff when a game goes from 60 to 30 but if its always 30 I don't mind at all

barely even noticed the drg fps drops in all the chaos and sometimes they even serve as an early warning, once my fps dropped under 20 and got tf outta there second or so later buncha shit spawns where I was standing (haz 5)

[-]

arrocknroll@reddit

I definitely much prefer 120 fps and above for anything that requires fast movement but frame consistency is just as much a factor so I get it. Even at high fps, if the frame buffer is bad, it takes me out of the game.

[-]

hey-gift-me-da-wae@reddit

Fr i have 150 hours of tf2 just on a shitty computer running 20fps.

But The other day my apex was getting below 130fps and I considered that unplayable for me and hopped off lmao. I'm so picky now that I can actually afford to be.

[-]

BigWhiteCloud42@reddit

If you’re still using that laptop and experiencing low fps in TF2, I recommend checking out Master Comfig, unless you already did. It should help to boost the performance and stability noticeably

[-]

guntanksinspace@reddit

Thanks! We've both upgraded well past that point (I had that laptop like, 2009-ish until 2013 or so) but yeah, appreciate the tip!

[-]

troublebotdave@reddit

I save a lot of money on my new builds only needing 30-50fps to game comfortably because that was blazing fast when I was at my peak gaming ability in the late 90s/early 00s.

[-]

semidegenerate@reddit

I'm 38, so it sounds like we grew up in the same era, but I gotta say, high FPS gaming at Ultra quality is really nice. I can't go back.

[-]

threehuman@reddit

If you haven't experienced better it's fine

[-]

KyeeLim@reddit

I used to play (modded) Minecraft in 6fps and I enjoyed it a lot, heck I even was able to play Don't Starve in 16 fps and kill a lot of boss without dying

[-]

johno12311@reddit

I've seen just as bad if not worse. As frustrating as potato pcs are, it is fun to experience it at least for a while.

[-]

Kaitaincps@reddit

I mean, Jesus, I used to play "Elite" at around 8-10fps. It was perfectly playable, although it did get very slow if there were more than around four ships onscreen.

[-]

TOTALOFZER0@reddit

I play Valheim at 7-10 fps, 15 in empty areas

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

you are young arent you?

[-]

Greatest-Comrade@reddit

I played BO and BO2 on a PS3 and a shit computer with insane ping so 30fps multiplayer gaming was my childhood.

So that commenter is not alone

[-]

Cheezewiz239@reddit

Cod was 60fps on console

[-]

HigginsBUTTS@reddit

Wasn't BO and BO2 multiplayer 60 fps on the ps3 and 360?

I believe it was only locked 30 for split-screen.

[-]

KevSykes5141@reddit

It was always 60fps. Cod multiplayer is known for that.

[-]

Sladds@reddit

I used to play World of Tanks at 5-10 fps when I was a young teenager. I didn't know it wasn't meant to be like that and just thought it was lag because I had bad countryside internet.

[-]

MemeTroubadour@reddit

I've done at least two full playthroughs of Terraria with 20fps or so, on my mother's old laptop when I was a kid. The truth is that even 'middle-grade' hardware is hard to justify as a purchase for most families, so people make do with weaker machines that they already have.

And it's still fun. I cherish those memories. Hell, still playing games regardless of framerate today. I've played FFXIV for three or four years now and I don't have a constant 60fps on it.

[-]

paulwolf20@reddit

Depends on how much will power You got, i used to play bf3 multiplayer ar 15fps in my GeForce gt430 and athlon II x2

[-]

captain-carrot@reddit

Christ I remember having tomb raider 3 on my home PC that could barely run it. No idea what the FPS was as I had no concept but looking back it was single figures as I remember the small pause before each frame updating. it must have been like 3-4 FPS.

Also the music wouldn't play properly. It just played the first 2 seconds over and over like a record that was stuck.

I still played that game and completed it, with the sound on.

[-]

ZenWheat@reddit

One frame every birthday or something?

[-]

Shirokami_Lupus@reddit

naww man shit got worse over time :,(

when I first started it was way smoother then again I started with vanilla and mainly played modded rp for the most part

I remember one admin with this big castle that caused me to lag like shit, it got attacked once and I went to help defend it (tho didn't get there in time) then I was accused of destroying part of it -_-

those admins were abusive af man, threatened to ban me when I asked him to move It (its moved several times and I wasn't the only one complaining bout lag from it) then moved it anyway

[-]

fuzzynyanko@reddit

I was a budget PC gamer playing Crysis on low-medium at 20-24 FPS and was okay with it.

[-]

SuperSathanas@reddit

Reminds me of playing the original Planetside on the family's budget Dell tower and a shitty internet connection. Outrageous ping, sometimes single digit frame rates. Good times.

[-]

SaltyDone@reddit

30 frames on deep rock galactic… how did the swarms feel when they happened

[-]

Shirokami_Lupus@reddit

mostly fine it rarely goes under 20 that's only happened once to memory and it saved my ass on haz 5

[-]

JamesGecko@reddit

Co-op games are fine at 30 fps. Not the best, but it’s not the huge disadvantage it is when you’re directly competing against someone running at 200 fps in Counterstrike or whatever.

[-]

Combini_chicken@reddit

My man. I played world of Warcraft at like 15-35fps for years!

[-]

flameofanor2142@reddit

Same, during 25 man raids I would always point my camera at the ground to keep my FPS up lol

[-]

spaghettimonzta@reddit

i completed gta v and watch dogs 1 under 20 fps with nvidia gt 210

[-]

SirArcherIV@reddit

I grew up playing minecraft at like 10-20fps most often, loved it. Never really cared about my frames when I was young, just cared about having fun.

[-]

TheMoui21@reddit

How did you head not hurt ? Rotating the camera at 10 fps seems like a nightmare for the eyes xD

[-]

ListRepresentative32@reddit

an average 12yo's eyes can handle a lot lol
i had it the same. in 2012, my only machine for gaming was a \~2002 IBM laptop with ATI graphics and windows xp that my father brought from work (they were getting rid of them)

i think after putting on optifine and putting everything to lowest as possible, i was able to achieve 15fps. even played the 1.2.5 tekkit on it lol

looking back at those times, they were some of the best gaming moments in my life. all my friends playing together, original CoD, stronghold crusader, age of empires, MOHAA.. and minecraft LAN parties

[-]

SkirMernet@reddit

Deep rock doesn’t require snap aiming and isn’t decided in milliseconds.

It’s a game that plays in minutes, or seconds at worse.

That’s why the TYPE of game makes a huge difference when it comes to OP’s question.

[-]

Cynyr36@reddit

I played vanilla wow at around those same fps, but more like 500 ping. Raiding was a blast. Everyone was so shit at it back then.

[-]

IndependentCoat4414@reddit

Bro I had such a shit laptop when I was younger. I used to play toontown, the Donald's dock area was completely black for me lmao, the water everything. Lil ole my still completed the area no fucking idea how because I could not/would not do it today.

[-]

Purpldiamond@reddit

I was there at one point in my life, if your content with that you must never play on high fps it’ll change you.

I used to play Minecraft when it released on a questionable 25-35 fps. Loved it. If I did that now I’d rather just read a book lol (and I have aphantasia)

[-]

SuselMaks@reddit

Been there brother, keep grinding. The upgrade is gonna feel like another world.

[-]

Mesqo@reddit

When we were playing DooM 2 over lan 30y ago we didn't give a shit about fps =)

[-]

fightingCookie0301@reddit

I feel unturned with 14fps so much. Loved the gameplay :D

[-]

kanakalis@reddit

i used to play minecraft at 30fps and 8 render distance lol. a gpu from 2010 and cpu from 2014

[-]

Brobuscus48@reddit

Ah, the ol Minecraft: Silent Hill edition! My family's old toshiba laptop from 2009 probably let out a puff of dust just from me even thinking about it haha.

[-]

Skurtarilio@reddit

yeah I also played 200 hours of DayZ with 13-16 fps when I didn't know better lolol

[-]

Tkky@reddit

same i played planetside 2 when it came out with 10fps if there is more then 1 explosion it dips to 1 freezes for 1 sec and jumps to 10 again

[-]

mighty1993@reddit

Also ran WoW Vanilla on an old rig with low FPS and horrible Internet problems and it was great. But at that time I was just a bad DPS and not very active in PvP. Deep Rock Galactic is also "just" coop so fine on low FPS. But usually I target 45+ FPS for single player games but on the Steam Deck I can go as low as 24 or even 15 FPS. In multiplayer I target 90 and in competitive games 120 or the maximum I can get. But I usually favor graphics quality once I reach 120.

[-]

Real_Garlic9999@reddit

Yeah, my Xbox One S struggles to play anything relatively recent at more than 30 fps

[-]

SjettepetJR@reddit

I used to think that 30+fps was good and 20+fps was 'acceptable'. Back then I mostly played Blacklight: Retribution.

I mostly play at 80-100fps currently and can still tolerate some occasional dips down to 40, thanks to FreeSync mostly. But I simply don't enjoy it when playing some stuttering console games. I played the 'new' Lego Star Wars recently on the PS4 and I was really just getting a headache.

[-]

camelzrider@reddit

Yeah, as a kid you barely feel it

[-]

Complete-Name-8820@reddit

Bruh my average on multiplayer FPS is like 20

[-]

collarbristle@reddit

110-120ish fps seems to the sweet spot for me. If it dips under 100 i can definitely feel it.

[-]

MustangRenegade@reddit

I'd agree with those numbers.

[-]

diemitchell@reddit

Thats because it dips Not because its under 100

[-]

XXLpeanuts@reddit

Na if it goes steady 90 I can tell and for MP shooters I really want 110-120 for real smooth gameplay. With gsync the dips don't matter much.

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

the change is noticiable. You wouldnt even realize 60 fps if it was stable.

[-]

619tmFALCON@reddit

I have a 60hz monitor and a 240hz one. The difference is so obvious that even people who are used to 60hz can tell just after a quick glance at the 240hz.

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

not after 5 minutes of playing. Of course anyone can say they are different in first glance.

[-]

619tmFALCON@reddit

You'd obviously be able to tell that the 240hz is way more smooth, but by your logic you wouldn't realize the 60hz monitor is worse. Even so, explain why I can clearly tell the difference even after using my 240hz monitor for 3 years.

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

whatever i am really lazy to explain it again, believe whatever you want, reality wont change.

[-]

BabyBuster70@reddit

Just copy and paste it then. I'm curious to see the logic that it isn't possible to notice a difference in framerate.

[-]

fps_corn@reddit

Delusional comment. "i don't notice the difference so that means you don't too!"

[-]

buildapc-ModTeam@reddit

Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our subreddit rules:

Rule 1 : Be respectful to others

Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.

^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)

[-]

thatissomeBS@reddit

60 to 120 is such a massive change, it's honestly laughable to argue it isn't. 60 is fine in a single player RPG or something, but if you're playing an online shooter at 60 you're going to not have a good time.

[-]

BabyBuster70@reddit

Unstable frame rates are definitely more noticeable, but you can absolutely tell the difference between stable 60 fps and stable 100 fps.

[-]

XXLpeanuts@reddit

The change yes, but implying the FPS isn't also noticable is just not at all the case. I can tell the huge input lag of 60fps compared with 120/144/240 etc.

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

It's hillarious anyone says PC and "competitive" in the same sentence.

EVERYONE playing at the same FPS and SAME hardware like on Consoles is ACTUALLY competitive.

MP games have shader, traversal, loading and ISO stutter, except if u play stuff like CoD where there's shader compiling and other optimizations. The BEST PC has a massive advantage especially when u aren't playing CoD.

[-]

Matt_Drexel_2019@reddit

Lmao this is one of the dumbest takes I've heard on reddit in a bit.

"ITS NOT COMPETITIVE UNLESS EVERYONE IS HANDICAPPED BY THE CONSOLE"

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

So its more competitive when everyone is on an unequal playing field.

Lmfao this is one of the dumbest things in history. Thanks for making me lose faith in humanity

[-]

Matt_Drexel_2019@reddit

Do race car drivers all drive the same car? Are runners all the same height and weight? Are football players all limited to running a certain speed? No. The differences is what makes it competitive on top of skill.

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

Lmao. You just pointed out why competitive sports inherently aren't competitive. So how do u know it was skill or the quadrillions of different factors that made u win or lose?

You have caveman level intelligence, sorry

[-]

buildapc-ModTeam@reddit

Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our subreddit rules:

Rule 1 : Be respectful to others

Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.

^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)

[-]

Blanken_the_Clucking@reddit

To some extent it makes perfect sense.

[-]

619tmFALCON@reddit

I mean, it does, but it's the same as making everyone jump on one leg instead of running just because some are taller than others.

[-]

fuckandstufff@reddit

Some people are hooking their console into a 24 inch 1080p 60 hz TV from 20 years ago while others are using 120hz lg oleds. There is variation amongst console players, too. Aren't you able to use M&K on Xbox in some games?

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

I have my PS5 and PC hooked up to a 240Hz QD OLED. You can use MK on some PS5 games too, like CoD, and there's a 120Hz more too, which is only available on newer panels with HDMi 2.1 and other tech.

Again, its 60 or 120 FPS for console gaming. There's a quadrillion LESS variations. You won't lose a fight cuz someone has a RTX 4090 which can reduce loading, shader, ISO/pipeline and traversal stutters by 20-90% compared to a RTX 4070

[-]

bigdumberlol@reddit

There's a quadrillion LESS variations.

The amount of variations don't matter. What matters who has the better hardware. So it's the same situation for consoles....

[-]

wyomingTFknott@reddit

You must really hate Formula 1 lol.

Anyway, as long as you're getting over 100fps you're getting like 95% of the competitive advantage that someone on a 240hz monitor with 300+fps has. And getting that kind of performance on most competitive games is really not that expensive to do. I don't really understand your desire to gimp everyone to 60fps or whatever. Spec Miata racing is really fun, but the equivalent in gaming is not.

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

The better the CPU and GPU, the less loading, shader, ISO/pipeline and traversal stutters.

Its BEYOND IRONIC u act like FPS is the only factor on PC, when thats only true for consoles (60hz vs 120+Hz screen).

ITS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE WHEN EVERYTHING IS UNCOMPETITIVE. LIKE FOR FUCKS SAKE HOW STUPID ARE U PPL?

[-]

fps_corn@reddit

The better the CPU and GPU, the less loading, shader, ISO/pipeline and traversal stutters.

Yes I'm sure that's very important for competitive RDR2 and Minecraft!

Its BEYOND IRONIC u act like FPS is the only factor on PC, when thats only true for consoles (60hz vs 120+Hz screen).

So consoles aren't affected by better internet? Better/custom controllers? Better headsets? Better screens?

ITS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE WHEN EVERYTHING IS UNCOMPETITIVE. LIKE FOR FUCKS SAKE HOW STUPID ARE U PPL?

Every sport in the world has some form of equipment advantage. How stupid are you...?

[-]

Venomous-A-Holes@reddit

LMAO are u seriously defending massive stuttering on PC. YES massive 3 second long stutters DO impact PC gaming. Oh god are u one of those ppl that deny PC stutter even exists? Don't worry Digital Foundry is was created to show how delusional ppl like u are with a comprehensive breakdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvQl7EDPRC4&t=6s

Yes 100 different variations on Console vs 10 trillion on PC inherently makes consoles more competitive. LMAO DO U REALIZE WHAT UR SAYING???

[-]

fps_corn@reddit

Oh no! Not stuttering in the famously competitive esport game Dead Space!!!

You've failed to give a single reason why variation makes something less competitive. There's tons of variation in sports you absolute dimwit.

[-]

buildapc-ModTeam@reddit

Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our subreddit rules:

Rule 1 : Be respectful to others

Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.

^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)

[-]

Ok-Kangaroo-7075@reddit

120 tbh but I like over 9000

[-]

poupulus@reddit

Those are rookie numbers

[-]

Ziginsh@reddit

You need to pump up those number, I myself get atleast 100000 fps twice a day!

[-]

CheesyChanLy@reddit

Nothing beat minecraft zooming in on low graphics for that over 9000 fps

[-]

Hrmerder@reddit

HEY, WHATS THAT SUPER LOUD SQUEALING SOUND?!

WHAT?!! OH!!! THAT'S MY COIL WHINE! THIS BABY GET'S 92802 FPS!!!!!

[-]

Hexagon37@reddit

Same, but that’s my minimum for any game.

I just can’t play at a choppy 60 anymore for the most part

[-]

taketheRedPill7@reddit

120fps all settings high. 1440p

[-]

shadowmaking@reddit

People talk about refresh rate when what they are really talking about is how the latency and frame time FEELS.

[-]

HoboBaggins008@reddit

cries ARMA 3 tears

[-]

SynthRogue@reddit

Get a 60 Hz monitor then.

[-]

Sir_Space_Naught@reddit

I shoot for 120/144 due to which monitor I am using. It’s a pretty good PC. 5800X3D and 4080. I could easily get 300+ FPS at 1080, but I play at 4k most of the time…..

[-]

thisisjazzymusic@reddit

Same here yeah. 90 already feels different

[-]

willard_swag@reddit

Same

[-]

xXxBluESkiTtlExXx@reddit

Minimum? Probably 8.

[-]

Fireryman@reddit

70 fps.

As long as it doesn't dip below 70 I am good to go. I can't tell the difference between 240 and 144. If I get 100 I'm happy but minimum 70. If I get close to 60 it's a bad time.

[-]

o0_bobbo_0o@reddit

I could easily play some like CS with 60fps it would just have to be consistent. Glad I get over 200 though.

[-]

DingleberryJones123@reddit

144 fps, though 110-120 is also fine assuming it’s consistent. I don’t personally notice frame issues in fast games until I’m around or under 100 frames. This obviously goes out the window if a game isn’t optimized well and has big FPS fluctuations from on screen effects or something.

[-]

rdtoh@reddit

60 is fine, 120+ is optimal

[-]

AmuseDeath@reddit (OP)

Congrats you are comment 777 🍀

[-]

DemocracySupport_@reddit

I've never understood the single player at 60 acceptance? If I'm playing anything it's got to be 120 minimum, especially single player games.

Play games like AC:O/ V or GOW 1/ 2 on 60 and then switch to 120 and you'll clearly see the difference in smoothness. Granted 60 fps on 60hz is still going to seem smooth but for example, any of the above games running at 4K@120+HDR on a 4K@120+HDR screen/ TV looks and feels crystal clear and smooth.

The huge misconception is wanting higher frames for multiplayer games. The whole frame wins games if you will.

I always aim for smooth crisp frames especially when moving or turning around fast on everything I play.

Most don't or want know till they've truly tried it and will defend the Jurassic 60 till they do.

[-]

koboldasylum@reddit

60 fps is like the bare minimum to be playable. 120+ would be nice, it would feel much more responsive and look another overall. Anything better than 120 is a bonus, but not necessary for enjoyment of the game.

[-]

BakerOfBread2@reddit

50-60 is the minimum for what I'd consider a quality experience, anything less and I start lowering graphic settings. 30 is the minimum for me to be able to enjoy most games though.

[-]

TieShot760@reddit

110 is my preferable minimum, but truth be told I'll still play decent on 60fps.

[-]

PStriker32@reddit

1080p at 60 fps is basically the standard. If you can get above those then more power to you, but for me that all I need.

[-]

MachoTurnip@reddit

60

[-]

tyzer24@reddit

Bare minimum.

[-]

Mrlion_@reddit

I have an xbox one s so 63fps is the highest I've ever been

[-]

cringemaster21p@reddit

30.

[-]

Largemandingo@reddit

60 and up. Ideally around 100

[-]

GovernmentThis4895@reddit

100

[-]

MrDrSirLord@reddit

Well this timing is perfect.

Been playing 144hz at 1440p on my new build for a few months now, 7900xtx build doesn't bat an eye at anything I play.

Just been putting together a build I'm throwing together out of second hand parts from a couple dismantled builds. Still a 4070 rtx so it's not outdated by any means, but it couldn't stay locked solid at 144hz so I lowered it to 100hz at 1440p.

Those 44hz make a marginal difference to me now, I don't think I can go back on refresh rate, even with the same monitor and mouse dpi, everything just felt awful and uncanny, aiming felt off somehow, and particle effects looked sloppy despite still being 1440p.

I'd rather go back to 1080p than I would lose any frames lol.

[-]

Aresgalent@reddit

You should be maxing out the framrate to hit the refresh rate. Lower grapgic settings as needed

[-]

Spartan05089234@reddit

I thought the answer was 60 until I found out how many games I played growing up were 30 fps.

So, 30.maybe 45? I swear if there's a difference between 100 and 200 it's imperceptible.

[-]

turkishhousefan@reddit

Kids these days don't know.

[-]

bigtoaster64@reddit

About 60 fps for me. For singleplayer games, I can go as low as 30-35 fps, since it's about at that rate that the "visual lag" starts bothering me. If it's a multiplayer FPS game, then I'm fine with 60 (nothing less though) but I'll prefer having the fps at monitor refresh rate, which 144 for me since in most games the delay is very noticeable.

[-]

Sea-Concentrate9379@reddit

So that way I can blame the framerate and not my dogshit fps skills.

[-]

Bliasun01@reddit

60 is fine

[-]

Jaysonmcleod@reddit

I’m not even convinced I can tell the difference between 60 and 120. No way I could tell the difference between 240 and 120.

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Yeah, if you are actually asking the lowest I would tolerate, it's 60. 60 works and is fine.

[-]

vladimirepooptin@reddit

yeah true but it’s like if i was getting 60 i would absolutely turn down settings until I was above that. Only way in playing 60 is if it’s the absolute only way I can run the game.

[-]

nekoboi91@reddit

Yeah 15 I tolerate

[-]

Laverneaki@reddit

I’ve tolerated an inconsistent 45-50 for so long and it’s genuinely enough to make a game displeasuring. I now get a consistent 80-90 and it’s pretty much perfect. More would be better but I’m comfortable for the time being.

[-]

knightfall666@reddit

Other than cs go I do not mind 55 fps and higher as long as its stable

[-]

Disastrous-Can988@reddit

120fps in the minimum id do in any game. I may accept 60 in games like hearthstone or balatro as there's not a ton of animations.

[-]

Iron-Viking@reddit

30 because I think that's what bloodborne had. I've genuinely not noticed the difference between 30, 60, 120. I've got nearly 3k hours in R6 Siege, spent the first 2k hours on the standard 60fos, upgraded my system and monitor and was sitting at 120, and just couldn't notice the difference, same with Bloodbornes locked 30fps and Elden Rings 60fps, I didn't notice.

In saying that, I am a very casual gamer, now I'd be lucky to get in a couple hours a week to play, so fps is far from the biggest issue I have and I'm generally just happy I've managed to get time to play.

[-]

Z0l4c3@reddit

200fps ish 0.1% lows

[-]

penatbater@reddit

FPS isn't the issue. The issue is latency.

[-]

Galatziato@reddit

Whats the trick to reduce latency?

[-]

Aggressive-Leg-@reddit

Lower ping, faster gpu and higher fps/refresh rate

[-]

winterkoalefant@reddit

get a good gaming mouse
get a low response-time high refresh-rate monitor
get higher frame rates (lower graphics settings, upgrade CPU, GPU, RAM)
turn off background apps
use ‘high performance’ power profile in Windows
set Nvidia Reflex to “On + Boost”
overclock your CPU, GPU, and RAM (but not too much)

[-]

Fabulous_Poetry_6506@reddit

you should get your process count to around <80

[-]

The0ld0ne@reddit

Do you have a link to support this?

[-]

Fabulous_Poetry_6506@reddit

go do your research theres tons of videos on how and why to reduce process count to reduce delay

[-]

vladimirepooptin@reddit

‘do your research’ aka ‘im speaking bs and can’t back it up’

[-]

Armbrust11@reddit

Turn on Radeon anti-lag

FTFY

[-]

masterfultechgeek@reddit

Have a faster monitor.

High refresh rate OLEDs are basically the biggest latency buster out there.

[-]

HealsRealBadMan@reddit

Ethernet cable, plug it into router and turn off wifi on the computer

[-]

elpadreHC@reddit

there arent many. its often your ISP. if you have subpar ping, a VPN can help, but that would be an extreme example.

MOST modern ISP connections are good enough that trying to "improve" anthing wont do jackshit. you can complain to your ISP that your connection to XYZ datacenter packetlosess (use pingplotter to figure that out), but the chances they fix it are slim.

and ofc the obvious ones like dont watch streams / youtube on the 2nd monitor. thats just something you can easily check in a few seconds if its affecting you ingame.

[-]

MXXIV666@reddit

How could VPN possibly help?

[-]

pepenomics@reddit

Better routing. It's rare but it can help sometimes. Usually it's better to just get another ISP or look for servers that are closer.

[-]

MXXIV666@reddit

How can VPN control the routing? I was under the impression that VPN connects you to the VPN server and relays some or all traffic through that channel. ISPs and internet cable companies still control the same relays your data goes through.

[-]

pepenomics@reddit

I'll tell you via personal experience, maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in with the nitty gritties.

When playing games with my mobile data (hotspot) I would get a ping of about 140. When using a VPN it would bring it down to 120 ish. For reference on ethernet with another ISP the ping is around 80-90. This is when using European servers while being in Asia.

So you see when the routing was exceptionally bad, it got a bit better but not the best possible. It's like it's less worse than before but not optimal.

[-]

MXXIV666@reddit

Not sure when in asia, but have you considered other explanations? Such as ISP or something along the way doing some packet analysis that stops working when the data goes through VPN channel? Or the performance gained from UDP over TCP over longer distances?

[-]

wyomingTFknott@reddit

I just realized I've never actually connected to a local VPN server before lol. It's always Canada for... reasons or tunneling into something across the country for work.

I have noticed some wonky things like that when speedtesting, though. Sometimes a server a couple hundred miles away will be faster than one right next to you. Just depends on the routing.

[-]

Voice_of_light_@reddit

To add one thing, don't play o WiFi.

[-]

penatbater@reddit

Get a diff ISP. Or a VPN, but even a VPN has limitations. As an example, when I play FFXIV, I connect to Japan servers and usually get a ping of around 100-150 (as indicated by a 3rd party mod). When I used to raid, I'd use Mudfish (VPN) and that will get my ping down to 50-60. However, there are also instances from other friends who say it didn't really help a lot. So a VPN to reduce latency is very much a YMMV.

[-]

Radiant-Age1151@reddit

In valorant (it‘s basically csgo if you don’t know it) it is a strategy to have a little higher ping. The advantage is, that when a defender is standing still and you peak him, you see him before he sees you. Technically you just see where he stood some hundred ms ago, but if he was standing still you can still shoot at that location and get the kill. If you find a balance at about 70ms there isn’t even a need for the enemy to stand still and you get just a tiny time advantage as long as you don’t play defender (you could also try to be peaking instead of holding as a defender)

[-]

MTDninja@reddit

so playing at 30fps with 0.001ms of latency would be a better experience than 240fps at 1ms?

[-]

penatbater@reddit

Better to play 30fps at 30ms than 240fps at 240ms.

[-]

MTDninja@reddit

yeah? but my point is response times are down so low with modern monitors it's pretty much a non-factor in the majority of cases

[-]

penatbater@reddit

I'm talking about ping. The time it takes between when you press a button and a server somewhere in the world registers it. Not the latency of a monitor.

[-]

ToolBagMcgubbins@reddit

The higher the FPS, the lower the latency between frames.

[-]

BreadfruitExciting39@reddit

While this is technically true, it's almost completely useless as an argument above ~40-ish fps. Average human reaction time is about .025 seconds. At 40fps, the screen image is refreshing every .025 seconds. So once you get to 60fps, the latency between frames is already well below any humans ability to respond to what is showing in each frame. But it absolutely looks better and feels smoother as fps goes up, I'm not arguing that.

Whereas if you have excessively high network latency, it wouldn't matter if you're running at 70000 fps.

[-]

ToolBagMcgubbins@reddit

Not disagreeing that network latency is a factor if your playing online, my statement didn't have anything to do with that.

[-]

Crescent-IV@reddit

FPS is still important, and a factor in latency even

[-]

A_Monkey_FFBE@reddit

Mostly a skill issue rather than an FPS issue

[-]

MQA_@reddit

TIL there can only be one issue, and that 20fps with 5ms ping is fine.

[-]

justanothersideacc@reddit

And random frame drops

[-]

MXXIV666@reddit

Well. With 30 FPS it takes 33ms to create a frame, much more than typical network latency which tends to be about 20ms within reasonable distance (or about 10-20 times the theoretical maximum). Obviously, if you play on a server on a different continent, that's a different story.

For example, I play Hunt Showdown at 30 FPS. The latency to the server is around 17. So it takes less time to send a request and receive a response than to generate a single frame.

[-]

Sibbo121@reddit

Facts

[-]

AtomicSub69@reddit

30fps.

[-]

Fireawayfaraway@reddit

60fps

[-]

jako5937@reddit

Tolerate to play effectively? About 50.

[-]

OriginalJomothy@reddit

Your eyes see roughly between 30 and 60 fps and I believe that 72 is the maximum that we can discern any difference in flickering etc.

Most movies are at 24 fps so this would be my minimum for single player and then if I can get 60 for multilayer games then that would be my ideal for that. I wouldn't be seeking to go higher than like 120 because it's just redundant unless it doesn't cost me any more

[-]

Dear_Tiger_623@reddit

High number better, 60 fine

[-]

Electronic-Tea-4191@reddit

Depends if it's a PVE or PVP game.

[-]

IndividualNovel4482@reddit

30 minimum. People who can only play at 60 or above and that say 30 is objectively bad.. are wrong.

But they can't do anything about it, they got used to higher frames, their fault in the end.

[-]

oliver957@reddit

120fps, even in story games i try to lower the settings a bit to hit about 120fps. 120fps with medium settings>60 fps with the highest settings

[-]

StorageOk6476@reddit

Don't tell newbies this because DLSS FSR and whateverthefuck is instilled in their head as a must for gaming. Not bad features, but turning down settings can increase performance dramatically regardless of whether a game has a framegen box to tick

[-]

oliver957@reddit

Frame generation yeah, it doesn't feel like true 120hz more like 70-80fps responsiveness and looking like 100fps

For regular upscaling it's just free fps in games, basically like msaa if it gave you a fps boost. (In games where it's actually implemented good)

Quality upscaling look the same as native if not better on the current gen gpu

[-]

StorageOk6476@reddit

DLSS Quality is better than native at higher res while FSR Quality retains most image quality at higher res. Good if your hardware can hold at least 60fps at 4k with either.

Framegen is also nice for what it's worth, yet the implementation can differ from game to game.

Really I think both being the forefront of what people want from a GPU is overblown. Using framegen as a metric would probably push more users toward a 4060 Ti 16gb which I think handles itself nicely due to its vram capacity.

[-]

SkirMernet@reddit

Yeah, but for the vast majority of games you play, 120fps is far from necessary.

Shit I played botw on a switch at 30 fps and it was almost entirely fine.

The issue is that you should not run your machine at the max settings that give you an acceptable fps, but at the max settings that gives you a stable fps.

Sometimes that requires frame limiting, sometimes dlss, and sometimes it requires lowering textures and planning your next build.

[-]

StorageOk6476@reddit

Agreed. RTSS does miracles for frametime as well since it essentially helps ypu lock your fps if ypu're guaranteed to hold it. I play most newer games such as Alan Wake 2 and Blackmyth Wukong on 1440p med-low with max textures with a locked 60fps - completely smooth except for the UE5 stutters we all know and love. This is on a 7800X3D and 6800. Heck,even the i5-12400 I had with this GPU could max it out if I wanted it to.

[-]

noodlesvonsoup@reddit

It depends on the game. For some games, 60fps is the sweet spot. For other games, 120fps is the sweet spot.

[-]

ItsMrDante@reddit

Tolerable? 60fps is fine, I would tolerate it, but like if I wanna actually enjoy myself it'd be at least 90, close to 100.

[-]

Physical-Sir-1261@reddit

Anything over your monitors refresh rate is just a waste of energy! Only if it is 60-120hz I would consider capping fps over refresh rate. 120 is enough! If you think it is not enough, just get a faster monitor!

[-]

Precorus@reddit

60. I still remember 12 yo me playing WoT at 24 fps. I gained at least 4-5 FPS when I removed the bushes :D

[-]

iThradeX@reddit

MINIMUM? 60. Preferred? 120

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

Competitive games: at least 120 fps. Multiplayer but not competitive games: at least 80-100. For me 60 fps is not enough. At 60 usually I see the 1% lows as micro stutters.

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Anything beyond 140 fps is a waste of resources

For new games, sure. But I'm playing Subnautica right now and it's the first game my GPU could run at 240fps and my god, the smoothness is unbelievable. It's certainly diminishing returns after 120, but it IS noticeable.

[-]

CXDFlames@reddit

Do you have a monitor with 240hz?

If the answer is no, the returns aren't diminishing they're non existent.

But you are correct, the difference between 240 and 120 fps is much less.

At 60fps it takes 17ms per frame to be drawn. 120 drops to 8, and 240 takes 4.

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

I do have a 240hz monitor. And while yes, a 4ms decrease is less than 9, both are roughly a 50% decrease, and it certainly is noticeable if you are playing a game with a mouse. Is it necessary? Absolute not. Is it even good? Arguable. It makes it feel like your screen is almost constantly shaking because you are seeing every single tiny mouse movement, and I could easily see it increasing the chance of motion sickness. But I personally do like it if I don't have to sacrifice too much.

[-]

Radiant-Age1151@reddit

Try Valorant. You always have infinite fps there as long as you have a cpu from this century. Sadly my Monitor has only 165 Hz max but if you have more potential I‘d try it for the experience

[-]

FarmersOnlyJim@reddit

400-500 fps in War Thunder was nice but pointless. Limited to 165 now.

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

Subnautica, my favorite game! :)

[-]

LordGramis@reddit

You should try outer wilds! (Very different style but while loving subnautica I also loved that game for some reason)

[-]

BasonPiano@reddit

Loved it in VR

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Me too. My first playthrough hit a game breaking bug more than halfway through. Now I'm replaying it years later and it isn't nearly as suspenseful when you more or less know what's out there, but I didn't get to the later parts of the game, so now I will experience that.

[-]

One-Project7347@reddit

Yeah, the suspense is alot less when you experienced it beforz. Fuck those noises the first time you are playing haha :p i did want to play it with a headset for immersion.

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

I already know everything about the game and I still play it. The first one, not Below Zero. I love its concept and those beautiful biomes. I am afraid that they will make a bad Subnautica 2. They do not allow feedback from the community, unlike with 1. And that is a bad sign. I hope I am wrong.

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Yeah I haven't played Below Zero, and I guess that's a sign. Everything I heard about it says it isn't as good.

[-]

Glandus73@reddit

In racing games it is also really fucking amazing to have high fps

[-]

traumatic_blumpkin@reddit

Never got around to Subnautica... Been interested in a survival crafting game but don't know much about it and don't want to spoil myself.. Worth giving it a shot?

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Oh yeah. It's probably the best survival/crafting game. I'm kind of over the whole genre, but going back to Subnautica is just so satisfying. You never have to do tedious upkeep stuff, it's mostly exploration and just enough crafting to feel progress, and the base building is pretty much optional. It's just cool as hell and it does actually help you a lot.

[-]

traumatic_blumpkin@reddit

Awesome.. Thanks.. I need something between finishing Tsushima and banging my head against Destiny for hours..

[-]

K3TtLek0Rn@reddit

I agree. I turn down settings on competitive games until I’m over 120 and I try to get as close to 240 as possible. For single player games I’m cool with it around 100

[-]

kw1k2345@reddit

Anything beyond 140 fps is a waste of resources

General statement which is not true for shooters CSGO, Valorant at all

Why do people make these bold claims and look stupid

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

Ok. Play your valorant at 200 fps and call me stupid. I am sure it will make all the difference.

[-]

MTDninja@reddit

as someone who plays overwatch and scrims with tier 3/4 teams (tier 1/2 are pro teams), the difference between a sniper stuck at 140fps and a sniper playing at 300fps can ABSOLUTELY make the difference between whether your team wins a team fight or not. Sure, this doesn't apply to most gamers, but people who are at the higher end of competitive fps games will definitely recognize the fps gap

[-]

kw1k2345@reddit

It was not me who made that general claim which is absurd for shooters

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

say sorry maybe...

[-]

jwallis7@reddit

Agree however the difference between 140 and 240 is huge

[-]

Camtown501@reddit

For FPS games it's great, but doesn't matter much for anything else.

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

I never had a pc that can play games at maxed graphical details a+ ray tracing on that fps. And I have a rtx 3080. When I will be able to max out all settings with ray tracing and path tracing and I will have 240 fps, then I will buy a 240 hz screen. :) Let's hope it will be one day.

[-]

TransientBandit@reddit

Just built my first PC with a 4090 (I’m not rich; just saved for a long time to buy top notch parts) coming from a ps5, and if you can stomach the cost and are passionate about visual fidelity and beauty, it’s worth it. The first time I moved my mouse on a 240hz screen, it actually caught me off guard with how incredible it looked. My jaw literally dropped. My fiancée was sitting in the room and said she couldn’t stop smiling because of how happy it made me. Playing games completely maxed at 240 fps is just an insane experience coming from console. Now, obviously not everyone (probably not even most people) is going to react that way, or care that much about visuals to that degree. But if you are that type, it is 100% worth it.

[-]

Armbrust11@reddit

I felt that way when I first got an 8k TV, the detail is just incredible! I'm not rich either and my GPU doesn't support 8k (& 4k only on older games).

But looking at 33+ megapixel photos and screenshots is incredible (using a flash drive to view the files directly on the TV). I can't wait for the next generation GPUs to release so I can upgrade.

⚠️ GPU rant ⚠️: I'm just annoyed that the mainstream continues to promote 1440p which should have been obsolete in 2020. Native 8k rendering won't be possible with enthusiast cards until 4k is the target for mainstream cards.

In my opinion native 8k is better than RTX ON + DLSS. So I'm annoyed that everyone has dunked on AMD for improving raster performance instead of chasing after Nvidia's gimmicks.

Eventually Ray tracing will be a worthwhile tech, but let's nail 8k60 first.

[-]

jwallis7@reddit

Most people play games on 24-27 inch monitors hence why 1440p is the standard for resolution and the reality is that gpu’s can only progress so fast, it’s better to target a reasonable resolution with good fidelity than 4k without rt etc. nvidias mid range cards (4070 and up) are perfectly capable cards for 4k 120fps with dlss quality.

Also, ray tracing is game dependent as some games look brilliant with ray tracing when it uses global illumination with a lot of bounces however some games look overly dark because of very few bounces or they just use ray traced reflections. Saying that native 8k is better than dlss is just stating the obvious since dlss is an upscaling tool designed to increase performance, the reason nvidia mention it along with RTX is to show that dlss gives you back the frames that you lose from raytracing

[-]

Armbrust11@reddit

DLSS is just lowering the image quality for performance, but psychologically tricking people into thinking the quality is max because all their settings say ON and ULTRA.

I had my monitor mounted on an articulating arm clamped 🗜️ to my desk - it was 1080p and 23", and the pixels were HUGE. I can't imagine even 1440p being adequate at that size unless the monitor was pushed all the way back. Like enough room for a pizza 🍕 box between the monitor and the keyboard.

[-]

jwallis7@reddit

For multiplayer games you don’t need fidelity though, just smoothness because of the pace. Path tracing and 240fps are unlikely to be needed or wanted in the same scenario since nobody uses ray tracing for online games. Personally on multiplayer games, I’m not paying attention to how good the trees like or lighting looks I’m just trying to win.

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

ofc ofc, absolutely normal. Some people play counter strike on 720p and 800fps :)))

[-]

jwallis7@reddit

Not sure 800fps is possible given cpu limitations. Personally I just aim for 1440p 240fps medium settings

[-]

Recogniz3Wealth@reddit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GneP6MuVOk

[-]

jwallis7@reddit

It stutters massively though, you need a consistent fps for online

[-]

Psilogamide@reddit

60 fps looks okay until you move the camera and it feels like your eyes will come out of their socket. Of course, if you are used to 140+

[-]

drkshock@reddit

You only need the 120 FPS for Counter-Strike and de valorant. Did you find something like lol.or DOTA 60 FPS is fine. Of course you got to make sure that you have a strong CPU because all that stuff happening on screen all at once can kill your frame rate if you don't have a good CPU

[-]

vBucco@reddit

I feel the same way. I do not give a fuck about anything beyond 144. Anything after that I’m cranking up graphical settings. I’m perfectly content with 144. I’ve seen 240 and the difference isn’t enough to sacrifice graphical settings to me

[-]

datfatbloke@reddit

I aim for a steady 120 in most games.

[-]

Petitecrivainzombie@reddit

When I was younger 60fps was enough, but since I get a 144hz screen , 144fps is the new minimum I tolerate

[-]

Quality_wood92@reddit

What somebody will “tolerate “ and what is realistic is two different things people say “ arrrrghhhh I can’t play at less than 200+ fps “ when in reality it makes no difference if it’s 120 or 300 . Your brain can’t compute the difference

[-]

ragcloud@reddit

75, that's the max hz of my monitor, more that that in my case is totally pointless although I have vsync off and most run at 200+ fps on highest settings

[-]

clare416@reddit

60 FPS. I could go lower 50++ too

[-]

timewarpdino@reddit

Competitive - 120fps

Co op - 60fps or 30fps depending on what the game wants me to be doing.

[-]

Large999@reddit

Anything under 100 is a no go for me.

[-]

Soz_rust@reddit

240hz @ 240fps cap is bliss

[-]

Ziginsh@reddit

Atleast 165 fps for me!

[-]

aaron_dresden@reddit

Well when my average latency is 120ms in multiplayer games I suppose I tolerate about 8-10 fps at a minimum with filler frames that tries to smooth it out.

[-]

Tapelessbus2122@reddit

Mine is 120, but i prefer 240

[-]

deathgun921@reddit

Anything over 30FPS am happy tbh

[-]

iCore102@reddit

90 -120 fps is the sweet spot for me. I have a 165hz monitor, so in games that aren’t competitive or fast paced, I usually limit frame rate to 90fps keeps it running cooler and quieter.

[-]

EdThePurple@reddit

75

[-]

Jolly_Lab_1553@reddit

Min would be 60 too, if your a true homie I'd push it to 30, if I don't like you I'd say 144

[-]

BadXamplle@reddit

140 is the VERY least i would play on any comp FPS, 240 being best case scenario for my monitor.

[-]

PapaFlexing@reddit

26

[-]

lilbitcynical@reddit

For FPS games I'd say 120 is ideal but if you're asking what's the least I can accept is EXTREMELY STABLE 45 or 60 the keywords are EXTREMELY STABLE xd if it dips noticeably then probably no thank you For any other games I'll take 30 as the least I'm able to tolerate

[-]

Negative-Natural5075@reddit

Upgrading my pc back in the day( 3years ago) was like night and day, i went from like averaging 45 ish something fps to like 450 fps on valorant , it was life changing lol. Accidentally turned vsync on a 60 hz monitor and it hurt my eyes, 144 atleast is the minimum I feel if your building a pc for it, tho definitely would recommend over like 300 on games like valorant and cs or something if you kind of want to turn on higher resolution or sumn ( preference tbf if you can get above 144fps on it imo ).

[-]

Poplo21@reddit

My max low 120 my low low 60

[-]

V_Melain@reddit

I've only a 60hz monitor so yeah, 60 fps

[-]

No_Device_6605@reddit

150 fps

[-]

RuinVIXI@reddit

60 bare minimum. My minimum is 80. Ideal range is 100-120. Id be a happy camper with higher.

[-]

biovllun@reddit

9000

[-]

Dweamsy@reddit

150 ish but anything under 200 feels noticeably worse, above that its very minor imo

[-]

inebriateddandhated@reddit

40fps personally.

Skill wise, i can overcome the slightly terrible game play due to being a better player.

Under 40fps and the nerf overcomes any pro.

[-]

KmsCS2@reddit

120

[-]

fuzzynyanko@reddit

If it's a few games, 45+ FPS is good enough for me. I don't have the cash to get a faster GPU right now

[-]

Ok-Replacement-2738@reddit

Used to play arma 2 at 15fps, now generally 60 with 40s low if it's something I'm interested in. for a good experience 90s+

[-]

SeesawBrilliant8383@reddit

You would want double the refresh rate of your monitor to get the fastest input response time from your keyboard and mouse.

[-]

DirtyWrencher@reddit

30

[-]

LostRonin@reddit

There's nothing wrong with singleplayer being 30fps. Most singleplayer games in existence were intended to be played at 30fps. It's only a recent trend that many people want 60fps or nothing. Those same people are willing to play with dogshit graphics to achieve 60fps if they must.

Multiplayer should be at least 60fps. Nothing else matters. You can feel the difference at 120fps. You can't even see one hundred twenty frames in a single second. I don't care if you're not blinking and time feels dilated because you're on shrooms. You can't see it.

[-]

Zealousideal_Key2169@reddit

100 for competitive

[-]

Ok_Claim9284@reddit

you tolerate whatever your current fps is because if you had money you would be hitting 500hz

[-]

Epic_Allay@reddit

I play minecraft, forza, roblox that kinda thing

for Minecraft, I need at least 100 fps, but often up to 180 if I'm playing minigames like hypixel. I can make do with 80ish for survival and stuff.

[-]

ALLERGIC_TO_SAND@reddit

Steady 125, 250 or 333.

[-]

Mrcod1997@reddit

I generally try to stay above 90fps. If I can get closer to 200 then that is better.

[-]

Western_Meaning4771@reddit

I play valorant and for me 144 is a must as my screen only has 144hz refresh rate but my pc is capable of 400hz

[-]

coingun@reddit

Nothing lower than the refresh rate of your monitor.

[-]

CatArmy2@reddit

60 is the minimum. Having 120 is the nice spot for me as that’s the max I can get with good graphics and doesn’t exceed my monitor. For the longest time I didn’t adjust my hz so I was stuck at 60hz. 120 is a huge improvement.

[-]

mookieme03@reddit

60 is where I try to get to 40 is what I'd find acceptable but for single player or slower or not based on reaction time it can go lower

[-]

Project-Evolution@reddit

I typically shoot for a minimum of 100fps. 1440p 144hz monitor here and a 3070FE. I never run low graphics to max out the 144hz

[-]

Throwaway147194@reddit

120 fps

[-]

Lerzycats@reddit

60 or higher is fine.

[-]

Extreme_Mistake_8375@reddit

22 fps I used to game on a igpu that made the Intel HD 3000 look like a 4090

[-]

MoloPowah@reddit

120 minimum.

[-]

Akita51@reddit

60 and up is fine

[-]

DRMProd@reddit

60 is good enough, you snobs

[-]

MTDninja@reddit

*for you

[-]

MX64@reddit

Yeah I've used a 165hz monitor for years and I can still barely tell the difference whether a game is locked at 60 or not.

[-]

tryingnottoshit@reddit

I just upgraded to a 165hz monitor and a 4080s... I'm almost 40 and can't tell much of a difference with it over 60 hz. I suspect it's me, everyone else can't be wrong lol.

[-]

shadowmaking@reddit

I prefer a steady 100hz over an inconsistent 144hz.

[-]

Murky_Structure_7208@reddit

I'm up to 144 now and still can't tolerate multiplayer games...

[-]

TheShambhalaman@reddit

120 for fps. 60 for RPGs that have multiplayer elements and most other games. 45ish is bottom barrel for single player for me.

[-]

mr_muffinhead@reddit

Depend what year it is.

[-]

imAldric@reddit

It used to be 60 for me but my laptops old now so im trying to get used to 30😅

[-]

SickOfAllUrShite@reddit

120 minimum

[-]

TheRealGarbanzo@reddit

I'd say a minimum of 80fps for me. Idk if it's because I get low 1%s or what but I can for sure feel the difference between 60 and 80 and 80 is way smoother for me

[-]

Penrosian@reddit

60 is fine. If you want high quality 144 is the minimum, but 240+ is reccomended. However, you generally would want to have vsync off, in which case you just want a 1080p super low latency monitor for max fps and minimum input lag.

[-]

Crazyface_Murderguts@reddit

Shit I'd go as low as 30 if it's consistent

[-]

danyo41@reddit

I grew up on console, so technically 60, but after moving to a 165Hz and then 240Hz monitor it's really hard to go back. I'd say like the 100-120 range would be "good enough"

[-]

Underhill42@reddit

A stable 24fps is good enough to fool your brain into seeing seamless motion - that's all you'll get at the movie theater. But it'll be obvious if it fluctuates in either direction.

Above that... you may get a feeling of increased smoothness, and reduced rendering lag for faster responses if you're playing something twitch-heavy, but that's about it. The biggest benefit of faster speeds is that frame-skipping when your video card gets overloaded during particularly intense situations is less noticeable, since without a screen that supports highly variable adaptive refresh rates you can only slow down to integer multiples of the hardware refresh rate. V-synced (no tearing) rendering on a 60fps monitor means that if your video card can only render 59fps, your actual framerate has to drop to 30 fps (60/2). While the same computer connected to a 120Hz monitor it only has to slow down to 40fps (120/3), and on a 200fps monitor to 50fps (200/4).

As for lag: at 60fps you've got \~17ms/frame - so that's the maximum delay between when a frame is ready to be displayed, and actually gets displayed. (2x that if you use double-buffering to smooth out single-frame stutters). 200fps drops that to 5ms. Though usually you'll only lose a small fraction of the max since most the time is used to actually rendering the frame.

But to put that in perspective you've got an unavoidable 100ms of lag just for a nerve signal to get from your brain to your hand, plus some more for the image reaching your eyes to be processed and a reaction decided on... so a few ms more or less on the visual input side isn't going to make a huge difference to your response times. And if you're not using low-lag gaming hardware, that can easily add many (tens of) ms to the total lag time as well.

[-]

OvechkinCrosby@reddit

Mu 1st 5 seasons of Apex Legends. I played on a Core2duo q6600 and a 1gb gtx 750. 19 fps on the drop ship and a steady 30fps on the ground. Loved every minute.

That being said my first time playing with a gaming PC was amazing and I didn’t realize how beautiful the game actually was because 1 gb ddr3 VRAM didn’t allow any real textures in the game

[-]

Berufius@reddit

I like low fps, so I can blame my failures on the frame rate 😅

[-]

GradatimRecovery@reddit

30 fps is the gold standard of my time

[-]

SynthRogue@reddit

Multiplayer games suck but I'd tolerate 30 fps as the minimum in any game if I have to. But I'd prefer 60 or more.

[-]

outhero01@reddit

regular games 100+, competitive fps 240+

[-]

bubblesort33@reddit

70fps would be fine with me, but it depends on the game. I mean I'd play Street Fighter at 60fps.

[-]

helldive_lifter@reddit

Console gamer all my life so 60 was fine now on pc I’d say 60 minimum for single player games and anything over that for multiplayer

[-]

vladimirepooptin@reddit

competitive shooter like 110 but tbh i am on a 60hz monitor so it doesn’t make too much difference, though 60 does feel worse. Hoping to upgrade soon tho

[-]

KaguraaN@reddit

60 is the lowest I would tolerate.

[-]

PheromoneQueen@reddit

I cap almost all games at 60fps. eSports I'll bump that into the hundreds but the ones I play aren't graphically intensive. It's not that I don't notice a difference, Its a difference legitimately don't care about. If a game constantly dips to 55 frames it's annoying though.

[-]

Neraxis@reddit

60 for casual play.

[-]

pixel-sprite@reddit

60fps. I grew up playing 30fps. But 60fps is buttery smooth to my eyes.

[-]

icebear518@reddit

I mean 60 is fine with me hell even 40ish i don't really mind.

[-]

ButterCup955@reddit

240hz

[-]

MrPapis@reddit

70-80 for slower singleplayer/casual games, with frame gen its pretty great.
for shooters 120 ish and above seems to hit diminishing returns, though i do prioritze 175hz max refresh and do also feel a difference.

About what is good enough? I feel as though 60 is just a bit too low for me id like to get 75, for me there is a subtle but important difference between 60 and 75.

But for now most games i play high-ultra with 175 either native or with FG so we will see what happens in the future when i really have to sacrifice visuals to get the frames.

[-]

KirillNek0@reddit

60 or 40 VRR

[-]

RealUnderstanding684@reddit

I'm weird, I can do 30 fps and not notice any difference°-°

[-]

tucketnucket@reddit

I'm not skilled enough for fps to make a difference in my performance. I just really dislike the look of low fps. As long as whatever game I'm playing can reach 90 fps with even frame pacing, I'm happy

[-]

rollingindough21@reddit

Depends on the game, but I'd tolerate 45. The good ole days of ye old shitty laptop

[-]

NzProWithMeNz@reddit

mine is 20-30 because I have 1500 hours on PS4 version of GTA online so I can play with any frame rate 💀

[-]

GladMathematician9@reddit

120 though 144-165 feels more comfortable capping at 200 is perfect. 60 feels too slow for those games.

[-]

Calm_Psychology5879@reddit

120 for casual 160 for competitive is how I usually do it.

[-]

TheConboy22@reddit

60

[-]

Immediate-Fig9699@reddit

400+ on comp hames

[-]

HeyGuysKennanjkHere@reddit

120 one time I set a game to 60 fps and was actually unable to play it I wanted to just watch YouTube instead.

[-]

bikecatpcje@reddit

60

[-]

Swozzle1@reddit

Depends on the kind of game. For anything with a top-down or isometric style view, 60 fps is fine... Even a bit lower as long as its consistent and not all over the place.

If it's first person or "rear camera 3rd person" then I really want 100+

[-]

Exotic-Event977@reddit

Like 80

[-]

Jora1944@reddit

Depends on the game but for me it's 72fps or 120fps. Don't really see point in going over 120fps and 72fps is lot better than 60fps for me.

[-]

Acrobatic_Topic5864@reddit

70-80, but on high refresh. As long as you don't have stutters/drops

[-]

FillWiper@reddit

As long as I dont dip below 60 fps, it is fine.

[-]

Dkenenkesknsns@reddit

Honestly, if you aren’t being spoiled with 144 fps, 60 fps is fine. The problem is that you can’t go back

[-]

nilarips@reddit

I think I’d tolerate down to 40, prefer 60+, ideal is 120+, and for professional players, as high as they can possibly get it, we’re talking 300+.

[-]

akimahhhhhhh@reddit

my friend is a professional apex player and his pc can barely hit 110 fps 😭

[-]

nilarips@reddit

Damn, sounds like he isn’t investing enough into himself then because there’s definitely room for hardware improvement then.

[-]

akimahhhhhhh@reddit

he’s just broke pl players bearly get paid on apex unless they’re a top player

[-]

Sarthak_Das@reddit

Trust me I have grinded apex hard with a pentium and 1050ti system before. Its definitely tougher but you can still be pretty darn good at it. However the jump to 200fps obviously feels very nice :)

[-]

kballwoof@reddit

As long as it’s a consistent 60, i can play anything with only 60.

I have a 144hz monitor and most of the time i’m playing at 120, but I see that as more of a perk than a requirement.

The biggest leap is going from 60 to 90 imo. I personally cant tell much of a difference between 90 and 144.

[-]

nekogami87@reddit

mmo, i'm good with 60

fps, 144hz is my minimum target and I make it so that I don't dip under it (I have a 144hz screen) enough for me, and honestly.

RTS, I'm fine with 60fps stable.

Solo game, it depends, usually between 60 and 144hz depending on the game and the amount of fast movement on screen.

[-]

ErtosAcc@reddit

Anything is fine as long as my inputs are going through. Smoothness of course helps but is not a major factor in winning most of the time. So final answer around 20 fps minimum.

[-]

OUAIsurvivor@reddit

No less than 360fps for me.

[-]

johno12311@reddit

You mean minimum average or 1% and 0.1% lows? Fir minimum average anything over 100 for lows, I need it to be a stable number over 60.

[-]

BaxxyNut@reddit

90 minimum. 100+ and I'm chilling. Competitive shooters? I need at least 140.

[-]

tripwirre@reddit

Personally, I have to tolerate 30 FPS because my laptop sucks, but I'd go for around 120 if it's stable

[-]

iCantLogOut2@reddit

30fps I think is the bottom of the barrel. I've played at lower frames and made it through - gritting my teeth - but I managed. I think 30 is ugly, but more than playable.

[-]

iCantLogOut2@reddit

There are studies that claim most humans supposedly can't even see more than 60fps - which is why I think a lot of people are fine with anything 60+...

The study even claimed that a large percentage of people can't even see a difference between 30 and 60... Now I might be able to play with 30, but I feel like the difference is painfully obvious. But once you hit the hundreds of FPS, I admittedly can't see the difference.

[-]

patchipot@reddit

I don't play first-person shooters. The bare minimum i'd play with is 30FPS only if i really like the game. Other wise 60, though I'd prefer 90 above, anything above 120 is a luxury for me.

[-]

TryingHito@reddit

I played The First Descendent with the FPS hovering around 55-65, but after the new update freyna and 300 elims just dropped it to 15. It’s time to upgrade

[-]

tdog473@reddit

minimum? prolly like 45. better than not playing at all lol. just enough to were it's not making my eyes bleed

[-]

Zealousideal-Guide54@reddit

I just buyed pc,but till last month i played on 1060 gtx and did never turn on dps meter,only thig is that dont lag

[-]

fuckandstufff@reddit

I don't want less than 100 fps in any gane I play, and I mostly play single-player shit. I can deal with 80-90, but if I'm playing on my desktop, I generally prefer to be above 100 fps. Ironically, though, I also play on a pc handheld, and I'm totally fine with 40-60 fps on that. Don't be like me, though, turn the fps counter off.

[-]

Gordoxgrey@reddit

120 fps is the minimum I'll tolerate for any game nowadays

[-]

Aggressive_Ask89144@reddit

While more is better, 90 hz is generally the "smooth" spot for me. Below that; It almost feels like I'm doing everything in molasses which is fine for some games but not your competitive titles. I prefer something closer to 170 for those anyway but 90 is a good spot.

[-]

thelofisenpai@reddit

I don't really care about avg fps, as long as the 1% low is high enough (100+ for me with my potato pc).

[-]

Admiral_peck@reddit

I can have fun at 40fps but if I'm being competitive I'll be mad if it dips below 80

[-]

DeliciousLecture600@reddit

60 Is the lowest

[-]

ArseholeryEnthusiast@reddit

I no longer like the feel of 60fps for action based games. 80 feels good to me. In competitive I feel terrible below 100. Refresh rate like resolution spoils you. Going up you won't feel too much. Going down well feel terrible.

[-]

Nuttybuddy2611@reddit

I've played 0-20 fps on a game I've spent over 15000 hours on. So anything more than one is good.

[-]

Little_World7779@reddit

120 is the golden spot for fps I guess. There is a very little difference from 120 to 200 or 240. Also if you are gaming on laptop I think you will always have power plugged in anyway so no point of saving battery.

[-]

erutuferutuf@reddit

Ideal =120fps+, still will play at 60 average.. 30average is bare minimum (with occasional drop to 15) when I am out and about playing with my non gaming laptop

[-]

nomeutente1231@reddit

I used to play multiplayer whit 20 fps so as long as it seem to be moving it's fine

[-]

shinnix@reddit

Once you've experienced 144+ it's hard to go back. At this point 60 looks janky as hell to me.

[-]

Designer-Ad-1689@reddit

Whatever my monitor refresh is 144 right now

[-]

Kaitaincps@reddit

I've never had a problem playing at 60fps.

[-]

Striking-Count-7619@reddit

Out of curiosity OP, how old are you?

[-]

StealthShip@reddit

I still play warthunder with 20 fps, anything below that and I struggle fighting other players

[-]

Xcissors280@reddit

If it’s a good VRR I’d say 30-45 is playable But it all depends on the specific game

[-]

Pokemon_Trainer_May@reddit

I can't imagine the person who thinks they NEED 200 fps

[-]

nightryder21@reddit

MINIMUM: Single player (slow paced): 40fps Single Player (fast paced): 100fps Multiplayer (slow paced): 60fps Multiplayer (fast paced): 120fps

IDEAL: Single player (slow paced): 60fps Single Player (fast paced): 120fps Multiplayer (slow paced): 90fps Multiplayer (fast paced): 160Fps

[-]

BiliLaurin238@reddit

I play Helldivers 2 at 45-60 FPS. Perfect for me

[-]

Ernie_McCracken88@reddit

I aim for 80-110ish for fast paced shooters and 40-50ish for something like rdr2. I'm in my late 30s maybe when I was 19 years old I would have seen a benefit by lowering graphical gains at 80fps to get up above 100, but not at this point in my life.

[-]

frensacc@reddit

For fps games id say as high as the fps goes for me, theres a noticeable difference from 60 to 120 and 120 to 200

[-]

givetake@reddit

I played the main story of ESO when it came out at about 15fps

[-]

MegaScubadude@reddit

LOL i remember playing the ESO beta on my crappy family laptop. Similar 15-20fps. I was not awakened to the wonders of gaming on an actual good computer yet.

[-]

madewithgarageband@reddit

90

[-]

Flaming-Sheep@reddit

Honestly, for me if it’s a competitive shooter I feel like I need 300+ to be at peak performance on my 180hz monitor.

[-]

taedrin@reddit

The *absolute minimum* FPS I have ever tolerated was about 16 FPS on World of Warcraft some 20 years ago.

[-]

Drando_HS@reddit

Depends on the game. I find that the quicker the TTK the faster the base framerate needs to be.

Playing Halo at 60fps is awesome and cinematic as hell, but trying to play Battlebit at 60fps is pain.

[-]

MegaScubadude@reddit

I spent many years playing everything at 45 fps as a kid, nowadays I'm spoiled and get pissed off when my frames are below 120. for competitive shooters I will bottom out my settings to get a stable 144/165 as my monitor is capable of.

[-]

43848987815@reddit

I think it’s hilarious how the trend has changed from accepting higher and higher frame rates as having such a massive impact on your minimal ability to be competitive.

Beyond 120fps (some would say 90) the margins are so small that the only people that will genuinely benefit from it are those with insane reflexes, top tier competitors.

The average joe won’t gain an advantage and would be much better off having consistently average fps.

TLDR; unless you’re a literal esports athlete, you don’t have the skills to make it count. Just get better at (insert game) craft rather than fretting about if 200fps is needed.

[-]

KaelthasX3@reddit

It highly depends on the game, fast-pased fps - 200Hz
Third person game, or slower paced FPS - 144Hz will be more than enough
Strategy game? - 60Hz will do.

[-]

Blasian_TJ@reddit

I think it really depends on the type of multiplayer game. I personally like 100+, but I'd say the lowest "ideal" would be 60. If we're talking shooters, I'd prefer 100+.

[-]

CoraxTechnica@reddit

Tolerate? 30, if they're STABLE.

I prefer stability to big number. Some games run at 120 fps steadily, while others will tank to 70s.

A stable 70s would be better than 120 that drops to 70/80 frequently.

But I have played some fps locked games that ran at 30fps solidly and without stutter and that was actually more enjoyable than high jittery fps

[-]

panjezor@reddit

Im comfortable at 35-40, can see a difference up to 60, cant give a fuck above that.

[-]

justaRndy@reddit

for competitive FPS, 240 hz screen + at least that FPS, stable.

for anything else Multiplayer, I feel comfortable with 120+.

[-]

Many_Middle9141@reddit

I’d say for fast paced games, 130 fps, I have a 170hz monitor so when it drops under I can tell. And when it’s under 85 I end up lowering graphics to make it more playable cus it’s very laggy

[-]

HurryMundane5867@reddit

60fps at 1080p. I don't care for 120fps at 4K, quite frankly I don't have the money for that kind of PC and pair of monitors.

[-]

Foreign-Region-737@reddit

60

[-]

Magnethius@reddit

Gosh the comments make me seem like a boomer but I was happy with 24+ FPS @ 1024 × 768 growing up. Just hitting 60 makes me feel like Mr. Mon E. Bags so I'm more than ecstatic when I'm 90+.

[-]

DeeJudanne@reddit

not below my monitor so nothing less than 150

[-]

cheezywizzy222@reddit

60

[-]

Capital_Influence_57@reddit

120

[-]

Heavy_Bridge_7449@reddit

60fps is fine. i'd tolerate 45.

250ms is average reaction time for a human

60fps is one frame per 17ms

120fps is one frame per 8ms

you can't just 'calculate this out', but maybe we can say that very roughly going from 60fps to 120fps could give you an advantage of (17ms-8ms)/250ms = 3%

[-]

TOTALOFZER0@reddit

I play Valheim and commonly get 7-10 fps

[-]

EnlargedChonk@reddit

depends on the game really, easy to run esports titles get max my monitor can show, or slightly below for freesync to work. Used to be 165hz now it is 240hz, LoL in particular comes to mind. "heavier" esports titles like Apex, Halo Infinite, and now DeadLock I balance between fidelity and framerate. I'll play \~100fps or even tolerate as low as \~60 if necessary to keep a clean image. I won't push for high but I'll try to avoid low if I can, I'll also avoid an upscaled image if I can even if it means much lower FPS and/or even lower settings. There's just no point to me getting more frames if those frames turn into a blurry mess in motion, pretty much every single upscale option right now is just fancy TAA. I don't really play any of these kind of games super competitively so I prefer having some eyecandy over a bland low res texture mess even if it means foliage might obstruct Line Of Sight sometimes.

[-]

elmiggii@reddit

I used to think anything over 60 was fine, until I got a new PC and Battlefield went from 90-100 to 165.... holy crap it's so much smoother.

[-]

nuclearhotsauce@reddit

Oh man, I remember playing the division at 24 fps and at its lowest available resolution at the time, I think it's 800x600, because my laptop was not meant for high end gaming at the time

Played the entire game through that way, and grinded none stop for 150+ hours

Never going back to that again

[-]

codyl0611@reddit

I would prefer to put my graphics on high, and since I run 1440p with a 3060ti I don't always get 144hz. 60-90 fps is fine.

[-]

JustnHorror@reddit

Around 80-90 minimum for me. Any slower and it starts to feel laggy or clunky to me.

[-]

Scottsman2237@reddit

Bloodborne was 30. I’d like 45-50 minimum. 70-90 is my favorite

[-]

TheW0lvDoctr@reddit

60 but it has to be consistent. I'd notice it's less than like 120, but I'd get used to it. But if it's going from 45 to 60 to 55 to 75 to 60, even if the average is 60, it's way more distracting than 105 to 120 to 115 to 135 to 120

[-]

Sycopatch@reddit

If we are talking about PVP games, more than a single drop below 144fps in 5 minutes window and im giving the game a negative review + refunding.
I can allow this one hiccup every 5 minutes or so.

I havent paid a small fortune for my PC to compensate for someone being too lazy to write good code.

[-]

Poppa_Mo@reddit

Damn, maybe my old is showing. My floor would be 60 for any game at this point.

Preference would be 120 for anything that required quicker reaction time, but I'd happily settle for 90.

[-]

Current-Effect-9161@reddit

like 20? fps doesnt really matter as long as it is stable. 20 frames a second is more than enough for human reflexes.

[-]

Squindipulous@reddit

Most people physically cannot perceive a difference of anything higher than 60fps. Anything higher than 75 is just tech companies scamming you.

[-]

Elijah_72@reddit

60

[-]

Y_D_7@reddit

Anything below 60fps in any type of game is unplayable for me.

I'm not joking btw, I get nausea and motion sickness.

[-]

gaz8600@reddit

120

[-]

Funkierdj@reddit

60 is about the lowest I’ll play but if I have to play it any lower it’s not a huge deal.

[-]

TomAndJerryAreFriend@reddit

I play everything on a 60hz tv its tolerable but if i had the money itd be a 144hz tv lol realistically if your playing crossplat 60hz is still competetive for the most part bc most consoles are running 60hz you might run into the occasional person who uses 120hz, but games like csgo or seige on pc i wouldnt touch with less than 144hz. Walmart sells 144 160hz monitors under 200 bucks so its not majorly uncommon for people to have atleast 144hz on pc and when your running 60 you have a major disadvantage but i made it to champ 1 in rocket league a while ago on a 60hz tv as well. So depending on the game is when it matters.

[-]

AKSC0@reddit

40 fps

[-]

rrhunt28@reddit

Back in the day I played first person shooters with like 30 to 40 fps and it was fine. Modern games with higher resolution are probably different. But old school Cinema was only 24 fps and no one complained.

[-]

mauzinho11664@reddit

60

[-]

Sup_on@reddit

Good old 30. Else skill issue

[-]

Caspid@reddit

Tolerate, 60, as that's what I had for a long time. Current monitor is 170. I haven't tried faster, but I'm pretty happy with it, and I wouldn't want to go back to slower.

[-]

debirdiev@reddit

Consistent 60 at a bare minimum. I might even say 75 to feel a bit more comfortable but it has to be consistent. Anything lower and I feel like my input is significantly delayed. Maxing the monitor's refresh rate is preferred but I need it to be consistent. Can't have it jumping between 60 and 120 every few seconds.

[-]

Deep_Blue_15@reddit

60 FPS since I dont play are care about competitive MP

[-]

Dry-Independence4456@reddit

90fps is a minimum I think, less than that I start having problems.

[-]

No-Alternative-1321@reddit

If it’s a competitive multiplayer game I tend to aim for 120, that’s the frame rate I’d start lowering graphics in order to achieve, if it’s single player or a non competitive multiplayer where I would want the game to look pretty like helldivers 60hz is the lowest I’d go

[-]

Aurochbull@reddit

I like stable 60-100 fps. I feel like over 100 starts to feel a bit weird. I only play mmos, though, so I very much prefer a more "cinematic" feel to the games, and much over 100 I really start to "feel" that "soap opera effect" and I don't like it. I also use motion blur on my 120hz TVs for the same reason. I don't want to feel like I'm watching the news when I'm watching Lord of the Rings.

I understand for first-person shooters, it is beneficial to have very high refresh rates, but it's just not for me.

Best of luck picking a new GPU!

[-]

Disastrous_Onion_958@reddit

120+ for shooters /fast paced games.

60 for anything else.

[-]

niyupower@reddit

60 is enough for me... Above that is great, bellow that is awful.

[-]

No-Nrg@reddit

Anything over 100fps, but higher is better

[-]

Roomas@reddit

For anything where it's competitive 120+. Anything else where it's more chill/fun 90 is fine. Single player story games if it's a smooth and consistent 60 then I'm fine with it but would obviously prefer 90+.

[-]

Alibehindthe69@reddit

120 but I'd appreciate 165

[-]

alaaj2012@reddit

120

[-]

WoomyUnitedToday@reddit

75, as that’s the refresh rate I usually have my monitor set to

[-]

Melbuf@reddit

60

[-]

Active_Blackberry_45@reddit

vrr display and anything above 60 is playable for me.

[-]

Ghost1eToast1es@reddit

Gotta ar least be fluid. Would prefer more but 60 minimum. Can tolerate lower for other types of games.

[-]

Arche-itsneeded5_5@reddit

120 fps, if it dips, i cry.

[-]

TonyAtCodeleakers@reddit

Wow you all have high standards. I stop feeling the difference over 80fps

[-]

toastbycrumbs@reddit

20

[-]

obihighwanground@reddit

60

[-]

letsplayer27@reddit

I’m fine with 60. 50 even, maybe it’s because I’ve had that hertz number for 12 years.

[-]

LookAtThisRhino@reddit

I'm not Mr. Moneybags and have never played over 60fps so I'm very cautious about trying it because I know it would be hard to go back. So I play at 60fps but at least I play on 4k.

[-]

dr_reverend@reddit

20 Fps would be just fine for Baldur’s Gate 3. Don’t need more than 20 fps for Walk Around Mini-Golf.

[-]

rip-droptire@reddit

144

[-]

Spirited_Example_341@reddit

20

[-]

JustACanadianGamer@reddit

2 spf is my lowest

[-]

HighestBPevah@reddit

Honestly 80 and up. I've found that as I get older it matters less and less, because even if i can see the dude first I'm likely not gonna kill them quick enough for the extra frames to make a difference

[-]

HugoCortell@reddit

24

[-]

tonallyawkword@reddit

180hz makes a noticeable difference vs that IMO. In some game like HotS/LoL, maybe 90 would be ok.

With a 200hz monitor, you should try to get 200fps in at least a couple games IMO.

[-]

arthureblack@reddit

Anything below 90fps doesn't feel smooth to me. I am saying this after being used to a 144hz screen for almost 10 years now.

[-]

Efioanaes@reddit

90 fps at a push

[-]

VolkosisUK@reddit

I play Warthunder on around 20-30 fps, and similar for Minecraft with my friends. So I’d say around that

[-]

SkyMasterARC@reddit

Very stable 60, preferably 90. I game on a laptop (Legion 5 pro, Ryzen 7 6800H RTX 3060) so I can't really expect more unless the game is very low demand like minecraft or War Thunder.

[-]

Slow_Formal_5988@reddit

50 fps.

[-]

Sandbax_@reddit

if it’s fast paced ideally over 60 i’m playing deadlock at 40-50 rn

[-]

kebab-case-andnumber@reddit

12 fps, below 12 it's a slideshow and you can't tell what's happening anymore

[-]

TheRealDeathSheep@reddit

ITT: Apparently a lot of people born after 2000 and have had access to good hardware their whole lives lol

I can play at 30fps if needed. Hell, I used to game on a MacBook when they were white plastic pieces of shit. Would I rather be at 120+? Of course, but 30 fps is still playable.

[-]

Goshin07@reddit

Depends on how sweaty I want to be, but generally, I like cranking quality up a little, so I am usually happy in the 80-100 fps. If its more I'm not complaining though

[-]

KASGamer12@reddit

I think 120 fps is the point where everything after becomes marginal, although exponentially marginal becuase 120 - 240 is still a huge difference but not as much as 120 - 160

[-]

KTTalksTech@reddit

90 minimum, same as single player. I can tolerate occasional dips to 60. I've tried up to 240 and it's pleasingly smooth but honestly my usual 144 feels good enough.

[-]

Copernican@reddit

I shoot for 90 fps as a min, but target 110-120.

[-]

PlaaXer@reddit

anything less than 180-200 and it's plenty visible to me

[-]

Tryptamineer@reddit

I play in 165hz but anything above 80 is usable to me.

Now for stuff like CS2, you’ll want the highest possible, imo.

[-]

ZanyaJakuya@reddit

Depends on the game of course. Competitive shooter stuff I'd say 120, but for all other mp games I just need 60

[-]

DoubleShot027@reddit

80-120

[-]

Ikaros9Deidalos6@reddit

depends on the game

[-]

DeerOnARoof@reddit

60 is my personal minimum

[-]

makoblade@reddit

Depends on the game. For the most part, 100+ is enough for me, I'm not playing competitive counterstrike with my graphics off, so I don't need to maximize it to crazy land. High, stable FPS with respectable graphic settings is enough for me.

[-]

CarBombtheDestroyer@reddit

Depends on the game, 30 is about the minimum. Many competitive games on console are getting 30 which is not amazing but a skilled player at 30 will absolutely dunk on a less skilled player at 200fps. 60is more than fine on my PC once I get over 100 the diminishing returns start to become negligible.

[-]

Nivosus@reddit

I like 144. I've never had a monitor beyond 144hz, but 144 fps has always felt perfect.

[-]

Soaje99@reddit

60 and if anyone says higher they are just pretentious

[-]

rainbowclownpenis69@reddit

Anything under 100 is a no-go for me. Unless it is a PvE MMO, I could accept 60. I have a 144hz 1440p and always aim for that.

[-]

fapimpe@reddit

My screen is 175ish and I can feel when it drops below that.

[-]

RecceNorth@reddit

Personally 144hz. Nothing wrong with anything lower as long as it’s consistent. but I start to notice frame drops at around 130fps if I max out the settings.

I say try to get something that works with your budget (going higher doesn’t hurt either). But make sure you can be comfortable playing the games you want at the desired frame rate. I personally don’t think I can ever go back down to 60fps after playing 75fps for years and now I can’t do anything lower than 100fps at the absolute lowest.

[-]

Vindelator@reddit

Depends on the game.

MMOs or game like Baldur's Gate? A man can survive on 45 frames, but I would want a new PC that can deliver a lot better than that to future proof.

Competitive shooters need to be a solid 60 minimum.

[-]

Lemonizer0@reddit

60 fps any lower unplayable in multiplayer 120 or more for competitive

[-]

yo_milo@reddit

30 to 60

[-]

Hiply@reddit

60 works for me - certainly in MMOs. More's better, to a point, of course but for casual gaming 60 works just fine for my gameplay in an MMO.

[-]

SpacemanPete@reddit

I’d tolerate 60 if I had to. Wouldn’t be happy but I’d survive.

[-]

Clivna@reddit

i limit all my games to 100 fps (played on 3440x1440).

[-]

Vbdotalover@reddit

30- 60 is a fine area for me.

[-]

Night-The-Demon@reddit

Whatever the latest Xbox usually gives. I’d want that on my future pc

[-]

MrSpidey457@reddit

Personally? Dipping to 50fps is about as low for being "playable" imo. I think there's a difference between "noticeable" and "intolerable." I'd say under 90-100fps is when it's easily noticeable.

[-]

Xphurrious@reddit

Depends on the game, if everyone has 240? I want 240(cs, apex, val, etc)

If the game is optimized like ass and everyone is getting 150, im fine with 150

But i have a 360hz monitor and a pc that defines overkill for 1080p, so I'd like 360 😂

[-]

Hungry_Reception_724@reddit

45FPS will run games without stuttering. Is it the smoothest? Absolutely not, but it is 100% playable and will offer a ok experience to anyone.
Then everyone basically has a preference most of which is 100+

[-]

Much_Anything_3468@reddit

I recently made the jump from 1080 to 1440, and thankfully my new (to me) 6750xt was able to crank out slightly higher framerate than my 6600 at a higher resolution. I usually try to aim for anywhere between 120-150.

[-]

Kathryn_Cadbury@reddit

Being an older gamer that started on the Atari 2600, that migrated to Spectrum, Amiga and then PC (and all the consoles in-between) FPS is certainly not something I'm super worried about as I've had decades of it not being that great. Do I want it to look pretty? Sure, and its great when its smooth but being honest I felt it the most going from a 60mhz monitor to one that did 160+

Someone mentioned DRG and I was playing that when I got the new monitor, and that alone was super jarring with the difference in smoothness. I don't think I could go back to a 60mhz monitor for gaming now.

[-]

malsell@reddit

It really depends on the game. PvE, RPG, and RTS games typically don't need high refresh rates.

[-]

NightGojiProductions@reddit

Depends…. Shooter, minimum 120. Way smoother than 60 and also less input delay. Otherwise 30-60 is typically fine depending on the type of multiplayer game.

[-]

AbyssalShift@reddit

Whether 30, 60, or more as long as it is stable it’s fine with me.

[-]

Mythical995@reddit

I remember years ago linus brought 4 pro players to test this theory out and in his conclusion he found that 120 fps is the best u can play on . They put it in slow mow and showed that in 60 fps vs 120 the enemies appear slightly faster . So minimal is 120 fps

[-]

MuscularBye@reddit

?? Did you even watch the video?

[-]

pyaephyo111@reddit

I haven't watched the video. What did he say wrong?

[-]

MuscularBye@reddit

They tested all the way up to 240 hz and this guy just says 120hz is the be all end all

[-]

KonianDK@reddit

They were testing refresh rates of monitors

[-]

StickyBlackMess69420@reddit

Used to play Overwatch at 640x480 on a non gaming laptop so I could play with friends. It was maybe 30 fps and I could only tell where enemies were by the red outline but I made it work.

[-]

SnooMachines767@reddit

I’m poor so anything between 60-100fps is great, and if I can get higher than that, I’m having a great time

[-]

International_Tax642@reddit

Yall need a life

[-]

LegendaryForester@reddit

Below 100 you can definitely feel the change in responsiveness.

[-]

Call_me_Enzo@reddit

Seeing how the majority here says 120 is baffling me. 120 minimum for effective multiplayer? Damn! 60 is just waaaay way more than enough for me

[-]

Longjumping112@reddit

Im happy as long as im getting over 45, 30 is my lowest

[-]

Beercules121@reddit

Anything above 30

[-]

Mayleenoice@reddit

The few years I went on league, 60 was completely fine. However going from 60 to 170hz on overwatch was a pure gamechanger, especially for tracking.

I wouldn't go below locked 165Hz now, even if I have to play with "ugly graphics" to reach it

[-]

deadfishlog@reddit

120 or 144 when I’m on my desktop. I can’t notice a benefit after that

[-]

peperonipyza@reddit

Minimum? Around 60. Would much prefer higher, but it wouldn’t make me quit the game.

[-]

BluDYT@reddit

You said effectively so I'll say 60fps. I can do singleplayer comfortably at a locked 40fps as well. I prefer 90+ more the better but I think my actual performance wouldn't improve THAT much after 60fps.

[-]

Drach88@reddit

I'm an aging fuddy-duddy who remembers playing shooters and thinking that hitting 30fps was awesomesauce.

I'm running a 60Hz monitor, and am satisfied with 60fps.

[-]

Life-Ad6389@reddit

For me, anything over 60 fps I cannot tell the difference. 144hz monitors or better are just a waste for me.

For my kids, 144hz and 100fps are a bare minimum as they tell me they can see a noticeable difference.

My grandchildren we did some testing and it seems they can see LED lights flickering and only one of my kids can see the flicking as well but the rest cannot.

At the end of the day it comes down to the users ability and needs. I can get away with cheaper builds where it only frustrates my kids.

[-]

AndrewM317@reddit

I grew up at 30 fps and I have no plans to change because some want to act like 30 is an issue. Play at whatever you if good and doesn't stutter.

[-]

mattmaster68@reddit

cries in 60fps

I think any FPS is fine as long as it doesn’t offer a competitive advantage like it used to with some FPS titles.

[-]

DiggingNoMore@reddit

How would I know? I've never measured or looked at my framerate. Is the game choppy? Okay, it's unable. What framerate makes it not choppy anymore? I don't know. But I need however many that is.

[-]

Own-Decision9024@reddit

28-48 is playable, 48-75 is smooth,

anything above is competitive

[-]

Froozeball@reddit

Any consistent frame rate above persistent of vision. Eg 30fps solid in any situation the game throws at me.

When the suspension if disbelief happens is when the fps dips noticeably and the motion suffers.

I play on a cheapo monitor capped at 1080p at 75mhz but barely notice anything wrong since my rig throws way more fps than the monitor can handle. It happily displays 75fps solid across almost any game and situation. Sweet all around.

[-]

OranosSonaro@reddit

As long as I get anything over 100 I'm good

[-]

TotalWorldliness4596@reddit

280hz screen, 180fps is playable for me

[-]

QuaintAlex126@reddit

For most games, a nice, stable 60 FPS with high 1% and 0.1% lows and low frame time latency is good.

Those last two points go for all games. I’d take a stable 30-40 FPS over a choppy 30-60 FPS

[-]

SkirMernet@reddit

Also, g-sync makes a huge difference to me when it comes to target tracking and general enjoyment.

Makes the little micro-stutters and occasional tearing so much less jarring.

[-]

FieryXJoe@reddit

This totally depends on the game. Flight sims or city builders or turn based strategy can have low framerates and be fine, 30 fps is often a standard in those genres. Standard big budget singleplayer games (Red Dead, Elden Ring, Cyberpunk) 60+ is a good target. Competitive reaction time heavy games like FPS games or mobas the higher the better, even above your monitor's framerate, the higher the framerate the closer what is on screen matches the game state and the faster your actions show on the screen. Games like counterstrike, league, dota, call of duty, etc... Pros will buy the best hardware and turn their settings to the lowest to get lik 500FPS if they could.

[-]

StickyIcky313@reddit

For competitive games at least 150 fps 144hz refresh rate. You can always turn down the graphics to get more fps

[-]

TheLostExpedition@reddit

Multi-player and me don't get along with my internet connection.

[-]

FaZePxlm@reddit

60 fps is enough

[-]

Skysr70@reddit

When I had a craptop that only ran csgo comfortably at lowest settings I got about 45 and was able to be fine, but it was very noticable when that dipped. Don't think I could do much lower.

[-]

SkirMernet@reddit

60 if ultra stable (1%low being 59+) is plenty in most games.

Games that require lots of snap aim, fast rotational movements, fast or small target tracking, 100 is minimum, more is better 100% of the time.

But at the end of the day, the 1% lows matter so much more than the average or top fps.

If your rig runs 240 fps most of the time but drops to 100 while you’re trying to hit something, you’ll miss every damn time. If you run 60 but you never drop below 59, you’ll have consistent aiming and will do much much better.

Same with frame time. 100fps is nice but if your frame time varies like crazy, it’s not worth shit.

[-]

ClerklierBrush0@reddit

90

[-]

nimajneb@reddit

I started playing Counter Strike in 2001 on my first PC and I'm pretty sure I got 15-30fps. No joke, integrated graphics on an AMD Duron 900. This PC is when I learned to careful inspect Dell/HP prebuilts spec sheet to see if they had an AGP slot, cause this PC didn't, lol.

[-]

cclambert95@reddit

As long as 1% lows are above 80 I’m a very happy camper.

The lows are the stutter and jitter you’ll feel with your mouse as you aim so the less the better for competitive stuff.

[-]

Gellix@reddit

If it’s a constant 90 at 2k I’d deal with it.

[-]

ToughStreet8351@reddit

Anything past 24fps is fine

[-]

metsfanapk@reddit

60

[-]

CanHot6478@reddit

I don't play competitive games so 60fps is enough for me. And I have 60hz monitor, so I don't really have a choice.

[-]

Krypton091@reddit

100+ not just in multiplayer but in every game

[-]

KAM1Sense1@reddit

120

[-]

Drenlin@reddit

Depends on the game really. For shooters over 100, similar for racing games. For something like Diablo or an MMO I'd be fine with sub-60 as long as adaptive sync stays in effect. Slow paced games like MSFS can be fine with ~30 even.

[-]

Tech_support_Warrior@reddit

Competitive Multiplayer game like CS, 144 was perfect.

For a general MP game 80-100 is fine. This is what I play No Man's Sky, Helldivers, etc. at and I never have complaints.

That being said, I play plenty of games on my Steam Deck at 40 or 60 and I am happy with that.

[-]

cancergiver@reddit

Depends highly on the game. I can absolutely play games at 30fps but some games I prefer over 120hz.

[-]

Additional_Ad5671@reddit

When I was a kid, I played Quake at 20-30fps… Software rendering, no GPU.

To even get that much fps I had to run the game at 640x480(monitor minimum), and then shrink the gameplay window size to about half that. This was on a 15” monitor.

So I was effectively playing at 25fps in a 7” box.

And it was awesome.

[-]

GreenCache@reddit

Anything that doesn't require quick reactions are fine at 60, anything like an FPS would definitely need to be higher.

[-]

CommunistRingworld@reddit

If you have a 200hz monitor aim for 200fps

[-]

HAVOC61642@reddit

I'm happy @ 60hz as a minimum and find it to be a playable experience. I gave my 144hz Rog swift to my nephew as he was slaying it on Fortnite and thought it might give him an edge. I replaced that with 100hz ultrawide which I'm more than happy with but ultrawide has destroyed 16:9 gaming for me. My nephew has now found girls and has given me back the Rog swift but only recently so may attempt 144hz again but I suspect the aspect ratio of the thing will put me off. From experience on friends monitors with higher refresh than 144hz I find above 144hz pointless and largely unnoticeable difference in smoothness

[-]

rappyy43@reddit

80

[-]

Trilb_y@reddit

240

[-]

RedditAdminsAreGayss@reddit

I always lock my games to 60FPS, because honestly I don't think I've ever noticed the difference when it is higher with normal human eyes, and it will fairly reduce temps.

As far as the bare minimum... I think I could probably do 50FPS, after that it is a cutoff of "okay, this PC is done"

[-]

vektor451@reddit

50-60 is the minimum for a multiplayer game for me.

[-]

olalilalo@reddit

Depends on the game. In twitch shooters you want as high as possible really . Thankfully those games are usually optimized so well you'd struggle to see less than 100 frames pushed by a modern mini fridge.

[-]

jackbestsmith@reddit

60 is the absolute bare minimum and I'm talking about games that make it unbearable like EFT. 120+ is the sweet spot, and I can stomach occasional 60-100 drops but if I go below 60, Im fuming

[-]

jamrockin@reddit

For CS, at least 300. For the rest, whatever Hz my monitor has, so, 144 for now.

[-]

Badilorum@reddit

Getting under 100fps it’s quite annoying, everything from 110 to 160fps (160hz for me) is fine.

[-]

etmaule@reddit

60 minimum.

[-]

garlicpeep@reddit

It's tricky because framerates aren't locked on PCs, they're constantly fluctuating depending on how computationally taxing the current scene is. I could probably play at 60 fps if it was a rock solid stable 60, but an average of 60 means you're probably getting 1% lows in the 40s, which will cause your game to feel stuttery and throw off aim/movement because of how large the jump in frametimes would be at those lower framerates. I dont even play AAA stuff at 60 avg because of how bad the frametime stuttering looks, I'll turn down settings until I'm in the 90-120 range. If we are talking averages I probably wouldn't play any lower than 120. There's still gains to be had beyond that point ofc but that's the generally accepted point of diminishing returns, at least compared to the 60->120 jump.

[-]

samzplourde@reddit

A lot of modern FPS games get frame rate drops during the most intensive moments. For example, playing COD Warzone and someone bum rushes you with dragons breath akimbo shotguns. Those animations will tank your fps no matter what you're playing on, and so the 1% lows are really what matter. Having 1% lows of 100+ in my experience has been ideal. 1% lows below 60 is tough, and will actually affect your gameplay.

[-]

Purpldiamond@reddit

240 fps.

Some people say you cants see a difference, but anytime I use anything less it’s the same feeling I get when there’s a fly flying in front of my vision.

Annoyed, and distracting.

This is only for my FPS games that I’ve spent easily 10K+ hours on combined, non competitive shooters, or like league 120 is fine.

[-]

whatsvtec666@reddit

I do Sim Racing. Anything above 100fps is good for me.

[-]

MysteriousGuy78@reddit

Depends on the game. Fast paced game above 120. If it’s more of a slower co op game then 60

[-]

Hrmerder@reddit

Depends on the game.. Like Fortnite I would say it's not the biggest deal. I get pretty far each round with only a 60hz monitor and probably around 100fps, but when it comes to Rocket League about 120fps and almost more importantly lowest latency possible. I magically got 'way better' at the game just changing internet carriers.

[-]

Zoesan@reddit

Depends a lot on the game.

For a no-stress coop title or a game that's on controller? 60 is decent, anything above 100 is great

For a moba? 144

For a fast shooter? 200

[-]

LOEILSAUVE@reddit

100

[-]

c0micsansfrancisco@reddit

60fps is the sweet spot for me tbh. Absolute minimum for me is 48. 30 just hurts my eyes

[-]

CrimsonDemon0@reddit

Stable 60 fps is fine for co-op ones and over a 100 for competitive games

[-]

GoldSealHash@reddit

60-80 minimum. Depends on the game too. Bf1 70fps feels more than it is

[-]

TheKetPlane@reddit

75

[-]

Elc1247@reddit

For fast paced FPS games like Overwatch, R6 Siege, and the like, the higher the FPS, the better. I can play casually with 90+, but 120+ is preferred (I play Overwatch 2 at 240FPS, its locked to get both frametime consistency and create better recordings if I want to record).

Once you are decently skilled at fast paced FPS games, you WILL notice the difference with higher FPS. Everything just feels more smooth and responsive. You will also notice that around 120FPS is where diminishing returns start to kick in. The higher you go after that, you get improvements, but each additional FPS doesnt improve as much as the last.

Fast paced competitive multiplayer games, minimum I tolerate is 120FPS. (Example: Overwatch 2)

Fast paced non-competitive multiplayer games, minimum I tolerate is 75FPS. (Example: Helldivers 2)

60FPS is for single player or casual multiplayer games (multiplayer games include party and puzzle games). 30FPS for fast paced games in general gives me an actual headache after a while.

[-]

kumikanki@reddit

It all depends on the game..

[-]

Greennit0@reddit

Had to scroll way too far for this.

[-]

Parcours97@reddit

80fps.

I have a 60hz Monitor and everything below 80fps feels kinda slow imo.

[-]

Ok_Combination_6881@reddit

60 fps on my 3k monitor

[-]

DesTroPowea@reddit

60 is ok

[-]

Akane-Kajiya@reddit

seeing the comments filled with 100+ beeing the absolut minimum etc, i feel this comment section is to privileged.

i personaly would like at least 60, but if necessary could play with less, and i think most normal humans are fine with 30+ as long as its at least stable. (lots of consoles were playing on 30 fps for the longest time)

im not saying "you cant see the difference" or something like that, you definitly can see a difference and more is always better, but we are talking about the minimum to play.

[-]

kansetsupanikku@reddit

24 would be preferred, but 12 is just fine

[-]

Negative-Neat6441@reddit

Multiplayer fps 120-144. 60 to 80 for everything else. I do play 4k though.

[-]

_captain_tenneal_@reddit

Honestly 60 if fine

[-]

GodBearWasTaken@reddit

Depends on the game.

I have a 240Hz and that’s nice and all, but 144+ is perfectly fine. 90+ with the good old Gsync is also nice, but with the newer stuff that is basically just freesync I’d like more.

[-]

-haven@reddit

Depends on the game. I remember playing Warframe years ago on my older pc at 1080p. It didn't have high fps but between 30 to 50's mostly maxed out setting but depending on the tileset, abilities, and other stuff. But the thing was it was a steady and stable fps. It didn't jump around with crazy spikes that dump the fps. No terrible fps drops for 1/5% lows or the like.

So it depends on the game. I'd rather play a low fps Warframe as it was years ago on that old pc over some new game that hits some high fps number but has shitty spikes that drop the fps.

[-]

M0HAK0@reddit

120fps

[-]

Ok_Law2190@reddit

It Really depends on what type of multiplayer game it is, if it’s a first person shooter I’d really prefer having over 160fps since that’s above my refresh rate, but if it’s a game like cs2 then I’d prefer being over 300fps for the smoothness and for third person shooters/games I would be satisfied with over 90-100fps

[-]

bmm115@reddit

20 fps minimum.

[-]

EirHc@reddit

It depends on the game. Are we talking CS2, Fortnite, LoL, SC2, WOW or POE?

Some games will matter a lot more than others. Some of those you can probably play just fine at 30fps... others you might really want 200+ but can probably play effectively at around 90FPS (and quite honestly, while more FPS always helps, it's typically most more of a skill issue if you're not winning with 90 frames).

That said, if you are playing very high level, and the margins are ultra thin... going from 500FPS down to 100FPS might be a pretty big deal for CS2/Fortnite/e-sport level type games.

[-]

Lofi_Joe@reddit

What is multiplayer?

Just give me good story!

[-]

dfm503@reddit

60 is a bare minimum, but fast paced titles like CS or Valorant really have a hit if you drop from 100.

[-]

opparition@reddit

Depends on the game. Monster Hunter? 60 will do. Warzone? At least 120. Chess? 30. You get the pattern.

[-]

Laevend@reddit

Depends on the game, Competitve shooter? 120fps min Non-competitive game? 40-50fps min

Though for those who bought a high refresh rate monitor, the usual go to is "I paid for the hertz imma use all the hertz"

[-]

Saizou@reddit

Somewhat depends on the game, but I play a lot of fast paced games, so 144 is the absolute minimum because I have been used to 144 Hz for a long time and it's always jarring when it goes below this. The last few years I've been on 240Hz+, so ideally I want to be above 240 at all times these days, alas optimising seems to be an issue for some studios so 144+ is the absolute lower limit.

You generally want as high as you can, even on lower refreshes as it can still contribute to a better time playing online MP games. The earlier the frame that can be displayed, the better. Of course this sometimes can cause issues such as frame tearing, but I feel like that's not been an issue for me for a long time (basically was an issue only back on my 60 Hz monitor times, and if I was hitting like ~120+ FPS). There are also other reasons, like my mouse input just feeling better on higher FPS, my eyes just having a way more enjoyable experience, etc.

[-]

elonelon@reddit

no less than 60 for sure.

[-]

dx151@reddit

I have a 75Hz screen and I'm happy.

[-]

CluelessUser101@reddit

I've suffered through around a decade of using a terrible rig to play my favorite FPS. I would roam around the low 20's, sometimes dipping in the mid 10's. Nowadays if I sink under the low 60's I start noticing it in the actual gameplay. It's harder to stay on target when they're chopping all over the screen and it makes the recoil of guns way, way more erratic to control.

I genuinely see absolutely no difference at all once the 60 FPS has been reached. I run CS2 at around 250 FPS on a 144 hz screen and I don't notice it being more fluid than if I were playing it at 60. I've limited my refresh rate to 60 a couple times to test my theory and it holds. I see no fucking difference. Maybe I'm just getting old.

So, to give you a clear answer; 60 FPS.

[-]

jonvanwhalen@reddit

Depends on the game. 3rd person game, anything over 60 is probably ok. 1st person games I want 120+.

[-]

yldf@reddit

30.

[-]

godmademelikethis@reddit

If it's a competitive first person shooter, if I am not at my max monitor frame rate I'm not happy. Everything else, as long as I'm getting the 100-120 mark is fine.

[-]

cool_slowbro@reddit

Long as it hits 60 and never dips below it, I don't care. I have a 144hz screen + 6900xt and still don't care. I'm not saying I don't play at high fps, but if a game was "only" pushing 60fps but never dipping below it, I'm content.

[-]

Autobahn97@reddit

lol. I tolerate 60FPS because that is all my large monitor can run so I'm sorta capped there. I have never had a problem with it as I play mostly open world games and find the large display immersive. On occasion I will also play RTS too. I run a Dell ultrawide 38 inch at 3840x1600

[-]

videoismylife@reddit

I can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 and 120 FPS, but beyond that I can't really see it. I mind stutters and micro-pauses more than low FPS; a stable 30 FPS is far better than 120 FPS with stutters - even a single little pause completely takes me out of the game.

So I guess my answer is 30 FPS. I played tons of games at 30 on the PS3 and Xbox, had a blast.

[-]

HungPongLa@reddit

constant 60 on mobas, 120 on shooters

[-]

yosh0r@reddit

Depends on how serious I can take it.

And that said, a competitive online shooter under 240fps.... I cant even take it seriously at all lol. May still play for fun, but not for competitiveness.

Fighting games (Smash Bros for example) are fine with 60fps, and even needed due to frame perfect stuff. My sweetspot for racing games is 90fps.

Any third person game below 120fps is unplayable for me.

[-]

Lazy_Elk3439@reddit

I've got 526 games in my steam library. 52 games for my PS5. Xbox Series X with ultimate. Switch OLED& Lite with over 50 games. I've never once looked at an FPS counter in 24 years of gaming. Really don't see the obsession. Play your games, touch some grass every now and again, happy days

[-]

Cinmarrs@reddit

90 feels pretty nice.

[-]

MemeTroubadour@reddit

Personally, 30. But most people would think 60. I think anything above is a bit much to claim as a minimum; especially if you ever play on a different setup. For instance, if you're playing at a tournament, you can't necessarily expect refresh rates above 60Hz anyway, so anything above 60fps is only marginally beneficial. I play a lot of fighting games where the framerate is capped at 60 anyway.

What matters is that it's stable. Frame drops are the issue, not framerate.

[-]

Hugo_Prolovski@reddit

depends on the multiplayer game. shooter 60 most other games 40+

[-]

fightingCookie0301@reddit

Depends… highly competitive, I want my 240fps; just having fun with a friend, anything above 60 :)

[-]

Rilandaras@reddit

90-100 seems to be the minimum for me now, though more is better, naturally. Variable refresh rate, of course.

[-]

MrLumie@reddit

Prefer 120. Don't care much beyond that.

[-]

cinyar@reddit

I assume you mean fast paced FPS games, in which case I can't imagine going back to 60, but I also can't imagine more than my current 165 improving my gameplay. So I'd say 120-ish stable FPS is enough for me, anything beyond that is just gravy.

But I can tolerate lower in single player games if the visuals (cyberpunk RT) or gameplay (arma) are worth it.

[-]

McLeod3577@reddit

I would probably say 120+fps would be ideal for online shooters, but a good gamer at 60fps will outplay a bad gamer at 120fps.

[-]

freiberg_@reddit

I was getting less then 10 fps when raiding in WoW classic in 2020, I had minimum graphics and used to zoom my camera in to first person mode and look at the floor.

The worst part was in the whelp encounter in BWL. I used to have to /follow someone to get through.

I bought a Dell laptop from my work by giving a $20 donation to some cause.

I'm sure I was getting like 3 fps in some fights, so 'less than 10' is generous.

[-]

N1LEredd@reddit

Shooters - nothing below 144hz will suffice. Anything else 60-90 is plenty.

[-]

qzwxecrvtbyn111@reddit

For a fast paced multiplayer game, I'd consider 90 the minimum, but would sacrifice graphics to get to 120+

My monitor is capable of 240hz. If I switch a game setting from 144 to 240, I can see a bit of a difference in smoothness, but beyond 144 there's very much diminishing returns for me, even in a fast paced multiplayer game.

I consider 75 to be the target in single-player games with an emphasis on graphics over action, such as Cyberpunk or BG3, and 120 to be the target if it's a fast paced action game. I'll accept 60fps in old games that can't go above 60, but it does look kinda ugly to me, and I find playing below 60 to be horrible

[-]

TactualTransAm@reddit

I grew up hooking my 360 up to a mobile hotspot to connect with my friends and play modern warfare multiplayer. What's fps 😂 but in all seriousness I don't play much multiplayer anymore so I'm not sure

[-]

Limp-Set5606@reddit

I don't notice any difference above 144 on a 144hertz screen.

[-]

_s7ormbringr@reddit

100-120 on 240hz 4k Monitor. Thank god there's the 4090 for it.

[-]

op3l@reddit

I used to think 60 fps is good but now I'm used to 165hz and I think anything below 140hz is unacceptable.

The resolution I don't care much about, but 140hz or above is a must

[-]

FeddyWeddy@reddit

Depends on the game. Fps/mobas, I need my monitors refresh rate minimum, 165. Rts and arpg etc, 60 fps is fine.

[-]

Lindolas_MC@reddit

It does depends on what fps you're used to. For me the minimum would be 40. but anything above 60 it really just depends on what fps you're used to. If you constantly play on 120 and then drop to 60, yes you will feel it. But if you keep playing at 60 for a while, it will become butter smooth again.

[-]

rocketchatb@reddit

half your monitors refresh rate

[-]

hyperblaster@reddit

Used to play this online spaceship game with about 15fps on integrated graphics with 300ms ping. Couldn’t really aim my ship, so I’d run away from everyone moving erratically. My terrible ping caused rubberbanding that made it harder for others to hit me, and I dropped mines everywhere since I couldn’t even see my opponent with the low fps.

[-]

shymenJESUS@reddit

200+ frames is so good in literally any action game. I don't care what others say it makes a huge difference lol

[-]

Niiphox@reddit

90 is bareable but you can really feel it. 100 is solid for me.

[-]

SkibidiLobster@reddit

for me the absolute floor would be 90 fps, below that and I notice it too much and is annoying

Depends on what you're doing ofc, if it's fast paced shooters you need much more, the more the better but casual games 90+ is good enough and

Before anyone says this is cope I have a 4070TI pc and run everything at much higher frames almost all the time (200+), only heavily modded mc modpack with heavy shaders runs at like 90-110 atm and it's perfectly fine again

[-]

SometimesWill@reddit

For pvp 60 and above. PvE still 60 but allowed to dip some.

[-]

Brobuscus48@reddit

I mean obviously the higher the better for some games like Counterstrike or Valorant. The most important thing though that these games never seem to keep consistent is reducing frame dips. I dont care that i can get 240 fps if I can tell exactly when an enemy player is being rendered because my fps drops by like 10%. This doesnt sound too bad but this also increases input latency as your computer tries to catch up. Latency plus enemy with Kalashnikov type rifle equals bad time.

Its playable and you know the other guy is probably experiencing the same thing to some degree but those little twitch movements you make in order to line up a headshot need absolute precision and even a small 50-100 millisecond extra can make or break a shot once you factor in human reaction time, server delay, etc.

[-]

MXXIV666@reddit

Tolerate? I have an old GPU, so I tolerate 20 FPS, but I'd love to not have to do that.

But in multiplayer, the worst things are random stutters, which should be very rare in good software as it is absolutely possible to load things in advance.

[-]

Mediocre-Set-8807@reddit

100 is the minimum go to for fps games if you want a smooth experience

[-]

Maple382@reddit

Less than 80 and I feel the difference. Bare minimum though I could play with like 50 as long as it's a consistent 50 with no dips.

[-]

Nighshade92@reddit

165, equivalent to my monitor.

[-]

AnduriII@reddit

60

[-]

LegalAlternative@reddit

60 is fine 100 is better, anything over \~100 is highly subjective and mostly placebo/imagination/buyer justification with some exceptions that are too complicated to go into now.

[-]

trent1055@reddit

Hardcore fps, 240+. Casual 100+

[-]

Ok-Department-8771@reddit

I wouldn't mind playing around 50fps, but that's because I've only got a 2070 rn. Come Christmas time I'll end up spending a lot on a new PC as a whole.

But I'd happily settle for 60-90fps

[-]

Budget_Human@reddit

I think 60fps would be my required minimum, but i´d prefer 144-400fps if possible. But 60 is playable for sure if i had no other option. Lower would be not as fun. Frame time is also important, if my card has frame time issues i´d rather go outside and touch grass

[-]

SkepTones@reddit

A stable 120 minimum to me, but preferably 165+ to take full advantage of my monitor Hz. Anything single player I’m usually cool with 70+ again as long as it’s stable and looks awesome

[-]

JackGraymer@reddit

also depends on your screen. if you have 60hz, going above 60fps is useless, and the same for the next steps.

To me 60 is always fine.

Also depends on the game, competitive online like CS2, Valorant or Apex will truly benefit from having 240hz and 300fps, while LOL or Dota2 wont

[-]

BlackSanta-372254@reddit

Depends on the game and level of play. Games like valorant up to about diamond rank 240fps is fine... After diamond I need at least 360. CS 240+ fps at least. Battlefield, cod, the finals etc. I need at least 140fps. Pubg I need at least 200fps.

It's all personal though.

[-]

D3humaniz3d@reddit

I've played Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Online / Phantoms at barely playable framerates (20-30) back in the day when I only had a shitty toshiba laptop with integrated AMD iGPU (it was worse than intel iGPU at the time). The biggest issue with MP games is latency. You can work with a shitty framerate. You can't work with shitty latency.

[-]

Faranocks@reddit

Depends on the game. Something like CS it is around 150 fps (especially as with CS2, it's mostly stutters dropping the FPS, not the median frame time going down so much). Other games like Apex I've played at around 90 FPS without issue. Valorant I feel sub 200, but maybe only because I feel like the performance is so stable that any drops are so much more noticable. TFT? My game was locked at 30 fps for the longest time and it was mostly fine. Most games I'd say sub 100 is where issues really start. As I average over 200 in most games (7800x3d, 3080) that means something is really going to wrong in the game to drop the framerate that far.

[-]

xYeahboiix@reddit

Fps shooter I'm guessing cause most other things I don't particularly care 100+ ideally tho occasionally a dip to 80 probably wouldn't be a deal breaker if it's like only a few times a match ect

[-]

QIGGI@reddit

For me, 90-130 is perfectly acceptable, 160-200 is great, and 240+ means my graphics could be turned up a bit

[-]

Archernar@reddit

60 Hz I have been playing for ages on, so that's fine but not optimal. Anything below like 50 or 45 makes me dislike the game though, because I start to subconsciously loath games that stutter or not run smoothly in general, same for games randomly crashing.

Never understood how console gamers put up with 30 Hz. Gotta be that the 30 Hz are very consistent, because otherwise it would feel insanely choppy, no?

Imo go for 100+ Hz if you can, but I fail to see the benefit of more than 144 Hz e.g.

[-]

No-Pomegranate-69@reddit

Depends on the game. Raft would be okay with 60fps but COD or Battlefield 144+

[-]

legotrix@reddit

I prefer anything above 60, between 70-110 is good even in single-player games, you get that only on pc.

[-]

LOSTandCONFUSEDinMAY@reddit

Quite a few games can do 120fps on current consoles so it's not only on PC just mainly on PC.

[-]

diemitchell@reddit

Minimum is stable 60, preferred is stable 120 Ill take stable 60 over unstable 120 tho

[-]

Squeaky_Ben@reddit

a stable 60 is generally enough.

[-]

Vasgarth@reddit

Bare minimum is 60, and by "bare minimum" I mean "it doesn't affect gameplay in a way that makes it unplayable".

Also, depends on the game. Anything that is fast moving and requires very low reaction time will probably need to be at least 90, while sports games can easily be played at 60.

I wouldn't want to play CoD at 60 FPS if I could avoid it, but NBA or FIFA? Doesn't really matter that much there (smoothness aside, of course).

[-]

HigginsBUTTS@reddit

If you're playing with a controller on pc then 60fps and 30fps is absolutely fine but for Keyboard and Mouse I highly recommend hitting that 120fps target.

It's all about response times, your feel of movement.

[-]

epical2019@reddit

Once I experienced 120fps I couldn't go back for multiplayer. It just feels too fluid compared to 60.

[-]

economic-salami@reddit

For minimum I say 60, most online games have tickrate of 30 so fps should be at least twice that number to faithfully represent the game state, per nyquist shannon theorem. But honestly that is too low, it should be max fps your monitor can support. Eye candies do matter

[-]

mr_lucky19@reddit

90+ is good but anything over 120 is amazing.

[-]

Lu5ck@reddit

Depends on the title, FPS game usually as high as possible, preferably 120. For MMORPG, even 30 is acceptable but preferably 60.

[-]

MagazineSilent6569@reddit

60-200FPS as I have 144Hz monitor.

I try to get as much FPS as possible, but I’ve played games that are locked to a certain frame rate and it is perfectly fine. I think that the more FPS you have at a low Hz, the more correct the image you see will be for that given moment. The more FPS may not be as detectable as it doesnt directly interact with your actions.

When you go from 60Hz monitor to a say 120Hz you may not notice the difference in a game. But I can promise you that the second you go back to a lower Hz you will notice how movement is quite sluggish.

I’ve played BattleBit at 144Hz with 240FPS for a year with a smooth experience. At one point I was at a gaming lounge and was rocking 300 FPS on high-end ish computer with a 180hz monitor. However it was sluggish as hell. No wonder as the refresh rate was set to 60 in the control panel.

[-]

Blyatbath@reddit

Muliplayer 120 stable or fuck it im out, im in multiplayer to compete with the people and not with my own machine

Singleplayer \~75 is fine for me, some drops back to 60 is ok

Below 60 i start getting headache

[-]

gnome_detector@reddit

60

[-]

Jasz_@reddit

90 or above

[-]

tomokas@reddit

30 fps!

[-]

tomokas@reddit

Damn you people in here saying 140, 160fps... I have never even SEEN so many omg, my 1650 gets up to 60 if she's in a good mood lol

[-]

No-Activity-8182@reddit

240 minimum

[-]

Maximum-Chemical-405@reddit

Multiplayer depends. A competitive FPS? 100 min. if it's a very demanding game.

[-]

Gupulopo@reddit

Greatly depends on the game, my main game wow can easily play at 20-30

A game that plays faster like league or most shooters I’d say 60-80

I play on 75 hz screen

[-]

artmorte@reddit

I've had a 75hz monitor for years and I'm totally fine with it.

[-]

d_bradr@reddit

Depends on the game but I can't tell the difference between 100 and 165 in 1st person. 3rd person I can't tell the difference between 60 and 100

Just run smooth enough and I'm good, I spent most my gaming life with rust buckets

[-]

midnight1247@reddit

Anything below 40-50 looks choppy to me. I can notice is not 144hz but does not hurt the experience. 30 is where it starts to become a problem.

[-]

ImPretendingToCare@reddit

for multiplyer no less than 120. For anything else like 90

[-]

CtrlAltDesolate@reddit

120/144, if an FPS game took me below 110/120 on the regular on my old GPU I'd either dial settings right down or simply not bother

[-]

acodreon@reddit

75-100 is the minimum

[-]

DidiHD@reddit

60 FPS is my requirement

[-]

Aletheia434@reddit

That really depends on the kind of game. Visually you won't see much of a difference, if any at all past 80-100 or so even in very fast pace game. As long as the fps are stable anyway.

You may *feel* it tho. The higher the fps, the lower the gap between what you are seeing and what is going on. Which allows you to react slightly faster. But even there the effect is often way exaggerated. I mean, at 100 fps the gap between frames is 0.01 seconds (10 ms/thousandths of a second). At 144 fps it is 6.94ms. The average human reaction time is around 250 ms. Now...is the difference of adding either 7 or 10 to that worth several hundreds dollars?
Unless you are world championship level competitive in fast paced games, chances are it won't make any difference at all to you

That being said, it's nice to have some "reserve". For instance I usually cap my fps at 100. Less strain on the hardware, less heat, less electricity consumption. At 1440p ultrawide, depending on the game, that usually places my 4070 at around 50-70% utilization. So I'm pretty confident it'll be able to comfortably handle things at that framerate for quite some time

Also depends on what kinda graphic settings and what games you are going for. There are things you can fiddle with in the settings that drastically reduce the strain on the GPU without making a noticeable visual difference. Often, finetuning the settings actually looks better than just slapping everything to max and calling it to day

[-]

Mocha_Bean@reddit

I capped my boyfriend's BG3 (not a fast paced game by any measure) to 40fps to mess with him a bit. That was like a month ago. So far he hasn't noticed anything

How has he not noticed? I would be going insane lol

[-]

Dependent-Plant-9589@reddit

40 fps. I would immediately know but I also play at 100 frames minimum with a 3080 ti 5950x

[-]

KingSuperChimbo@reddit

You are probably the boyfriend

[-]

Mocha_Bean@reddit

News to me!

[-]

Aletheia434@reddit

I half expected that and wondered how long he'd take to figure out why's his framerate so low. But BG3 is a turn based game where things outside of an occasional fireball don't move fast. As long as nothing moves, there's no way to tell. Unless you try spinning the camera real quick or somesuch

Where I live, electricity is the highest cost that goes into a PC. So anything that can reduce that is nice

[-]

dannz0rs@reddit

PvP fps: 60hz Coop: stable 30hz Competitive non fp: 40hz All personal bare minimum

[-]

AlkalineBrush20@reddit

Depends on the game genre, for MMOs, MOBAs, strategy or turn based anything is fine if it's stable. In shooters 100+ is what I aim for.

[-]

Dependent-Plant-9589@reddit

85.

[-]

Neverwish_@reddit

Any FPS games (csgo2, pubg, etc...), at least 100 FPS. Lower is just... Too low.

60 FPS is fine for the rest, but it very much depends on a monitor. 60 FPS on 165Hz monitor looks like trash. At that point, I'd rather lower the frequency of the monitor.

[-]

Mydadleftm8@reddit

Honestly 60fps is more than enough for me. I don't play too many multiplayer games anymore

[-]

chizzus1@reddit

80+

[-]

KonianDK@reddit

Depends on the game. Fast paced fps games? Story games? RPGs?

For anything that requires fast and precise inputs (fast paced action games) like league or cs I'd want as many frames as possible.

For everything else, I'd be comfortable at 80+. 60 feels a little too sluggish for me, considering I have a 165 Hz monitor

[-]

z3nnysBoi@reddit

I've done 20 and it was alright

Never had anything above 60 Hz

[-]

AstronomerStandard@reddit

I used to be a low spec gamer, 60 fps kind of guy when I was jobless.

Now my 240hz monitor has spoiled me, I now feel lacking when my frames are below 120.

When youve tasted heaven you never wanna go back down again

[-]

TheKiwiHuman@reddit

Anything that doesn't look like a sideshow.

Unless it is VR, then it has to be consistently high (around 120hz)

[-]

No-Reputation72@reddit

60, anything below that and the frames are too noticeable for me

[-]

Hot_Pea9820@reddit

75 is OK. I like 100 fps, but I managed for YEARS on 50 60 with my old card.

Yeah 75 minimum for competitive shooters.

[-]

Foreign_Spinach_4400@reddit

I use a switch for some multiplayer games, so as long as its 30 solid, and i mean never changes, im fine with it

[-]

Ephemeral-Echo@reddit

I've found that for online games the ping matters much more than the fps. But you can't adjust that ping since it's at the mercy of your region and isp, so the fps becomes more important.

StarCraft 2 is a super old RTS game. I've found it very servicable at 75fps. I'd say anything that makes you feel "stuck" is your threshold of "I'm never going that low", but ymmv especially with which games you're playing, so it's up to you to find where that point is yourself.

[-]

Frescarosa@reddit

30 is ok although not very enjoyable, and I'm totally happy at 60.

[-]

ConversationOk67@reddit

25 fps for single player, 45 fps for multiplayer, but i rarely play multiplayer games

[-]

Max-Headroom-@reddit

Good peripherals make you about 10% better. Anything after that is just your inherent skill, and for most people they will never even be above average no matter what hardware they are using

[-]

NotJeff_1606@reddit

Ive played 60fps my whole life and never higher although my fps on my screen shows higher my monitor is only 60hz lol. Its perfectly fine for me tbh maybe when i upgrade my monitor ill see or understand why of much a difference it makes but for me 60 fps is perfectly fine. I also play on my ps4 from time to time but i mostly only use that for story games and stuff so 30fps is fine that case too if your only play single player ig and its smooth

[-]

ImaSnapSomeNecks@reddit

Literally I’m fine with 30-60. Played console all my life, and I’m not a professional or anything like that. Don’t need that .000321 difference lol.

[-]

RAER4@reddit

You'd be super lucky to get steady 60 in Darktide so I'd say 40-ish

[-]

Whycantitypeanything@reddit

45.

The 1050 is taking it's last breaths

[-]

hear_my_moo@reddit

I remember C&C Red Alert on a 56k connection with FPS that made it look like a flip book... ☺️

[-]

sujan1996@reddit

200+

[-]

WeeziMonkey@reddit

144 fps

I'm wondering if there are studied reasons why certain numbers are more important than others.

Most high refresh monitors in the past were 144hz by default so that's what a lot of people are used to. Playing a fast paced multiplayer game in 60 fps feels like lag to me compared to 144. I now have a 360hz monitor but I don't really notice a difference compared to 144.

I'm also asking this question to help me understand what GPU is "good enough"

Even an 8 year old GTX 1060 can still reach 144 FPS in games like Rocket League, CS:GO and Overwatch. It might struggle with more modern 3D games like Apex Legends and newer CODs.

[-]

Yelov@reddit

In general around 100+, after 200 I don't really care, even though I have a 480 Hz display. Also some games feel smoother even at lower framerate, e.g. I find Control (not a multiplayer game) smooth even at something like 80 FPS, I guess it's a combination of motion blur and frame pacing.

[-]

Express_Lime_4806@reddit

I used to play wow at 15fps, dropping to 5fps in raids, that was fun lol.

I aim for 100 these days, me and my eyes are too old to see much difference beyond that

[-]

SotetBarom@reddit

If not super competitive (like let's say helldivers 2) I'm fine with 80-110. If it's some aderral induced sweat collecting championship (like apex) them I'm targeting 144 with drops to not less than 120.

[-]

Nuryyss@reddit

I have a 144hz screen and cap all my games at 72. Can’t really tell the difference and I’d rather keep my rig cool and use less energy

[-]

Spez12@reddit

60 as a minimum, as long as the framerate is stable enough I can get used to it. Frame drops are something I can't actually take tho

[-]

TheMoui21@reddit

Depens if you have gsync first of all. Above 100 seems pointless imo. But i have a friend who is way more sensitive than me and need 120

[-]

drkshock@reddit

We're not talking about camera shake or valorant 30. FPS is fine but I recommend 60.

[-]

SirMaster@reddit

Minimum of about 50-60.

[-]

HANAEMILK@reddit

I play CS2 on a 360hz monitor, I need at least 500-600 fps to account for the 1% lows.

[-]

FinancialRip2008@reddit

i hate competitive multiplayer. i also hate reaction speed games.

i'll tolerate a stable 30 fps and play with a controller to play games with my friends. unstable framerates under 30 are enough of a distraction i'd rather just watch people play and talk in the chat.

I'm also asking this question to help me understand what GPU is "good enough"

this is a constantly moving target. it's why it's important to measure by cost:frame. i'll happily buy a card that's more than i need today if the cost:frame isn't too much more expensive. it means when we move to the next games over a few years i don't have to sweat my gpu.

[-]

Klazik@reddit

40ish fps is fine for an hour or two. If it was a competitive game I'd prefer the 100-300

[-]

Trungyaphets@reddit

75+ fps

[-]

BrokenSmokeDKS@reddit

120 i think, if it an fps 144 or more

[-]

Keeper_0f_Secrets@reddit

Monster hunter has been 30 fps for ages(I know it's not an fps) but as long as the controls are responsive i really don't care

[-]

RelationshipHead8925@reddit

25

[-]

PhantomLimb06@reddit

when it comes to competitive games i prefer highest fps possible so 100+, in regular single player games i dont really care, ive played games at 12 fps and enjoyed it, i do like 60fps and would prefer it, but around 20 through 30 fps is doable for me,

[-]

ScheerschuimRS@reddit

Single player: 60 is fine Multiplayer: 90+ preferred Competitive: 120+ preferred

Once I reach these thresholds I pump the graphics, turn on rtx and lower dlss. Quality > crazy high frames for me.

I cap all games at 144 regardless.

[-]

AdreKiseque@reddit

Depends on the game. I think I could go pretty low on like, chess or something.

[-]

Ok_Awareness3860@reddit

Honestly, if you don't give me an fps counter, even 50 fps feels okay. But 120 is what I prefer.

[-]

Mistikur0@reddit

It's 120+ cause on it input lag feel not that big and u can aim faster

[-]

FireBreatherMP1@reddit

90+ is preferred. I'd settle for 60. Anything underneath doesn't work for me in multiplayer, brother.

[-]

MrInitialY@reddit

Define "online games". Among Us? This shit runs at 2000fps but can be played in 30. GTA, DRG, Minecraft and other non-competitive all fine at 60. For Sea of Thieves, Minecraft bedwars, PUBG or Overwatch I'd prefer 100+. For fast competitive games like Apex or Valorant I run roughly double the refresh rate of my screen, floating @ 280-300 frames per second

[-]

avrill_1@reddit

for my dead ass machine I'm fine with barely 60 :)

[-]

iTand22@reddit

I don't even know how to check my FPS. So I'm gonna say 60.

[-]

Xerokine@reddit

30 is fine, 60 preferably.

[-]

mrwioo@reddit

For multiplayer games, im fine with 70 up to 120 fps

[-]

Beginning_Nature157@reddit

over 150

[-]

SirArcherIV@reddit

I'm fine with 30, I can notice the difference between 30 and 60 and 60 and 165, but I don't care a ton if I'm just playing to have fun. As long as it's consistent I'll be okay.

[-]

RememberMeCaratia@reddit

Around 60 is what I have at the centre of the largest raid in a 700 pop Rust server, specifically the core of the largest, most automated base on the server. 7800X3D + 4070S on 1920x1440.

Anything lower than this and we are into the stutter territory where things fluctuate between playable and unplayable.

[-]

camelzrider@reddit

50 fps. Damn, the people in the comments have spent a lot of money on their PCs huh

[-]

FilthyHoon@reddit

150 if its competitive, maybe 100 if its a game like battlefield or squad, i dont mind 40-80 in singleplayer games

[-]

cmndr_spanky@reddit

60

[-]

1avacast@reddit

I play CS:2 at 60hz just fine idk what you all are talking about "120hz minimum"

[-]

Mocha_Bean@reddit

Genuinely, you don't know what you're missing. It's night and day.
You're probably rendering CS2 at much higher than 60 fps, so your experienced framerate is probably fairly stable and reasonably low latency. When your average framerate is 60, it's often going to dip below that, so your experience will likely be rather unpleasant.

[-]

XeronixResirg@reddit

You ever played with 120hz? If not you have no clou what you talking about.

[-]

Jomr05@reddit

60 minimum 120+ best experience

[-]

droideka_bot69@reddit

60 is absolute lowest, 100+ preferred, 120 is nicer, 144+ best.

[-]

Live_Free_Or_Die_91@reddit

Maybe I'm just getting old, but 60FPS still feels so smooth for me. Above 90 I just don't even notice a difference. If a game is graphics intensive and my modest rig seems to be only able to handle 80-100 FPS, or otherwise works too hard for triple digits, I'll usually just limit the max framerate to 75 so it doesn't want to jump around, and if it dips to 60 I don't notice. 30FPS is definitely noticeable however and feels awful, and it's funny to me that used to feel so normal back in the day.

[-]

OMG_NoReally@reddit

I would make do with 60fps, but that's barely enough for competitive games these days. Anything below 120fps is a no-go for me. Anything above is diminishing returns.

[-]

Your_Receding_Warmth@reddit

If it's over 60 I don't give a shit. I'm not in the pro leagues, framerate isn't going to make me better.

[-]

LionTamer619@reddit

90 is the about minimum I can play without it feeling really bad (really don’t know how I played CoD at 60 on a TV for so long), but 120+ is when it starts to feel reeeeally good for me

[-]

Viking2121@reddit

60fps but more the better. Single player I can do as low as 30 depending on what and kind of game it is, I grew up on crappy computer hardware, so idk, Kind was use to it at some point.

[-]

Silound@reddit

It really depends on the game in question.

You can play a turn-based game like Civ at 20 FPS if you needed to and it wouldn't deeply affect your gameplay. On the other hand, anything less than 60 FPS on a real-time multiplayer game, especially a competitive game, will be a severe detriment to your gameplay and experience. You could probably get away with lower than 60 FPS on some RTS games, but there's still a line where it's detrimental.

[-]

callofduty443@reddit

Above 150 at least.

[-]

thatsmysandwichdude@reddit

I play TF2 on 144p at like 20fps I think

[-]

No-Nectarine-5861@reddit

Anything above 60

[-]

ultramatt1@reddit

60 i’d say

[-]

Garvastic@reddit

i keep it locked at 180 :D

[-]

LALLIGA_BRUNO@reddit

30-60 is good, for games like valorant id prefer 100+

[-]

OrangeSimply@reddit

If its competitive multiplayer probably around 200fps just to give room for dips below that. I feel like theres a pretty noticeable difference below like 110 fps on my 144hz monitor.

If it's just a multiplayer game then 100-120.

[-]

GeneralLeeCurious@reddit

In 1080p I adjust settings to get a minimum of 100fps before turning on DLSS frame gen. At 1440p, I shoot for at least 60fps before turning on frame gen.

[-]

Pesebrero@reddit

Absolute minimum is 60. More FPS are better for competitive games, because your opponents appear on screen earlier (LTT made a video showing this a while ago), so you have higher chances to hit them.

[-]

jhaluska@reddit

Below about 70 I feel it starts affecting my game play.

[-]

Kvpe@reddit

around the mark of 140-160 is the minimum for me where i can confidently say that my pc doesn’t limit my skill with delay or other shit

[-]

janabottomslutwhore@reddit

i start noticing drops at ~50fps

[-]

Rainbow_Hedgehog@reddit

Anything above 60

[-]

Techy-Stiggy@reddit

Is my personal minimum but for single player 50 is good enough to still fall under my displays freesync

[-]

National_Drummer9667@reddit

I would happily play with 60 fps but I would prefer 80

[-]

Substantial-Prune704@reddit

Depends on how it’s coded. If the game is using on update the responsiveness is directly related to the FPS. So you need as much as you can get.

[-]

Long-Patient604@reddit

Idk man, I used to play Warzone 2 with my GTX 1650 and 5600h and I think any game is enjoyable as long as you don't feel like "Fuck this game is lagging". Try 60fps, if that feels like laggy or not fast enough try 90fps and keep increasing the numbers until you feel like "this is awesome"

[-]

Sodozor@reddit

Minimum 60. Anything above 75 for comfort

[-]

JayKaySwayDk@reddit

165Hz - 170 fps (minimum online)
80 fps (minimum single-play)

[-]

archiegamez@reddit

80+ but consistent

[-]

No_Cauliflower633@reddit

I cap all my games at 60 fps. I don’t notice a difference with a higher limit.

[-]

Flossthief@reddit

For a shooter that I'm serious about? No less than 160 fps

Most other games 120 fps is acceptable

[-]

fupower@reddit

Depends on what multiplayer game, super competitive 120, anything else 60fps is enough

[-]

TrollTrolled@reddit

20

[-]

EmmanDB3@reddit

60 is fine

[-]

Immediate-Answer-184@reddit

30fps. So I can say that that's not me that is bad, it's the computer fault.

[-]

Broyalty007@reddit

200+ , ideally a steady 240

[-]

sleepytechnology@reddit

Typical sprint fps: 110-120ish

Comp fps: 165-200ish

[-]

candiedbunion69@reddit

144 minimum. I’ve done my time at 30 and 60. No more.

[-]

CountBlashyrkh@reddit

Minimum for me is 60 fps. I start changing settings quick if it goes below 60. However, i prefer 90+fps whenever I can.

[-]

VPN_User_@reddit

120 fps~

[-]

searchableusername@reddit

60? my monitor is 120 and i play overwatch at like 250+ but 60 is fine..

[-]

DoggieDMB@reddit

You asked minimum? 60 is fine.

Not saying preferred. I'm saying minimum.

[-]

The_MacChen@reddit

40-60 fps for me lol. I mean I would prob be better but my rig can't push more frames than that as I'm running on a gtx 1080 and amd ryzen 2600x lol but I still win war zone every now and then

[-]

Therunawaypp@reddit

A very very stable ~80 fps

[-]

Aheg@reddit

For competitive you want as much fps as you can so you can see the most updated image on your screen, this sometimes means you will see enemy slightly faster so you can react to it faster. So, the more you have the better.

Now, as we know not everyone wants to be pro gamer, so for high competitive people I would say something like 165-240 is good enough.

For people that like competitive games but are not going into try hard mode 120-144 should be good enough.

For me personally for fast paced games/fps etc I can't go lower than 90fps. On my old PC I played csgo at stable 90fps and the image was great, I had no drops etc. I could see the difference between 90 vs 75. Right now I am playing most games at 162fps locked(165Hz monitor) that includes CS2(for me clean and steady image is better than slightly faster new frame).

Also I somehow can't stand 60fps anymore, even in single player games, minimum for me is 72-75fps. Maybe in strategy games I would be able to play at 60, but anything where you look around, 72 is my bare minimum.

[-]

rory888@reddit

Depends on the game. Depends on the situation. Some games are server limited, so it doesn't matter what your local fps is as long as it is at least as high as the server tickrate.

Some games are competitive, others are not. Some game engines can't handle high fps.

YMMV

[-]

LengthMysterious561@reddit

Having grown up with shitty computers I'll take what I can get. 40 fps and up is good enough for me.

[-]

MoveReasonable1057@reddit

1% less than 30fps will be visible stutters for the eyes.

what you play at is up to you. i was absolutely fine with 60hz until i tried 165hz, would not be able to go back to 60hz, office monitor feels terrible even without gaming on it.

but in general more than 120fps and more than 60fps 1%. then again solo games 60fps is fine, but multiplayer will have 'advantage' with higher fps - should you play competitively.

[-]

Redacted_Reason@reddit

Below 60 starts to be unplayable. 90+ is comfortable.

[-]

MagicPistol@reddit

I prefer 144+, but I'm fine with stable 60 too.

[-]

HonchosRevenge@reddit

I guess 60-100? Truthfully, consistent latency is more important and in my experience harder to maintain. Everyone’s circumstance is different

[-]

M4GNUM_FORCE_44@reddit

there are a lot of looter shooter like tarkov that have bad performance but people play them a lot. Personally if i wanted to play something that ran bad i would just play on minimum settings and hope it gets to 144fps. What really bothers me are games that have weird stuttering built into the engine. Its so frustrating that no matter what fps you get it still has horrible stuttering.

[-]