Fps comparison.

Apr 19, 2017 2:39 AM

Pinokus

Views

221483

Likes

3959

Dislikes

62

60fps

30fps

20fps

15fps

10fps

5fps

4fps

3fps

2fps

1fps

Launch. 60fps.

Need 144fps plz.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Open notepad and type a sentence. Then drag the window in circles trying to read the text. Now change refresh rate and try again.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You missed your chance at including 0 fps as a still

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

FUCKIN LAG!!!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Imagine really wanting to watch all these but your internet is shit regardless of where you go so it loads the first two seconds of each gif

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

SO HERE'S WHERE ALL THE PIXELS WENT!?! All those previous posts that had no pixels... so sad.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't see any difference until 10 fps.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where's the 144fps?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Lunch. 60food per second.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I have a speed of 60fps. 60 fries per second

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I was disappointed when there was no 0fps

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Exactly what I was scrolling down for. Wasn't sure if I expected the same image or something off the wall as a joke.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

More thrust than a rollerbladders dance routine

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Amazeballs

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where dat 144 frames

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1fps, also known as Australian Broadband Quality

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

v

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

All looks the same when your internet is slow

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where is my 144fps?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I get it. This was a countdown to a rocket launch. clever.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It gets more and more cinematic as you scroll down

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 3

ooh i see what you did there... you sly bastard

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Would you care to enlighten us?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

he went from 20-15-10-5-4-3-2-1... blastoff... like a countdown

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I thought nobody would notice. Thanks

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

T-plus the amount it takes for people to get the joke.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

hate to be the bearer of bad news here @OP but your 60fps's are actually 50. Imgur removes a few frames when compressing

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

Ho. Good to know thanks.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Harsh, he was trying to help and you called him a ho.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Hit less then 30fps and

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I feel I go through all of these when playing Arma 3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

TIL that I can't see the difference between 20, 30, and 60 fps

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Play a game at 20 fps. You'll notice

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Open notepad and type a sentence. Then drag the window in circles trying to read the text. Now change refresh rate and try again.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Not enough thrust

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, I see that your rig also struggles with Kerbal Space Program

9 years ago | Likes 252 Dislikes 1

I have been living on KSP for the last few days

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The perfect comment. Goodnight.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Goodnight

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm used to seeing stuff like that at <20 FPS. Seeing this in 60 FPS was like watching a cutscene!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*builds 900-part spaceplane* Come on 15fps!

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 0

Haha haha! 6600k oc'd to 4.5 GHz. 900 parts is doable at high fps in 4k!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 22

Absolutely not. It's not your rig that slows down, its the game engine.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

No, its single core CPU bound. 900 parts isn't that stressful when you have a strong core running at a high speed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

15? I'm lucky to get that on a four part rover

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I tend to go way overboard and end up with a 2,000 part asparagus style heavy lifter. 1 frame every 5 seconds.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

0.2 fps. Impressive.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The hell kind of spaceplane has 900 parts?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

the best ones

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

v

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

A much better comparison of 60 vs 30.

9 years ago | Likes 714 Dislikes 6

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

And that's why games need higher fps, things are often moving very quick.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 12, 2023 10:50 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Is there one out there with 240, 144,120, 60, 30, 15 and 5? I think that'd be neat

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They probably exist, but they would be useless unless your monitor actually runs that fast.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yea, you are probably right. I've been thinking about upgrading to a faster monitor but can't justify it. Maybe someday.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'd love to get a 120hz monitor. I used to have a CRT that was 70hz and even that was a noticeable jump in clarity.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've heard that the jump from 60 to 120 or 144 was a huge improvement. 144 to 240 was nice but not as rewarding for the investment.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm running off of 1 hour of sleep. This is melting my mind trying to understand this gif

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thank you. I could barely see any difference until 15 with the rockets. Lol

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Watch the sparks. It is easier to see there.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I can understand not seeing the difference between 60 and 30, but 30 to 20 seems very significant to me

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But your eyes can only see 30fps

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

http://www.testufo.com syncs to your monitors hertz so it can show diff of 120 vs 60, or higher

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

just noticed Toothless in the bottom right

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As a mobile user, THANK YOU.

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 0

I bet 61fps is much better

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Odd numbered frame rates make people's eyes bleed. There should be a warning label.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

60/30/15

9 years ago | Likes 211 Dislikes 3

Good stuff if it's real because I saw no difference in the thruster 60/30 fps

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 8

Ubisoft? Is that you?

9 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 1

Try tracking the sparks in the bottom left corner. In the 60FPS image, they appear to move smoothly, whereas in the 30FPS image they //

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh yeah, I can see it a bit. Wouldn't find it if I wasn't looking for it.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah. 30->60 is a nice upgrade, but it's certainly not a HUGE deal.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is hardly the most strenuous test, nothing in the shuttle video moves across the frame particularly fast.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

FPS also matters less when watching stuff than it does playing, because you aren't inputting anything. With games 144/60/30 matters more 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

because your IRL actions are translated more smoothly and faster into a response in-game at a higher FPS, so when I'm spinning for a 2/?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

shot I can really feel the FPS difference. 3/3.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Wtf, the 30FPS line works fine when not zoomed in and sync's with the 60FPS line when zoomed on mobile.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

that's right. The more detail, the more important it is.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I hope no one less missed the Toothless.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Hah! I didn't see him until just now.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Do tell

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bottom right corner

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So sad that we don't do that anymore. Those were the good old times.

9 years ago | Likes 214 Dislikes 7

I'm glad we did it, and I'm glad it appears to have paid off to the point where Private entities can step in (like Space X).

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

elon musk is launching the falcon heavy soon

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Space X is better

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

Considering 40 year difference, no surprise.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

So there were some difficulties with the sts. It should have launched 2 times a month. Been much cheaper to overhaul 3. More payload prt 1

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

For cheaper.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thats what you get when Ted Cruz, a raving creationist, is in charge of NASAs funding. And with Donald Trump in the White House.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

We must have war now. The mega rich command it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://youtu.be/WbV_zwSFNhA?t=10m45s We literally launch rockets on the regular. This was YESTERDAY. (yes it's in 360 view)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Cheer up! You still launch those all the time! :D they just land on brown people now instead of celestial objects.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 11

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Apr 19, 2017 11:09 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

they ran out of rockets caus they dropped them all. last week the president used the biggest non nuke cause he thought it was cool. But sure

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Why do people always think every military encounter is somehow micro-managed by the pres?Especially with this dude missing his daily briefs.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Cause we have reports of him authorising it, over "the most beautiful, tremendous chocolate cake"

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

1. you said brown people, sorry i dont respect you 2. rockets, bombs, and missles are different 3. if you actually cared about politics you-

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

would know there is more to it than "he thought it was cool" 4. again, you said "brown people"

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The sheer amount of CFCs to be ejected from this was mind baffling. Really hope they can do this again without all the pollution.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 6, 2021 4:36 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Today if USA wants up or down from the ISS, the International Space Station, they have to ride with Russia or China.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

True, that all things do come to an end. But I mean, we as a country just stopped. Relying on Russia for a taxi service.

9 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 1

That's why the Dragon Capsule is being worked on so hard. The Russians are out dated

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It was quite a good move actually. Buying use of cheap aging technology from Russians so it would linger and investing the money into //

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

next generation of craft, which would put competitors out of business.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm glad we have Space X and Virgin Atlantic but what happened to NASA? I know we're planning to go to Mars which is good.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

NASA straight up said, "were done with low orbital test". They've been building a bunch of satellites

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Plus the James Webb telescope.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I can't wait for that to launch. Whenever thatll be. I love deep space so much.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(1/2) NASA's still here! Quite a bit of its focus is on Earth science missions, in addition to "deep space" stuff. In human spaceflight ...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(2/2) ... NASA is building Orion as its next vehicle. Both it and the SLS rocket that will carry it are currently undergoing testing.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They focus on unmanned deep space missions, with significant results. Water on mars, etc.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Money. No one wants to have the kind of budget used to go to the moon. NASA is amazing, but only the space program is widely familiar.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I agree with you whole hardly. Moon, been there done that. So many more places to see. Just wish we didn't have so much political B.S.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 6, 2021 4:54 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Well, there are laws of physics and technological limitations there. You can draw anything as a sketch, but when it comes to working thing//

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it gets more and more complicated. There was not much to be done to make it simpler without giving up capacity requirements.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Leave it to the bureaucracy and the military to overrule any original idea and engineering r concepts. L

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You can critique the military for a hell of a lot, but there's a shit-ton of experiments done by/with them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Didn't it "only" have 2 disasters in 135 flights? Or do you mean stuff going wrong in general?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Statistically speaking, it was one of the worst crewed launch vehicles.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

For the chance to fly in the shuttle, I'd still take those odds, compared to those in the Apollo program,

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The saturn v's launch success rate is 100%. The space craft rate is 100% (Apollo 13 was only a partial failure).

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

To be fair if they were properly maintained or upgraded (budget cuts) they probably would have been better

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

This. The vehicles themselves were not the weak links in the chain.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Apollo was better, but I think they did well with what it was. Until they get tech up to allow for more vehicle durability , I think private

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

launch contracting is the way to go.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I honestly can't see the difference between 30 and 60

9 years ago | Likes 139 Dislikes 20

I think this is a really poor example for showing fps.

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 0

I barely notice the difference between 30 and 15. As long as you get a steady fps it's fine.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

Your eyes are broken, you should get them checked.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's exactly 30 difference.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Take attention to the motion of the sparks, the rest of the image is quite immobile. 30 FPS is good enough for watching something, not (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

interacting with/whitin it, like in video games, or when it goes quite fast. (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Try watching F1 in 60 fps and you'll never go back

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

how do i do that? what service provides a 60fps pic?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I think u can get it off torrents or just watch on a TV that supports linear interpolation (clear motion etc)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Honestly, you're a jerk

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Look at the sparks. Not many things in that image move fast enough for the motion to be noticeably different between 30 and 60.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The biggest difference would be found in the sparks, and I do see a bit more motion (the 30 FPS starts looking a bit more like static).

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I honestly didn't see any difference until I got to 10fps.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

You can when there's more motion. (Also, imgur compression means that it's closer to 50 FPS.)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's not how compression works.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Maybe I used the wrong word. Regardless, imgur won't include all the frames of a high-FPS gif. I guess it's for size or bandwith purposes.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same. Something something human eye can't see more than 30fps something something.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 13

which is, y'know, bullcrap

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

The argument is the difference is negligible. Its better to get higher fidelity than push past 30 fps in non shooter/racing games.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

Except when I edit videos there is a small smoothness with 60 that isn't in 30, but before I got into that I also didn't see a difference.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

This is the real truth. Like when HD just came out, a lot of people didn't notice a difference. Until you have an HDTV...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 6, 2021 4:36 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I, too notice things when I'm smoking meth.

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 1

That or if you have synthetic examples like the gifs shown above, where there is only a single thing moving on a black background.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Any video.. Nothing changes that I can notice.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 25

Console user in denial. Join the master race.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ 60 and 30 fps, set motion blur to none. If you can't see any difference, you have a 30 hz monitor.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Certainly not 30hz monitor and still no

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 20

You must have 30hz eyes. The difference is pretty obvious.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

With fast moving particles (like sparks). It's the difference between actually seeing the sparks, and seeing a blur of sparks.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Seriously? It's clear as day for me. In 30 fps you can't tell the movement of individual sparks, it just turns into visual noise.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

i didn't really even notice until the 15 to 10 fps jump. guess who has two thumbs and will be saving money on fancy tv's :D

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Bob Kelso?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Dr. Bob Kelso

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same, I'm fine with 15 fps, 60 isn't helpful out of gaming imo

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

Pfft, fussy kids these days, when I was little you heard about the rocket on the radio, drew one in pencil & imagined all the FPS you want

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Did you have to walk 160 miles to the nearest radio? In snow, without shoes... Uphill. Both ways.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Uphill both ways? Where is that?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Glad to know I'm not the only one!

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Depends what your monitor is using it might actually be 30fps instead of 60 if you only have a 30hz monitor. Also it's a bad example.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

probably not a monitor, those have been 60hz for a while but in on older phone, possible, I guess. Never thought about it

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'm stuck with 30fps as that's the best my HDMI can run a 4K monitor.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

If it were me, I'd spend the $10-20 to fix that in a heartbeat.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

So much this. "Stuck with 30 fps" sounds like a nightmare to me..

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

it is my understanding that you are sincere. but I absolutely cannot see how, it's as clear as the difference between green and blue!

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Well, green and blue are pretty close on the color spectrum

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

And yet you still consider them different, no? Stop being pedantic for the purpose of being pedantic.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Maybe not, I could be colorblind. They could be varying shades of blue or green. You're talking to a design person here

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Cut the bullshit. Do you, or do you not, consider green and blue to be different colours?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0