Why do games have to be either 60 FPS or 30 FPS? Why don't

>>376903880
I don't understand why people are picky. I don't even see any difference between these two images

It'd look choppy

>>376903880
Because learn to math.
Most displays nowadays are 60/120hz.
Only framerate that's actually a multiplier of those can offer correct display without stutter and so called framepacing problems (and if framepacing issues occur at 30/60fps then the developer is incompetent at programming and in reality the game isn't 30/60fps but more like 29-31 59/61).

That's why double-buffered V-Sync locks framerate to increments (so when it falls below 60, it locks to 30, if it falls below 30, it locks to 20, if it falls below 20, it locks to 15 and so on with all multipliers that can compose 60).

because screens run at 60 frames a second and 40 and 50 don't divide into 60

>>376903880
I don't see a different between the two in your pic.

>>376903880
those look exactly the same, fpsfags are retarded

Because an unlocked framerate fucks with framepacing which can lead to stutter and input delay.

>>376903880

I think metal gear solid 4 had a good approach to this. It shifted from 15 - 60fps depending on intensity

>>376904225
Wouldn't 120 HZ allow for 40 FPS to be viable?

>>376904546
kek

>>376904176
Underrated post

>>376904572
>60
>multiple of 40
Are you dense?

>>376904225
Oh and to elaborate, fps =/= hz, at least not exactly.
Your monitor is ALWAYS displaying image in 60hz (technically 60 fps, or 120 in case of 120hz monitors obviously).
What happens, is that the game's framebuffer is feeding the frames it renders to your display, but it HAS to feed it exactly 60 frames every second, even if the game is running at less that.
What happens in case of 30 FPS games, is that each of those frames is being duplicated, so your display can be fed the full 60 frames of information that it needs.
In case of 20 FPS, that is tripled to achieve 60, and so on.

Now imagine your game is running at 45 FPS.
That in no way can mutliply to achieve 60 frames that your display wants to display.
So what happens? Instead of frames being multiplied evenly (maintaining a smooth image), only SOME of them are being multiplied to achieve the 60 frames.
This is what causes what we perceive as stutter, as our brain very easily picks up on this break in the pattern, at least in people with non-shit eyesight and reflexes.
We notice that Frames 1-4 are displayed once each, but then for example frame 5 is being duplicated as frame 5 and 6, and then it's frames 7-10 being shown once, and then frame 11 is duplicated for 11 and 12 and so on.

This is where the stutter comes from.

>>376904640
He's correct though.
MGS4 used double-buffered v-sync that ensured framerate was always a multiplier of 60 which is why despite shit framerate, the input was silky smooth.

>>376904697
120 is

>>376904697
40+40+40?

>>376904697
lolwut, 40x3

>>376904719
And the final note to this wall of text I'm spewing.

This is why techniques like V-Sync, Free-Sync, G-Sync and such were born. To combat this problem.

>>376903880
120 fps is what everyone should be achieving.

>>376904176
good post

but it seems like the only reason any "cares" is because they think they are a pro gamer and the only thing holding them back is that their rig is too shit to run games on 4k resolutions with 240fps

Human eye can't distinguish the difference between 60 and 90 fps so who the hell cares.

>>376904572
120 Hz monitors are usually G-Sync enabled which means they don't have a "native" refresh rate. In fact I'm 99% sure all 144 Hz monitors at least are like this and thus don't give a shit about what framerate you feed them.

Because freesync isn't in every display.

>>376904176
I hope you are kidding

>>376904983
>>376904176
HAHA :p

>its a "/v/ is technically retarded and shows it off" thread

File: IMG_1435.png (812KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 960x640px

>>376904176

>>376905112
That's not true at all, 120 existed long before g-sync and less than half the over 60fps monitors on the market today include Nvidia's G-sync scaler chip.

>>376905771
I stand corrected, I don't pay too much attention to that market just yet hence my lack of knowledge. I just don't see a point adopting such display yet when games are unoptimized pieces of shit these days that struggle to run at 60 fps on powerful machines thanks to shit console ports.

>>376905343
Likewise.

>>376904176
I thought that the 30vs60 fps shit is a meme until I played for honor on a good pc that could run it on 60, and then a bad one that could only handle 30
I could consistently block peacekeeper's attacks in 60 fps, but in 30 it was only ever possible if I used prediction instead of reaction

>>376906236
fuck I think I missed the joke gas me pls

>>376906236
Correct anon, framerate DOES give you tactical advantage, the more you know!
You're literally seeing two times more unique frames in 60 FPS than someone playing in 30 FPS.