For PC gamers with good - but not the best - graphics cards,

>>381533985
stable fps, specially for multiplayer games
>owning two 980 GTX since forever yet I play multiplayer or """""""""competitive"""""""" games on medium/low settings

Still got a 2GB GPU, for me it varies game to game. I play Bladestorm Nightmare below 60FPS but prefer it looks better. Warband I play below 60FPS for significantly increased battle size. Games like STALKER I want to be at 60FPS at all times and do trade visuals for it though.

>>381533985
Multiplayer games, you need the fps.
Single player, assuming it isn't precision based, I'll take a small hit to fps, but usually lower than about 45 bugs the fuck out of me.

>>381533985
Only a fag would take better graphics over a better frame rate

Based on the game.

Multiplayer games, always 60. Same thing with most action games, combat focused games, or platformers.

Some games where pretty graphics is actually a draw, like say, Witcher 3, where the core combat mechanics aren't that great too, I'm fine with pumping a bit, assuming I don't go under the 50.

>>381533985
GTX960 here
Depends on the game
For Rise of the Tomb Raider for example I preferred 40FPS with tweaked high settings.

But I don't play new games, I don't find them good, and old games can run smoothly with max settings

>>381533985
PC gamers literally don't give a fuck. That's the best part about PC gaming no one gives a shit about how you play except for Reddit and /v/. Most of the world plays on a toaster and gets 12 FPS. It's all about what suits you, to be honest.

>>381533985
Stable FPS, i don't really mind shitty textures or crappy models as long as they look fine with the game ascetics.
The industry, especially in the west is quite obsessed with high tier textures and shit, but they're rising the bar so much that eventually games will become stupid expensive to make (if not already).

>>381533985
60fps and it's not even close.

60 fps is barely acceptable in fast games, you can clearly notice the sluggishness when doing fast movements

>>381533985
60 FPS, but sometimes I play games even in 30 to make them look prettier.

Depends on the kind of game. If it's really fast-paced 60 is mandatory, but if it's slow and has really good visuals I'll be fine with lower fps.

60fps but lower visual.

fuck visuals senpai i played ps1 and alot of 90 pc games, graphics aint shit senpai.

>>381534563
Thanks. Laptop I'm getting comes with a GTX 1050ti. I understand its not a beast but will do good for what I want to play. Was curious to see how others thought.

>>381534137
This. Whether it's 60 or 30 fps it needs to be stable first and foremost.
I'll drop graphics down to Medium/High to achieve that stable 60fps lock, but if 60 isn't possible I lock the framerate to 30 and render at 2560x1440.
My general rule of thumb is multiplayer games must run at 60fps. For most singleplayer games though I cap at 30fps and run it maxed out.

Drops below 30fps are unacceptable in any situation.

File: 1496025178947.png (307KB, 427x427px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 427x427px

>>381533985
(Things listed higher in the following list are more important than the stuff lower)

>stable fps (55-60 frames)
You should be willing to sacrifce graphics for it any day.
FPS is always a priority, lest you'll be no better than a console player

>high fps (100+)
depending on the game, sometimes you might be willing to sacrifice alot of graphics to achieve this.
Not extremely important but still a bit more of a priority than just good graphics

>good graphics
Depends on the game, again. If it's an single player rpg or something, you want them maxed out most of the time.
However if it's an FPS, you might want to reconsider since lowering fps & increasing visual effects may* handicap you against your opponents. (*seriously, in early CS days, even smoke grenades could lower someones fps enough for them to get fucked)

>Better resolution (2K/4K/8K)
Less important than anything at the moment. For gaming, it's a luxury that generally doesn't mean much unless you have a rig that effortlessly runs modern games at ultra settings & over 100 fps.
If your computer can do it, then you might as well ascend to the next level, but, as you should know, with higher frame and resolution, you'll need a monitor that accepts those terms.
Remember = bigger or curved monitors are not better. What you want is an normal size monitor like 24" with high refresh rate / minimal response time (allows you to see the frames per second your computer is capable of) and higher maximum resolution (1440p is 2K, 2160p is 4K etc)

Nobody sane should aim for 4K/8K yet, as you'll most likely rape your hardware unless you're someone that can afford the very best parts available currently.

Resolution is never so important that you'd want to sacrifice graphics/fps to attain it, unless, like I said, you can actually manage stable fps and decent graphics.

People that say solid 30 is better than variable 30+ are living memes (where 30 is actually your absolute min, averages around 45, and peaks in the 60s)

I used to have to play runescape at 12-18 fps for over 4 years. At 18 it was actually playable but the dips to 12 were where it become broken and unresponsive. But anything more than 30 is still smoother than 30 despite not being "stable at 30".

People always try to boil down graphics settings and shit down to a formula but you can't. They all have thresholds.

>fps is ALWAYS priority first
Okay, would you run a game at 240fps on a 240Hz screen if its running at 16x9? And I mean literally 16 pixels by 9 pixels. No, of course not.

Would you override settings to run your games untextured with forced reduced poly counts to run the game at 4K@120fps? No, that's stupid.

Would you run your game at 8K on max settings modded out the ass if it could only generate a frame once per minute?

Whichever is "better" is only determined by whatever previous threshold you already reached.

>>381533985
60fps but only if I can get 1080p.

You are retarded if you actively make your games run like shit so they look marginally better to be brutally honest.

Stable, smooth framerate will always be superior to anything else. Whatever it's capped at, 30, 60, etc.

It has to stay stable and consistent.

No amount of marginal graphical improvements is worth having the framerate being thrown from a cliff.

If the shit isn't stable, lower the settings or upgrade, or if it's the trash games fault stop playing said trash game.

Simple as that.

>>381534337
No. Higher fps makes games look better. Therefore it isnt just a E_SPORTS thing. End of discussion.

>>381533985
60FPS minimum, 120FPS preferred.
Wouldn't care if I had to play at low settings in a 1280x720 window, as long as all of the important details remain clear and visible.
Even when I have the power to run at higher settings, I'll turn off most post-processing just for visual clarity rather than visual fidelity.

>>381533985
I like sixty for most games.

I'll only do 45-50 if the game is really fun like DOOM or something, otherwise I'm forcing it to do 75+.

I always try for 144fps, even with low graphical fidelity I can immerse myself in a game if the design is good, and 144fps just feels better to play overall.

>>381533985
high fps above all
unjaggy grass can suck my dick

>>381533985
4yo GTX660 here
stable famerate, 1080p vsync on

>>381533985
For me? I just can't stand anything less than 500 fps.
I have to place everything at the lowest setting and play at a resolution the size of the reply window but it's really worth it in the end for that ultimate control

File: 1438929336004.jpg (48KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 490x490px

>>381541069
I like you, anon

>>381533985
I just want a game that's fun to play, so I guess FPS because that's an issue most likely to make something unplayable.