Frametime vs FPS
Frametime vs FPS
I ceased playing games some time ago because of microstutters. The FPS counter often stayed above 60 frames per second most of the time, but it didn’t feel very smooth—it seemed unstable. After learning about frametime, I installed riva tuner and restricted my FPS to 50. My frame rate stabilized and the games became enjoyable again. In your view, which option is preferable? High FPS with inconsistent timing or stable timing but below 60 frames per second?
It really comes down to the situation for me.
I personally enjoy racing games more when they run at 60Hz instead of fluctuating just because it doesn’t look odd.
I let FPSes operate freely since, in my opinion, the frame rate is more important than the image’s smoothness in those titles.
The performance I experience in the FPSes I play (mainly TF2 and older Call of Duty games) exceeds what v-sync demands.
You require a solid graphics card and a responsive monitor. A 2080ti paired with a 60 hz panel won’t be ideal, just like a 240hz display with a GTX 1050. I favor stable frame rates around 200-240 fps in shooters (1440p at 144hz), focusing on response time and low latency. Some games allow up to 240 fps, while others accept it as long as there are no big frame drops or stutters—leaving it open to the limit is fine.
I could run at 300FPS, but Fortnite and other titles often experience noticeable frame drops, so I cap it at 240. Also, Unreal Engine includes a "Feature" that increases bullet output for specific FPS levels, meaning a gun might fire more bullets when shot at 60 fps versus 240 fps. This can be frustrating for certain engines, but I manage to handle it.
It really varies by game. For battleship titles such as World of Warships or Dreadnought, I’d settle for around 30 fps, but in standard FPS games it needs to be at least 60 fps. Even in older games like my G206HQL, I boosted it to 75 hz.
It seems you're checking if your understanding matches what's correct. Yes, that sounds accurate.
I always prefer a steady frame time rather than FPS consistency. Fluctuations in frame time hinder accurate or reliable timing, which is crucial for games that depend on precise timing such as fighting and rhythm-based titles. Even when not in those contexts, stutters are quite bothersome. They make performance appear less smooth compared to consistent timing.
okay, I am a bit confused.
@Dan Castellaneta
and
@Mira Yurizaki
dan says for First person shooter, it is better to let your FPS run wild to get in more inputs.
Mira claims that frametime is more important so you can get more accurate timing.
Theoretically, if you are above 50fps, then I think frametime should be more important. Having the option of matching your input every 1/50th of a second sounds better as opposed to having your input being randomly paired with a frame. Because theoretically, even if you run at 140 fps, the first 139 frames can be presented in the first 1/4 of a second and the 3/4 of the second could be occupied by the last frame. But this is just my understanding so I could be gravely mistaken. Enlighten me. I think Mira's arg. sounds more cogent.
This situation aligns with similar concerns regarding microstuttering. Even if a test shows a fast average, individual frames might appear sparse due to short refresh intervals, making the overall experience feel slower. The problem here is more pronounced and noticeable. If you visualize frame times as shown in the example, you can see how clustering of spikes can create a stuttering effect despite a high average frame rate.