Truth about "91" fps in the new call of duty
Truth about "91" fps in the new call of duty
So this occurs annually (since the console was removed from cod, what was that, Mw2? I stopped playing the new ones). They cap the game at 91 frames per second. Everyone begins to voice their concerns and the same issue keeps arising: "Why is it 91 fps? It seems so arbitrary, shouldn’t they choose something like 60, 120, or 144?" In reality, 91 isn’t random—it’s actually based on design choices. Let’s revisit the fundamentals. The engine (remember, they never rewrite it, just update parts) is a modified version of an older engine like Id Tech 3 or Quake. For most CoD titles, they keep the core code intact, so bugs from earlier versions remain. The fps aspect ties directly to the engine’s mechanics. It uses integer values derived from 1000 divided by numbers under 1000 (like 1, 2, 3...). If a calculation doesn’t yield an exact whole number, it rounds up to the nearest possible fps that still works. This explains why 91 isn’t arbitrary—it’s part of how the system functions. To clarify, I set the target at 85 FPS, but they chose 91 because of those rounding rules. It might seem odd, but certain frame rates can trigger issues, like jumps to 125 or 333, which cause visual glitches. Screenshots show these transitions—FPS appears in the bottom right, while the chosen value is shown in the top left. You’ll notice that 240, 60, and 85 round up, but 250 stays at 250, 125 rounds to 125, and 144 rounds to 166. This behavior is documented in general knowledge about cod4 and the Quake engine. Source: General understanding of cod4 operations (played for years, Promod was a great game) Source: Quake engine documentation. Edit: Added more details for clarity.
The day they fix the engine might be when CoD becomes viable once more. I still like it this way.
I believe it's reasonable to label it as uncapped unless you can achieve 1000 fps. In reality, it's not fully uncapped but cmon. The 91 fps choice was made, and they had a specific target in mind. I remember Black Ops 2 didn't face the same movement issues at 125 fps+ in multiplayer. They're using the same engine, which means problems could be resolved.
The main goal of this message was to explain that they didn’t “decide” to pick 91, but rather went with 85. I’m not in agreement with their actions, only reporting what occurred. It’s hard for me to understand someone who is confused.
Really useful to understand. Thanks for getting involved, even though I was a bit surprised. If there are any known issues when the frame rate is limited at higher speeds, they should address them right away so benchmarks can test how much stress the system handles.