How good can you run Minecraft?

[Inception]

I just want to open up this thread for people to show off their specs(including myself, hehe), I run Minecraft usually with an average of 3500-3600 FPS but when it's raining it usually drops by about 100. I can run shaders mod on max settings as well usually maintaining a perfect 3000. I'd test it out with Fraps to see how well it handles recording but I haven't gotten down to buying Fraps just yet... What about you guys?

 

[badger906]

my minecraft has always been locked to 60fps using the built in benchmarking. anything over 24fps and im happy as i cant see anymore than that

 

[ShamrockRig]

my minecraft has always been locked to 60fps using the built in benchmarking. anything over 24fps and im happy as i cant see anymore than that

Am i not correct in saying the eye can 30fps? there is a massive difference between 24fps and 30 in gameplay, 24 being unplayable and 30 being on the brink of playable 40fps is smooth 60fps is smoother!

 

[Contrabardus]

I've got ver 1.7.4 and I can crank everything up to the max at 16 chunks and run Amplified worlds at a solid 60fps with no frame rate drops even when flying around. It's epic.

 

[Wishmaster]

Supposedly the eye can not see difference beyond 30FPS. I suppose there may be some truth to that. If you think about it BluRay is at 24FPS, DVD is at 30.

But I can certainly feel the difference gaming between 30ish and 60.

Sadly, anything beyond the displays refresh is a waste of power and you'll never see it. Since the extra frames being rendered never make it to the screen to be displayed. It just can't show them.
So, 60 refresh means anything over 60FPS gets lost even though the GPU works hard rendering it.

 

[Inception]

I thought the eye couldn't see beyond 70FPS. I thought I heard Vsauce say something like that before

 

[ShamrockRig]

Nah im sure its 30 mate, i dont see the point when people say they get 190fps on a game...whats the point? Vsync is ESSENTIAL in my personal opinion, without it, screentearing makes me want to smash my computer to pieces haha! I suppose everyone is different though.

 

[Contrabardus]

Pretty much the only time anything over 60 fps is useful is when running 3D. Then 120 fps becomes a factor because 60 fps for each eye. There are 120 fps screens out there, but they are mostly for use with 3D of one sort or another. That's what the whole 120hz "3D ready" thing is about. It's not really running television, games, or movies at 120 fps in 2D unless it's upscaling, and that's not true 120 fps.

It's pretty useless to have a 120 fps screen if you're not using it for 3D because no GPUs that I'm aware of support any higher frequency than 60 fps for any 2D output anyway. On top of that, upscaling looks great with films and television, but creates latency in games.

There is no use for anything over 60 fps in regard to gaming regardless of the type of screen one has just because of hardware limitations even if a game is capable of 120 fps or more.

 

[Dude]

I can run it pretty good

 

[AddRAM]

Fraps is Free

If you can`t see a difference between 30,40 or 50 FPS and 150 to 200 FPS........ You are blind

3500 3600 FPS ??? Amazing, what`s your secret LOL

 

[Wishmaster]

You can't see it.

Its impossible, physically, for the display to show anything beyond its refresh rate. All those extra frames are just being thrown away.

I know many say they can see it, but I honestly don't see how. That extra FPS beyond refresh never gets to the screen to be seen.

As mentioned earlier, I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 myself.
But beyond that, no gain other than turning into imaging tearing hell. And that I am sensitive to as it distracts me. It constantly pulling my attention to it.

 

[ShamrockRig]

i can tell the difference by 30-60 its just more smooth haha

 

[badger906]

the reson you can see it in games is because its not instant theirs always a microsecond delay.
us as humans only see 24 frames per second in the real world. computer screens refresh rate, screen flicker and loads of other things make it noticeable. a cheap monitor with a slow response time will even make 100fps look rubbish while gaming.

 

[ShamrockRig]

24 fps is the rate of video or most anyway, the eye can see 30

 

[badger906]

my 3 years of mamalian physiology and may eye disections told me 24-28 depending on the individal ^_^

personally I cant see the difference between 30 and 60 but ive never done a comparative test.. as you cant exactly switch between the 2 instantly in a game. as long as theres no lag im happy.

 

[ShamrockRig]

Amen

 

[Contrabardus]

Games and even films are different than reality.

When people say it looks 'smoother' it's because our eyes see movement as unnatural because of subtle imperfections on the screen. That includes everything from latency, to motion blur, to color bleeding caused by how image displays work. Higher framerates and resolutions cut down on that, which is why 60fps and even 120fps images have a higher visual quality over 30fps and why 1080p and 2160p look different to a lot of people.

It's not because our eyes see things any better on the display, but rather because the display sees them better and is able to show movement in a smoother and more natural looking way.

The Hobbit had a framerate of 48fps. I saw both versions in theaters and there was a noticable difference from 24 to 48 fps. The image looked crisper and actually a little too good. Some of the special effects were spoiled and the lighting often looked different by the higher framerate because it looked too natural. Smoke that looked much better in the lower framerate version of the film looked more like it was being puffed out of a smoke machine and seemed more artificial in the HFR version. The lack of motion blur in some scenes made the action seem slower and CGI effects stood out more.

Biologists don't have a complete understanding of exactly how the eyes work. We know the basics of course, but there are a lot of subtle things that we can't quantify and don't fully understand about vision.

I can see a difference in a 120 fps image with a 2160p resolution, but it's not because I can see more details. Movement is smoother looking and there is less motion blur. Colors also appear different in higher resolution displays. I mean outside of simply being calibrated differently as well.

It's got to do with how projection displays work and a bleeding or color blurring effect rather than any sort of fine detail that is imparted by the higher specs for the display. More tiny dots means more accurate color display even though we can't see the individual microscopic detail of fabric weave on a linebacker's shirt or individual pixels on a texture. We can still see subtleties in regard to how color is displayed on a higher resolution screen.

Put simply, high framerate and resolution displays look better more because of subtle, unnatural looking imperfections the images lack rather than any finer detail added to anything or extra frames of movement the eye can see.