Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Gamers At High FPS Have Better Kill-To-Death Ratios In Battle Royale Games (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Gaming enthusiasts and pro-gamers have believed for a long time that playing on high refresh rates displays with high frame rates offers a competitive edge in fast-action games like PUBG, Fortnite and Apex Legends. The premise is, the faster the display can update the action for you, every millisecond saved will count when it comes to tracking targets and reaction times. This sounds logical but there's never been specific data tabulated to back this theory up and prove it. NVIDIA, however, just took it upon themselves with the use of their GeForce Experience tool, to compile anonymous data on gamers by hours played per week, panel refresh rate and graphics card type. Though obviously this data speaks to only NVIDIA GPU users, the numbers do speak for themselves.
The more powerful the GPU with a higher frame rate, along with higher panel refresh rate, generally speaking, the higher the kill-to-death ratio (K/D) for the gamers that were profiled. In fact, it really didn't matter hour many hours per week were played. Casual gamers and heavy-duty daily players alike could see anywhere from about a 50 to 150 percent increase in K/D ratio for significantly better overall player performance. It should be underscored that it really doesn't matter what GPU is at play; gamers with AMD graphics cards that can push high frame rates at 1080p or similar can see similar K/D gains. However, the new performance sweet spot seems to be as close to 144Hz/144FPS as your system can push, the better off you'll be and the higher the frame rate and refresh rate the better as well.
The more powerful the GPU with a higher frame rate, along with higher panel refresh rate, generally speaking, the higher the kill-to-death ratio (K/D) for the gamers that were profiled. In fact, it really didn't matter hour many hours per week were played. Casual gamers and heavy-duty daily players alike could see anywhere from about a 50 to 150 percent increase in K/D ratio for significantly better overall player performance. It should be underscored that it really doesn't matter what GPU is at play; gamers with AMD graphics cards that can push high frame rates at 1080p or similar can see similar K/D gains. However, the new performance sweet spot seems to be as close to 144Hz/144FPS as your system can push, the better off you'll be and the higher the frame rate and refresh rate the better as well.
Could it perhaps be that those with more expensive rigs are just more serious gamers who play more and are thus more skilled?
Further, the headline had me scratching my head for a moment as I wasn't sure if it were people who were high playing a FPS...
I couldn't possibly see a conflict of interest with a company funded study concluding that their higher priced items will give you a significant competitive edge in a competition.
Did they try to take players who were used to playing at 30 FPS and gave them a 120 FPS rig, did they try to take players used to playing at 120 FPS and gave them a 30 FPS rig, or did they just compare current FPS levels with K:D levels?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Are they non-serious gamers or are they non-serious about that particular game?
Or they're semi-serious players with obligations. I'd say the presence of a 144 Hz gaming monitor and a graphics card to match probably says a lot about your interest and competitiveness in FPS games. It's like trying to measure how a sports car makes you drive while ignoring who buys a sports car in the first place.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
FPS has a huge impact. visual latency and motor-reactions are so slow that above 25PFS That is simply wrong. 25FPS is the lowest minimum to don't be distracted by flickering, that is all.
When the game world is updating with 50FPS then a screen with higher frequency is better. Most important however is the mouse and how it is synched with the game FPS and screen FPS.
With higher screen FPS it is simply much easier to correctly aim!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If you're telling me with a straight face that 24FPS is smooth, I'm forced to conclude one of a few things.
Either you have simply never seen a higher framerate newscast,
Your brain somehow can't pick up the difference,
Or you're just fucking lying.
Given that the 24FPS of celluloid wasn't in any way the "most a person can notice" but a tradeoff between the cost of the celluloid and "smooth enough", I'm going with the latter. You act like you've got skin in the game... You one of those nVidia haters?