Visual acuity/FPS perception difference between PC and console?

[Jedi2016]

I'm referring to frames-per-second, not first-person-shooter.

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I figured the GD was as good a place as any, seeing as how it doesn't have anything to do with any particular hardware/software.

I was fiddling around with the Crysis demo this evening. Just the demo because my computer doesn't have a hope in hell of running the thing proper, so I haven't bothered with buying the game yet.

Here's my specs:

AMD AthlonXP 2600+
2GB DDR RAM
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro

Don't cry for me, I'm upgrading here in the next couple of months. Core 2 Duo, 8800GT, etc.

So anyway, I'm playing the demo, at 800x600, Low settings across the board (the only way I can make it playable), and I was thinking to myself "This isn't running that bad...". It was certainly playable for me, if not silky smooth.

So I was somewhat surprised when I brought up the display console and it showed me that the game was running at a piffling 13-15fps.

Likewise for my playthroughs of Far Cry.. 1280x768 at max settings, yields only around 20fps, and yet it's perfectly playable to me.

And yet if I go downstairs and pop a game into my PS3 or X360, anything below 30fps is a stuttering unplayable mess.

On a whim, I brought Far Cry's settings down to where I have Crysis at.. 800x600, all Low, and the game runs at an average of 45-50fps, never dipping below around 35fps. And it seemed the most silky-smooth game I'd ever played. It seemed smoother than a console game running at 60fps.

At this point, I think I'll be quite happy if I can get Crysis to run proper at 20-25fps.. that will seem "good" to me.

Is it the display distance? Sitting only a few feet from the screen instead of across the room? Maybe the control scheme, the snap-precision of a mouse versus the smooth panning of a controller?

Does anyone else get this sort of feeling switching back and forth between console and PC? Or am I just losing my mind, having rarely played many PC games until very recently?

 

[....]

fps perception differences at low fps could be due to advanced motion blurring being used in some games and not other. Or it could be that the added detail from the increased resolution is aiding the brain in infering and reconstructing the missing frames and subliminally smoothing things out.


That is if the ps3 and 360 are connected through standard def. IF not it could be that the opposite effect actually occurs and the Higher resolution from HD vids on ps3 and 360 causes the brain to find the missing frames more jarring, and thus more disturbing and noticeable.

Or it could simply be that Crysis hovers smoothly around that framerate, while the ps3 and 360 games you're playing might have more unstable and fluctuating framerates and might even dip into single digits more frequently.

Though I must say most ps3 and 360 games I've played are quite smooth. On the contrary, I found crysis to be more jarring and disturbing to me in motion with the 2600xt 800x600 at low settings, the fps fluctuations where unbearable.


PS

I've heard the fastest eye movement the micro-saccade occurs at about 60~hz.
So visual limits should be somewhere near that. Most neurons operate at a limit of a few 100hzs, usually 100hz at most.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Crysis has been said by many to feel smoother than other games at low framerates (be it console or PC games). I have also experienced this so it may just be a corner case.

You did mention Farcry aswell but i'm not too sure on that. I always played that game on decently powerful hardware anyway.

 

[CarstenB]

I'd think along the lines of controller precision for the main differences.