Nope, Hz is equivalent to fps... which makes me wonder why even have two separate terms, but they're the same. Hz is the number of refresh cycles per second and is just commonly referred to as frames per second.

Yah ok that jogs the memory. I must've been thinking of interlacing. I know that 25p and 50i actually result in the same 25FPS. That 72p or 720p are actually 72FPS possible which is what Skyrim runs in. More than enough overhead for 30FPS.

Because they aren't the same. FPS is a reference of quantity, Hertz is a measure of speed.

You guys are confusing terms.

Vertical refresh rate is given in hertz and refers to the preferred frequency at which the screen draws data. This was more an issue with crt where increased refresh rates reduce flickering. But LCD screens don't flicker.

But I've seen some LCD tvs advertise like 100hz plus rates.

Frames per second refers to how frequently a new image is rendered and rasterised, and may be below the output devices updating cycle.

+ so I think unless you have a VERY old crt tv, your frame rate will be limited by the game, not the screen.

Ahh ok, I get it now. Ta

Another thing those FPS anolyzer videos don't take into account:

Playing the game like a real person, (as in: jumping around, moving around, quickly & erratically) and playing with your look sensitivity set to max (I know most don't, but I do).

Makes it a bit more choppier.

Thats true. I play with max settings too and on most games it either very slightly choppy or just has this slight amount of input lag then pans like a MF.

Why are we comparing source material (fps) with output devices (Hz)? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Remember most VHS are stored in either 24fps (PAL) or 29.9fps (NTSC) and Bluray 1080p/24 movies in 24 fps. So any game running constantly at 30fps is fine by me.


That said, the problem is Skyrim, Fallout3 and Oblivion on PS3 often drop below that. I.e. I would estimate that next to open Oblivion gates I had less than 10-15 fps in Oblivion, which was really bad.

Alright guys I finally traded in Skyrim on ps3 and got it on xbox 360. The difference between the performance is absolutely STAGGERING! Ive only played 8 hours so I cannot attest to the lag issue on 360 as of yet. Skyrim on Ps3 stutters. I'm not talking about the 0 - 5 fps that weve all seen, I mean the moment I was in a carraige with uflric onward the game evern when kind of running at 30 fps the game "jerks" every time you do anything. Even when the game seems to be running at around 30 fps every 15 seconds to one minute I see a little freeze that might last 1/4 of a second. From the first fight I have at helgan with 3 soldiers I notices that there was a jerkiness to the framerate. After the mega lag weve seen it might be easy to think to yourself that it used to run perect but honestly it never has. Now that I play it on xbox I realize that the playstation 3 verion was and even after all the patches will be a second rate version.

I've heard people saying that although xbox runs better ps3 looks better. thats like assuming that someone who is fat and ugly is nice and someone who is hot is mean. Some things arent balanced in any way. Someitmes one is jsut better than the other. Those comparison videos dont lie and neither do my eyes. ANyone that says the playstation 3 version looks better than the xbox version is either biased because ps3 is the only system they have access to or they really prefer jittery framerates, jaggy shadows, blurry textures, laggy menus, and a stutter anytime...well anytime you do anything!

I am not here to troll or to flame. I was as angry as any other gamer on this board for a while. I played 150 hours with one character and 20 with another on ps3. Ive watched all the comparison videos(I was suprised at how many seemed manufactored to favour ps3 because they used footage from the xbox when it had that texture loading glitch...which by the way I had on PS3 until they patched it). After plying it on xbox I was floored! It reminded me of the first time I installed a 3d accelerator in my computer and played half life. Ive played a ton of the ps3 version on my tv through a hdmi and now that Ive seen the xbox verision there is no doubt in my mind that xbox simply annihilates the ps3 in terms of graphics. The framerate and texture quality are just much much better.

People always say that graphics don matter...well thats a load of crap. Think about a game like call of duty. People i know say not many other games feel like cod and I think I know why. When someone plays cod they notice it is smooth. It has 60fps graphics. You could also say that it has 60fps gameplay because your onscreen actions respond visually to controller inputs you enter. Your inputs on the gamepad are the input. The visuals on the screen ar the feedback, Your brain doesnt run in fps. Real life responds as fast as you can percieve it. I play fighting games which nowadays run at 60 fps. If mortal kombat or street fighter ran at 60 fps but dipped down to 50 ever it would be a huge problem. When a move is blocked or hit depends on whether your are holding block during the "active frames" of the attack. Now if the frames werent 100% perfect all the time this would have a very large effect on the game. If I press the punch button and moment the game drops in framerate it will effect how long it takes for the punch to come out and invalidate playing the game in there first place if there is no consistancy in controller inputs and visual feedback. This why I dont play fighting games online. In the ps3 version of skyrim I constantly missed arrow shots due to slight stutters in the framerate. THings like slo mo zoom and the fact your sneaking and shooting still targets most of the time hide the fact that the inconsistant framerate makes the gameplay and graphics more difficult to enjoy.

SO after my fighting game anology hopefully some people might even raise there standards for what is a playable framerate actually is and understand why a game runnign at 30 fps dropping to 20fps even for a second can enrage someone like me. Thing about this if IM being generous there is about 1 drop to 14fps every 30 seconds. Over 150 hours thats 18000 little tiny jitters. If you experience momentary flashes of your body becoming unresponsive at that rate you would go to the doctor. No in skyrim I use my bow in non sneaking situations because I have a framerate on xbox that allows me to hit moving targets lol.

Also just to make sure you guys know I am trying to be constructive and let people know that if you are thinking about ditching it on ps3 and going with xbox you have my full fledged support in doing so as I think you will be very pleased with your decision as I am. To the ps3 only crowd let me say this too. Although it looks ALOT better on xbox the game still looks really really nice on ps3 as well. Thats the purpose of the console versions in general while not eh best version if is your ownly means you can play it! Just because someone with a nasa computer runs skyrim nicer than my xbox doesnt mean my version doesnt look amazing either. A PS3 version although inferior graphics wise compared to xbox 360 should exist because not everyone has an xbox or monster pc but everyone should play skyrim even if the graphics arent perfect. WIth that said no one should play it with the framerate in the state it is in now. I really hope bethesda fixes this game for you guys. And i mean really fix it to the point where even before ultralag kicks in get the game running a steady 30 fps from the get go. It already looks worse than the xbox version why not drop it one more notch for that extra 5 fps. Thats what id do if I was on a pc.

The lag will happen on every system eventually it makes sense. Skyrim could possible be played for 10 000 hours at which point a super computer of any kind might lag....but i saw it crawl on my ps3 at 20 hours. 500 hours sure maybe time to start a new game. 20 no way. Good luck ps3 owners. I didnt deserve to have more money to get it on xbox because I bought it on ps3 and you shouldnt be stuck will a broken piece of software. ALso IM not biased towards xbox or ps3 I love alot of games on both and my comments here on graphics quality on the 2 systems ONLY relate to Skyrim.

Well the discussion began wrt could most players TV be limiting the rendered frame rate. Which it can't.

I actually don't think the problem lies in the absolute FPS but in the fluctuations. I read a good article @ toms hardware about micro stuttering. This can occur when you have 2 cards in crossfire or sli, where the average fr and even the minimum is very high, like in the 50s or better, but because the standard deviation of the average fr is large the game appears to lag.

If skyrim ran SMOOTH at 25fps it would be less bothersome than 30 peak and dips occasionally to 20

sorry when I said I played it with HDMI i meant to say I played both versions through hdmi on the same tv.

Ok I think thats the second time youve posted almost the exact same time as me and said almost the exact same thing as me but with 10000 less words. Nice going you should be an editor at a magazine!

lulz.. maybe just the 'great minds think a like' ?

your experience on the XBox are really depressing me.

I hope this doesn't derail the thread much but I'm using this link to help prove a point: If the ps3 is capable of this (drool over the screenshots) then why is skyrim ps3 so inferior to skyrim 360?

Its like bethesda ignored the capabilities of the ps3 and the version we have is truly a 360 game squeezed into the ps3.

I don't expect skyrim ps3 to be better........I expect it to be the same.


http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/02/02/exclusive-first-in-game-screenshots-of-the-last-of-us.aspx

Yeah I really want to make it clear that I'm not telling you guys this to make any of you feel worse in any way although its probably unavoidable. I'm just trying to give you guys a non biased perspective on my and your situation. Up until yesterday I was making posts that were getting deleted all over the place because I was losing my temper about the ps3 version. I think that ps3 is a great system along with xbox and they both have advantages. My ps3 isnt as loud as my xbox, i find the ps3 controller more comfortable for 3+ hours gaming sessions, having a required install for some games makes them load faster than the xbox versions(not the case here with skyrim installed on my xbox the load times are almost exactly the same.

The same thing happened to me with red dead redemption. I finished on ps3 and then my friend gave me the xbox version to compare and I was floored to find out it ran at a lower resolution!!!! I turned them both on and switch back between my tv inputs and I could not believe how much better it looked on xbox. Now with that said the R.A.G.E engine seems to be more tailored to xbox than ps3 but guess what. Before I saw the xbox version I thought red dead o ps3 looked amazing(and it still does). The biggest thing was that although red dead didnt look as nice it DID RUN AS WELL as the xbox version so to someone whos never seen it on xbox it is still a triple a gorgeous game. The problem with skyrim on ps3 is that it runs bad even without the xbox as a point of reference.

Im only telling you guys so you can have some validation in feeling screwed and the fact that the xbox version is superior just goes to show that the they set the xbox version as a measure of quality and just didnt bring the ps3 version up to code. The 2 systems have different strengths. Thats why halo reach looks amazing and killzone 3 look amazing. If you tried to port either of those games over and have the same level of visual fidelity unless you comepletely reprogrammed the games they bwould run like garbage on their not native system. SO essentially xbox and ps3 are almost equal power wise but in different ways. Porting skyrim to ps3 is the same thing as if they ported halo reach to PS3. For example with the ps3s ram setup it might not be possible to have the halo replay feature that allows you to rewatch anything you do. If they were gonna port it over they would be smart to remove features the ps3 couldnt handle and add features only ps3 could handle like maybe higher quality sound because of the bluray. Skyrim is an xbox game that they ported to ps3 and it really shows. If they had designed the game around ps3 and ported it to xbox later it would be the xbox forums spilling over with rage. Skyrim is a game designed around the xbox 360s strengths and limitations and just taking it and throwing it on ps3 is like giving a guitar player a banjo and saying he svcks because he cant rip a solo out of it!

We didnt deserve this and just because Im an xbox player now doesnt mean I didn't and still dont feel your pain. Also any gltiches or performance issues I run into I will probably post in here from time to time to give you guys more perspective so if anyone says ps3 owners are geting screwed with a glitch I can say Ive had it on xbox and its jsut the way the game is.

wow me too you also just typed something very similar to me but a little steamlined and with less examples. We are all on the same page. That game you posted is an example of a game with the kind of fidelity possible with a single platform release because they dont have to worry about what the other system can or cant do. Ram setup in the playstaion isnt good enough to do something? Drop the feature you dont have to match the xbox version. What's that? you want 20gb of dialogue? well we dont have to worry about cramming it onto a 7 gb dvd for the xbox gamers so go ahead! Uncompressed audio for all!

Alot of games like the last of us are amazing for a few reasons and one of them being that it doesnt have to try and ape another console. If the console isnt capable of certain features there is no pressure to match other versions. The games play to the systems strenghs and hide the weaknesses buy just not going there. Also this game being built for playstation 3 only had the ps3s strenghts and limiations being considered even when they were just ideas in the game deveolopers heads so its optimized optmized optimized.

There is a little known reason why games typically look and perform superior on the 360:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112562-Microsoft-Doesnt-Want-Sonys-Sloppy-Seconds

I've read that before and to be honest...I actually really like that policy. I dont care which system Im playing on as long as its the best(one of the reasons I own both systems IS so that I can play all the exclusives and play the best version of all multiplatoform game). Usualy when a game comes out on 2 platforms it fills me with anxiety because although I have the option to get the best version I wont know until I get it home and eventually here online that i made the right or wrong choice. And even then I dont know.

Any time a game comes out on 2 platforms it really puts my b****s in a vice because I have to look at so many factors. Gta 4 and red dead were better on xbox in terms of graphics. Max payne 3 is coming out soon and that uses the same engine. With this in mind it should look better on xbox. But maybe rockstar realized ps3 gamers were unhappy and maybe with max payne 3 and gta 5 and will those version extra content or optimize for ps3 and then give xbox sloppy seconds. People say dont get it on release day..THERE IS NO WAY IM NOT GETTING GTA 5 AND MAX PAYNE 3 ON RELEASE DAY. So i have to choose. Most time comparisons online are jsut plain wrong. Grand theft auto 4 comparisons say that ps3 looks better....ok so running about 1-10 fps slower in most instances and running at 640p instead of native 720p like the other version is better? I hear arguments like the colors are "warmer" and the draw distance is further....pure fiction made up by people who only own one system and cant admit that its better on the other system even though its an incredible game no matter which system its on. They cost the same on both systems so as someone that owns both even if its only a small difference...i want to know which one is better.

If both sides had a policy not to take half assed ports we would all be better off. I heard that mass effect 2 on ps3 is almost identical to the xbox counterpart. A great game for gamers who missed it the first time around. Skyrim....well if you cant do it on ps3 right dont do it at all. I think us xbox gamers should have to pay for our dlc and you guys who are stuck with the ps3 version should get the first one for FREE FREE FREE!.... of course only after they fix your game up to run at a 30fps or higher framerate

Edit: and being honest with your customers doesnt hurt either. I read somewhere sam houser from rockstar said something along the lines that although they had to drop the resolution on ps3 to keep it comparable to the xbox version performance wise they feel that the game still looks great on either system and they want their fans to enjoy it on either system because they DID THEIR BEST to make them the same. And I would actually agree with that. Wait a second..they admitted one looked a litle better than the other and still sold millions? interesting huh!?

Fields vs. Frames vs. refresh rate. The answer again is, no that is not correct.

No, 720p is not 72FPS. Just... no

Movies have a lower FPS threshold than games, much lower. For a variety of reasons. 24fps is an old film standard that works with the motion blur and dark theatres and high "resolution" of film.

Games are not on film, have no natural motion blur, and a million other reasons why 60fps is the more acceptable level to trick the human eye into seeing something smooth. 30fps for games is considered barely getting by and "better be a huge open world with tons of stuff going on in order to justify this slideshow."

We need to stop bringing COD and Uncharted into the discussion. It goes no where. COD and Uncharted are linear games with very small levels and are not RPGs. FPS are even easier to make at 60fps . Furthermore, COD only renders in 600p on consoles.

Uncharted has almost zero customization. Go look at the multiplayer and see the enormous drop off in the quality of graphics compared to the on rails single player stuff.

Of course...

That video is so damn wrong it's amazing.

Lens of Truth has always seemed pretty accurate to me. What's wrong with it?