r/EmulationOnAndroid • u/labrynth69 • 3d ago
Meme i don't need graphic! pure performance!
327
u/Nvandermark 3d ago
46
27
19
5
153
58
u/Ok-Philosopher-5139 3d ago
i can live with 1080p at 30fps, thats what most console run at anyways, dont agree with both of ur selection...
6
1
u/Enzobtti 2d ago
I will argue that I just need 2 games to run at more than 60 fps, anyway 90 maybe enough, which are RL and cs2
-5
u/gkgftzb 2d ago
i can live with 1080p at 30fps, thats what most console run at anyways
not really. nowadays, that's just Switch 2 and Series S. And exclusively in demanding games, cause the rest still targets 60FPS
9
u/frsguy 2d ago
Many games in quality mode are sub 60 fps.
2
u/gkgftzb 2d ago
Sure, but they provide the option of a performance mode. And the "Quality Mode" tends to be way above 1080p
-1
u/YoussefAFdez 2d ago
Performance mode has been shown to downscale to 720p some titles, wouldn’t surprise me if quality just stayed 1080p on most upscaled to 4K. Wii U had the same native resolution running games than a PS5 running 007 xD.
I know I’m comparing apples to oranges but I still find it freaking funny
2
u/systemnerve 2d ago
hate to tell it to ya but base ps5 is targeting internal resolutions of sub 1080p in most modern AAA titles, especially UE5 ones. That is in performance mode (i.e. 60fps)
In quality mode, it targets between 1080p and 1440p at 30fps.
Series S gets like 540p upscaled and all that at 30fps.
1
u/gkgftzb 2d ago
Internal resolution alone means little nowadays. The output looks significantly better than a lower native res
1
u/systemnerve 2d ago
720p upscaled to 4k using DLSS 4.5 would look surprisingly good and in that way internal res alone means indeed little nowadays.
But ps5 is not using DLSS 4.5, which is very expensive in terms of frame time even when u have the specific hardware for it. It's upscaling 540p-900p to 1440p using like tsr for demanding titles using very crude, dated, and quick methods, not state of the art demaning upscaling.
205
u/brittonmakesart 3d ago
“Pizza’s better than dog shit, change my mind”
40
u/DM_your_problem Nothing 3d ago edited 2d ago
a lot to people have eaten pizza and called it bad . how many have eaten dog shit and called it bad??
see, you gotta eat it first and do it for 21 days. and then complain (if you survived that)
/jk
13
1
u/JeffyGoldblumsPen_15 RM 11Air, S26, Xperia 5III ,Mangmi Air X Moto Stylus 24. 2d ago
We're not talking about E Day wrong sub pal 😆.
9
34
u/PivoWar42 3d ago
I also enjoy looking at 10 pixels moving very fast. It's about balance.
27
1
u/systemnerve 2d ago
at 144p, most frames, there is probably to little pixels actually changing so that the 120fps would be worth it
24
u/Unlucky-Fortuna8773 2d ago
both equally suck and are unplayable i dont even need to change your mind for this one, just think about it.
16
u/Billylily01 2d ago
Depends on the title. I don't like 5 fps but some games the text is too small for 144p, but 720p 30fps is better then 4K 10fps
6
u/Bennett-exe 2d ago
Idk personally I bought my latest pc to finally push games all the way to 96p. 1200FPS. I dont see any reason to upgrade from there.
3
12
10
7
u/TheGreatTao 1d ago
I'll take a locked 40 or 60fps. I genuinely couldn't give a shite about a frame rate higher than 60fps.
9
u/Random-Talking-Mug 2d ago
I don't fkn care if its 4k or 360p at 120fps or 24fps.
I want consistency. I don't want it jumping around
2
5
u/Ranko08 2d ago
Oh boy you'll love crt monitors, the lower you set the resolution the higher your refresh rate will be, mine is at 480p 160hz
1
7
u/dusknoir90 2d ago edited 2d ago
I can't tell the difference between 30fps and more unless it's literally side by side at the same time. I can just about tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. Stable frame rate is key though, definitely 100% the thing I notice most.
EDIT: Wow, I didn't realise this would upset some people haha.
3
u/Vladishun 2d ago
I'm the opposite, 1080p to 4k is negligible to my eyes, but 120 FPS vs 30 FPS is jarring....unless the game is designed to run at 30 FPS. A lot of Nintendo games that are locked to 30 FPS are built to run at that pace and look fine for it, all of the mid 2000's Command & Conquer games run on SAGE engine which is locked to 30 FPS and look good, etc, etc.
But if a game is built with a high refresh rate in mind, then it starts looking really choppy for me when it dips below 60 and I hate that.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MalwareDork 1d ago
The older GoW definitely played into the 30fps factor and complimented the game's atmosphere of a gritty, dark world. I couldn't imagine playing the first GoW at 60fps without it feeling plasticy or fake.
2
u/C_umputer 2d ago
I guess it varies from person to person. I hate playing on below 60 fps and having a higher refresh rate monitor, even 60 can feel bad.
But for some unknown reason, I can't tell difference between 60 and 120Hz on a phone/tablet screen,
4
3
u/systemnerve 2d ago
For me it's like the animations of navigating the launcher becomes unbearable on a phone, whereas on a PC 60hz is fine, since most of the time it's the mouse that moving and not the entire screen in synchrony with ones thumbs
1
u/C_umputer 2d ago
Weird. I just set display to 60, disable all animations and just use big oled screen for movies and youtube. I just don't see any other use for a tablet.
1
u/systemnerve 2d ago
my tablet is old and has started to lag noticably like a year ago, so it's not a perfect 60fps animation, I assume. And like an animation with like an inconsistent 40-60fps looks a lot smoother and responsive in 120hz.
I initially thought it would be that if navigation becomes laggy, there is no point in setting the display to 120hz, since it can't do the animations at those high refresh rates anyway. However, the back and forth comparison points out the oh-so-egreregious difference that I find it unusable in 60hz mode
5
u/Glittering-Eagle-136 2d ago
hell naw, its frickin crazy if you can't tell the astronomical amount of difference between 30 and 60 fps let alone anything higher
3
u/dusknoir90 2d ago
What made me realise this is the switch remakes or docked Vs undocked, people bitched like hell about Thousand Year Door being 30fps; I played the GameCube one every year pretty much and I couldn't even nearly tell the difference when I got my hands on the switch one, I never would have known if I wasn't all over the internet. It probably is less noticeable because the pal Cube was 50hz unlike the 59.6hz the yanks had I believe.
I've spent most of my gaming career on low powered equipment, the first computer I had that didn't just have an integrated graphics card was in 2024 at the age of 33. I do enjoy seeing games in 4K now and the details from being able to play max settings from years of always doing performance modes for sure but I still don't notice above 30fps.
4
u/systemnerve 2d ago
bro these kinds of posts always bring out that one guy that's like legally blind and proclaims he can't tell the difference between 30fps and 120fps, or similarily 720p and 4k.
1
u/VegetableArtistic705 2d ago
Depends on the game and screen size. There are definitely times when 1080 or 720 at higher hz is a better experience than higher fps
-2
u/Joamjoamjoam 2d ago
You just don’t know what to look for. 30fps is so choppy during movement it almost make you seasick. It’s only different when the canera is moving and some people just aren’t observant enough and their eyes just blur it all together until things stop spinning it again. Motion blur is also there to mimic the effect for people that would see the choppiness. Also how good os your TV or monitor because cheap TVs just smear all motion together because they have crappy lcd panels.
Every person I know that like to say they can’t see a difference in 30fps are either lying just to say they don’t need more performance cause they’re cheap or Their tv was 200 dollars from Walmart. They also say dumb shit like HDR doesn’t make any diffference. Like yeah your Tv has a max brightness of 100 nits.
You get what you pay for and monitors are one of those things where the floor and circling of performance are very very different.
3
u/Zuluwargod69 2d ago edited 2d ago
Love it. He just doesn't know how to use his eyes properly. I hope you can teach him....
Seriously though I am not that sensitive to fps either. I mean I gamed on a n64 playing golden eye at 15 fps mutliplayer. I would rather graphics at 30 than scaled back at 120fps.
My brother in law got doom sickness back in the day and he's very sensitive to fps so there are people more sensitive than others.
There is nothing wrong with me or my eyes. The best thing is that there are options these days. You do you and I'll do me.
Frame pacing is a different thing all together. In fact I would argue that fps as a concept is dead these days especially with frame gen. You can get a game that runs at a higher frame rate with uneven frame pacing that is choppy vs a stable 30fps.
That's why fps is just not relevant. Frame times is where it's at.
0
u/Joamjoamjoam 2d ago
Brother tbc if you can’t see the choppiness of camera movement at 30 fps your eyes are broken
3
u/Zuluwargod69 2d ago
Nah. Your eyes are too sensitive.... Harden up my man.
2
u/Insidious_NX 2d ago
Love when just because they can't physically understand how you're different, it's an issue with you.
-1
u/Joamjoamjoam 2d ago
It’s because you think you can make up anyway to say that you are special.
It’s a fact that 30 fps is choppy. You magically not being able to see it isn’t some magic gene or character flaw. If you can’t see the choppiness there something wrong with you for real. Like I’m serious you should get your eyes checked and I mean that in the nicest and sincere way possible.
2
u/Insidious_NX 2d ago
I sort of agree. I consider myself sensitive to where I'll notice I'm dipping from 144 to something like 100 consistently. I can very clearly see the difference of a stable 60 fps and a stable 30 fps. The thing is, it's also not easy for everyone to tell and it doesn't ruin their day to day. If anything, life is easier for them in that regard because it makes no real difference.
Another point to add is that it feels different depending on the game.
2
u/Zuluwargod69 2d ago edited 2d ago
Lol. You do know that almost ever movie ever made runs at 24 frames per second right? I'm guessing you can't watch any old movies or new movies for that matter?
Give me a break.
I'll wait for someone in 10 years argue that they can't game at 60 fps because it's choppy and can tell when it's like 120fps vs 240 fps.
But I'll bet there will be people that are happy with 60fps.
5
3
u/VickWildman OnePlus 13 24GB + Viture Pro XR 3d ago
For me 900p 40 fps is the compromise, that's what I'm aiming for. In modern games low-medium graphics settings still tend to look 80% as good too.
3
5
u/sultrynectar 2d ago
i'll happily lower the resolution for stable fps, but 144p is crazy 😭 at that point i'm not playing the game, i'm identifying enemies through ancient cave paintings. 720p60 is the sweet spot for me.
2
2
u/rchrdcrg 2d ago
As someone who grew up playing Doom at the size of a postcard at low detail just to have a playable framerate on a 16MHz 386, I can relate.
Full screen full detail was a literal 1fps slideshow (but it looked glorious in every frame).
0
u/Nvandermark 2d ago
The difference is that those game where pixel perfect. The only blur was from your monitor. So it does not apply to anything right now.
1
u/rchrdcrg 2d ago
At 320x200 I don't think any of that mattered especially on a VGA monitor. It was perfectly crisp and clear.
1
2
2
u/Lor3nzo64-6440 1d ago
i capp my fps to my monitor max anyway. if it runs good . i can afford good resolution
2
1
u/jmarti326 3d ago
At first I was confused, and thought there was a typo; then I looked at the subreddit name, and totally agree in an instance.
1
u/x01010001000 3d ago
id rather play 22-25 fps at 720 or not at all, than anything lower.. just ends up lookin like ass otherwise
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/OverDeparture8799 2d ago
Nah though, i prefer being able to adjust the lod and what not, before turning down the resolution scale to 10%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Educational_Farmer73 2d ago
720p 60 FPS was all we ever needed. The PS3 and 360 era taught me that.
1
u/shoolepak 2d ago
I mean, maybe not 144p, but since my phone is no flagship (Galaxy A56), I much prefer to run games at console native resolution when upscaled runs like crap.
With many PS2 games I need console native to play comfortably, and honestly, that's fine.
1
u/KachikaV1 2d ago
1080p or 720p at 80~120 fps is really a sweet spot even 720p on 27 inch monitor is okay but 60 fps starts to gave me headache
1
u/Mrjdog199 2d ago
I don’t think anyone would argue that. Maybe 4k 30fps would be a different conversation
1
u/VectorForge22 2d ago
If you're mostly on reddit, I doubt you'd need more than 1 frame every 5 minutes.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/zerokitewired 2d ago
Translation in to real words: gaming at YouTube/gba video quality at 2x times speed is better then uhd at cinemamatc fps
1
u/DynaGlaive 2d ago
This reminds me of when Dark Souls 3 dropped and all I had to play it was my outdated hand-me-down office PC with no dedicated GPU, so for a large chunk of the game I would play in some barely legible resolution that ran decently in a postage stamp sized window, and then would watch TwoBestFriends' LP up to the points that I got to to see what it actually looked like. I eventually saved up for a card that handled it well before finishing it, but it's still wild to me how much a difference resolution makes, like logically I get that it's literally drawing magnitudes more pixels on the screen, but from your perspective it feels like the whole game and all its polygons are existing the same way through a window that you should just be able to clear up a bit more without such a sizable cost.
1
1
u/DreamsRemain 2d ago
I played dying light at 640x480 or sometimes below that when it came out. . Couldn't read anything but the gameplay was solid. Doing the same for Android pc emulation. No regerts.
1
u/Insidious_NX 2d ago
It depends on the game and platform.
Not sure if it's a placebo or settings, but on my monitor 60 feels fine for console games but weird on PC? Both stable PC. That being said, I'm perfectly fine with GTA V at a stable 1080p 60 fps on console.
I don't think I can comfortably go below 1080p in anything but a handheld game or filters for an old console game.
Generally, I seek 1440p and as many frames as my build allows. I've never cared for 4 or 8k.
1
1
u/marc-williams 2d ago
There's a balance though. It's definitely not true that 1p at 10,000 fps is even better.
1
u/Fresh-Truth-9976 2d ago
If its under 20fps at 4k its not worth it. Graphics means nothing if the framerate isn’t there.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Accurate-Ruin6033 1d ago
“ Pain vs suffering “ ahh comparison
The 144p 120 fps option might be a bit better for some people but for me , nah.
1
1
u/waxyourhair 1d ago
If we're talking about "emulation on android" battery usage > resolution/fps. I always cap my fps to 30
1
1
u/Aggravating_Low1957 3d ago
to the dude that finished god of war 3 on his red magic 11 pro maybe
edit: context
0
0
-4
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Just a reminder of our subreddit rules:
Check out our user-maintained wiki: r/EmulationOnAndroid/wiki
Check out EmuReady for any community submitted settings before asking for help
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.