I can tell the difference between a 30fps game and a 60fps game. Naturally, 60fps looks way smoother. Which is why enthusiasts buys high-end graphics: to crank up all detail, resolution and effects while achieving optimum performance of not lower than 60fps.

The human eye can detect more than 300fps. That is a plain fact. People who has seen the 240fps custom Gran Turismo PS3 demo(using 4 PS3s linked to render 1080p@240fps) claimed that it looked like reality-smooth.

link: http://kotaku.com/5093592/gran-turismo-5-p...2160-resolution

And Quazacolt, you can't always trust Wikipedia. The last bit at the bottom of the page that asks "how many frames per second can the human eye see?" does not even has any citation or reference.

This post has been edited by lamusiqa: Mar 4 2010, 04:33 PM

I'm calling Wiki as not a definitive source for answers as some details does not even has references or proof to back up the claims.

If you noticed the link at the bottom of the Kotaku article, you'd realize that it will redirect you to gran-turismo.com where it details on how the game achieved 240FPS at 1080p. Not interlaced. Here, I'll make it easier for you: http://www.gran-turismo.com/sg/news/sp/d6230p2.html

I agree with your point, but the smoothness of 300fps which is closer to reality is an advantage any rich bloke would indulge in. He might not see all the frames, as how we dont see all movement of a fast moving object but the smoothness(lack of flickering) is worth the justification.

If I have all the money in the world, I would want a 240fps display and a graphic card to run my games at that speed. Wouldn't you?

Well, yes. 60fps with all intended details is considered as the holy grail performance spot.