{"id":1637861,"date":"2026-07-17T14:56:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T14:56:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kwnb9UrUQLoSiH4hb9dDCP"},"modified":"2026-07-17T14:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T14:56:57","slug":"60-fps-is-still-the-de-facto-minimum-frame-rate-for-half-of-pc-gamer-readers-but-more-than-10-of-you-are-dying-on-the-120-fps-hill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arcader.org\/news\/60-fps-is-still-the-de-facto-minimum-frame-rate-for-half-of-pc-gamer-readers-but-more-than-10-of-you-are-dying-on-the-120-fps-hill\/","title":{"rendered":"60 fps is still the de facto minimum frame rate for half of PC Gamer readers, but more than 10% of you are dying on the 120 fps hill"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

It’s always interested me what people will accept as a playable frame rate for their games. It’s almost an intrinsic part of being a PC gamer, because most of us have had to live with compromise for our entire gaming lives. If you’re Scrooge McDuck, swimming through piles of cash and can drop five grand on a gaming PC, sure, you don’t have to worry about digging around in the settings screen to find a balance of frame rate and fidelity you will accept. But for the rest of us, that’s just the way of things.<\/p>\n

And so each of us has to decide where they make that compromise, knowing our hardware is not going to be able to nail 4K\/240 on the regular. For a long time, it was 30 fps as the target sweet spot for PC gaming, but that’s because I’m an old man, and then it shifted to 60 fps with the advent of more modern console generations. But hell, I’m so old I keenly remember playing through Operation Flashpoint on a weakheart PC at maybe 18 fps max and loving it. <\/em><\/p>\n

So, I wanted to know what that level was now, and is even 60 fps considered too low a frame rate to be comfortable? For the past week, we’ve been asking: What is the minimum frame rate you consider actually playable for your games?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n