FPS ↔ Frametime Converter
Convert average FPS to frametime in milliseconds, compare 1% lows against your average, and see the real perceived smoothness gap between two frame rates.
Frametime budget
6.94ms
Time your PC has to build each frame
Worst-frame time
16.13ms
How long a 1%-low frame takes
Spike size
+9.2ms
Anything over ~8 ms is visible
This is what stutter feels like
Your worst frames take 9.2 ms longer than your average frame — that is a visible hitch, not a statistic. A high average with a 1% low this far below it feels worse than a lower, steadier framerate. Look at shader compilation, VRAM pressure and background overlays before you touch graphics settings.
Compare two framerates
The jump from 30 to 60 FPS is enormous. The jump from 240 to 360 is not. This is why — it is the millisecond difference that matters, and it shrinks fast.
Going from 60 FPS to 144 FPS saves you 9.72 ms per frame — a large enough gap that it is immediately obvious to almost everyone.
What this calculator is actually telling you
Frames per second is a rate. Frametime is a duration. They describe the same thing, but only one of them maps onto what you feel while playing.
At 60 FPS your machine has 16.67 ms to produce each frame. At 144 FPS it has 6.94 ms. That is the entire budget — draw calls, shader work, physics, present. When a frame misses that budget, you see it as a hitch, regardless of what the average says.
Why the returns diminish so sharply
Run the numbers through the tool and the pattern becomes obvious. Going from 30 to 60 FPS saves 16.7 ms per frame. From 60 to 120 saves 8.3 ms. From 240 to 360 saves 1.4 ms. Each doubling costs vastly more hardware and delivers half the improvement of the last one.
This is not an argument against high refresh rates — competitive players are chasing real advantages at the top end, and the smoothness of motion on a 360 Hz panel is genuinely different. It is an argument against assuming the FPS number scales linearly with how good the game feels. It does not.
The number that actually predicts stutter
If you take one thing away: the gap between your average frametime and your 1%-low frametime is the stutter. A steady 8 ms with spikes to 10 ms feels perfect. A 6 ms average with spikes to 40 ms feels broken, even though the second machine has a higher FPS counter.
That is why “my FPS is high but the game feels bad” is such a common complaint, and why the fix is almost never lowering your graphics settings. It is usually shader compilation, VRAM overcommit, a background overlay, or a CPU thread stalling.
Common questions
What is a good 1% low compared to average FPS?+
As a rule of thumb, you want your 1% low to sit at 70% of your average or better. At 144 FPS average that means a 1% low of about 100. Below 50% of average, the dips become obvious hitches rather than a statistic — and at that point a lower, capped framerate will genuinely feel better than a high unstable one.
Why does frametime matter more than FPS?+
FPS is an average over a whole second, which hides everything interesting. If 140 frames render in 5 ms each and one frame takes 300 ms, your counter still says roughly 141 FPS while you saw a visible freeze. Frametime shows you the individual frames, which is what your eyes actually respond to.
How do I measure my 1% lows?+
CapFrameX and MSI Afterburner with RivaTuner both report 1% and 0.1% lows. In-game overlays from AMD Adrenalin and the NVIDIA app also show them. Record a 60-second run through a busy area rather than standing still in a menu — the number only means something under load.
Does capping my FPS actually help smoothness?+
Often, yes. If your GPU is swinging between 90 and 160 FPS, capping at 90 gives every frame the same time budget and removes the variance you were feeling. You lose peak framerate you were not enjoying anyway. Cap with RTSS or the in-game limiter rather than V-Sync, which adds latency.
All calculations run locally in your browser.
More tools