# Highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve



## Robert-Y (Jan 31, 2009)

What is the highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve?

The highest I have come across is about 8.18 done by Breandan in his 7.21 solve (59/7.21 = 8.18 (2.d.p.). My highest is about 5.9 (time was about 10.5). I think that other fast cubers have gotten over 6 tps before (Harris for sure, probably Erik and Nakaji). I think the highest reachable tps might be 10-15tps.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 31, 2009)

I just tried it and got an 8.26 tps solve easily (doing (RUR'U')100 after the cross).


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 31, 2009)

Oh I meant without doing unnecessary moves.

Btw I like measuring the tps of my solves because it tells me whether my solve is good or not. For me, any solve over 5 tps is good enough. Tbh, I don't care about my times that much, I kinda care more about my tps


----------



## a small kitten (Jan 31, 2009)

Well, you can probably reach ridiculously high when you execute last layer algs. Some OLLS and PLLs are easily sub second so like Rowe's A perm. But on average 5 tps is really good already.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 31, 2009)

Highest I've gotten is like...6? Rowe's T perm is sub-1, also.
My highest TPS for OH is probably 3 or so.

Robert, you are right...the highest is probably 10-15 TPS about.


----------



## jcuber (Jan 31, 2009)

I'd like to see 10-15 TPS in an actual solve (not just R U R' U' or something like that).


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 31, 2009)

Lol, me too. It would be weird seeing someone turn twice or even thrice as fast as the average fast cuber .


----------



## byu (Jan 31, 2009)

I just got a 2.15 tps. I think I really need to improve. (Move count - 70, Time -32.50)


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 31, 2009)

I thought Nakaji hit about 10 during one part of his 6.whatever solve.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I thought Nakaji hit about 10 during one part of his 6.whatever solve.


What does that mean?
During my fingertricks, I probably turn 50tps at during some short intervals.

High tps is around 10-20, that's been covered enough.
For a practical solve, Stefan has the right idea. TPS is the wrong thing to talk about.
I've done a lot of reconstructions; fast solve are generally 5-6tps. Note that the fastest solves have skips of alg steps, which reduces tps.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 1, 2009)

Ah ok, maybe I should change the question to: "what is the highest reachable tps in a non lucky 3x3 solve without unnecessary moves?" ?

@ Lucas: "During my fingertricks, I probably turn 50tps at during some short intervals." Do you mean 5tps or am I not thinking hard enough about what you're saying?


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 1, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Ah ok, maybe I should change the question to: "what is the highest reachable tps in a non lucky 3x3 solve without unnecessary moves?" ?
> 
> @ Lucas: "During my fingertricks, I probably turn 50tps at during some short intervals." Do you mean 5tps or am I not thinking hard enough about what you're saying?



You mean: What is the highest average tps in a real nonlucky 3x3x3 solve.

Lucas does mean 50tps in the split second that you pull the trigger.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 1, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Oh I meant without doing unnecessary moves.
> 
> Btw I like measuring the tps of my solves because it tells me whether my solve is good or not. For me, any solve over 5 tps is good enough. Tbh, I don't care about my times that much, I kinda care more about my tps


Efficiency > TPS. I could spam the cube with 4lll algs every solve and increase my tps, but what would that accomplish? I try to decrease my delays, use efficient but fast algs ,and i solve in the fewest moves possible.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Lucas does mean 50tps in the split second that you pull the trigger.


Uh-huh. I don't plan to talk more in this topic, though.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 1, 2009)

Hmm I'm thinking of deleting this thread as I don't really think there is really anything else to talk about...


----------



## Harris Chan (Feb 1, 2009)

Sometimes I get that feeling that my TPS on the F2L is faster than my LL (or the same :S


----------



## bundat (Feb 1, 2009)

This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.

Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.

So I guess measuring TPS from a solve which was not meant to be a "high TPS solve" would be better than actually focusing on measuring and increasing your TPS in each solve.


----------



## Sir E Brum (Feb 1, 2009)

bundat said:


> This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
> It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.
> 
> Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.
> ...



I just looked up SlayerS_'Boxer' and you are exactly right.

You can't artificially increase your TPS by doing useless moves and hope for that to be helpful. Increased TPS just comes with practice.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Feb 1, 2009)

I think 10 TPS over a solve cn be achieved especially after you watch Nakajima


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 1, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> I think 10 TPS over a solve cn be achieved especially after you watch Nakajima


So I should watch a Nakajima solve before every time I solve a 3x3x3, since it can make me faster?


----------



## Pietersmieters (Feb 1, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> rahulkadukar said:
> 
> 
> > I think 10 TPS over a solve cn be achieved especially after you watch Nakajima
> ...



Yes


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 1, 2009)

Well I think that after watching Nakajima's solves, I would be motivated to move faster so what rahulkadukar said isn't particularly wrong in my case  I get inspired by cubers so easily


----------



## ManuK (Feb 1, 2009)

Wasn't Nakajima's practised solve(for the weekly competition) around 7.1 TPS?.So,even 7 TPS for a non-practised solve sounds incredible.


----------



## Escher (Feb 1, 2009)

ManuK said:


> Wasn't Nakajima's practised solve(for the weekly competition) around 7.2 TPS?.So,how can anyone get even 7 TPS for a non-practised one?



somebody with prodigious lookahead?


----------



## abr71310 (Feb 1, 2009)

bundat said:


> This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
> It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.
> 
> Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.
> ...



It was the exact same way with the first 5 seasons of CAL (DotA Allstars -- mod of WCIII); professional teams had combined APMs of about 1500 per minute, and they were all doing useful movements/actions; after the creation of more and more teams, who thought random clicking did something to skill level, it ruined the point of measuring APMs --> skill.


----------



## nitrocan (Feb 1, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> What is the highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve?
> 
> The highest I have come across is about *8.18 done by Breandan in his 7.21 solve (59/7.21 = 8.18 (2.d.p.)*. My highest is about 5.9 (time was about 10.5). I think that other fast cubers have gotten over 6 tps before (Harris for sure, probably Erik and Nakaji). I think the highest reachable tps might be 10-15tps.



That seems nearly impossible if it was a regular 3x3 solve.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 1, 2009)

Hm? Are you saying that his solve might be a fake?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 2, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Breandan in his 7.21 solve


Btw, are Breand*o*n McElhill and Breand*a*n Vallance the same person? I'm confused.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 2, 2009)

Yes I think they are, I think he just changed his surname or something...


----------



## Stefan (Feb 2, 2009)

It's not just the surname, first name also differs.


----------



## Escher (Feb 2, 2009)

maybe he spelt it wrong by accident? (no offense ) maybe somebody else posted it for him?
i remember hearing that he changed it because he felt that 'Vallance' was cooler sounding than 'McElhill'. i agree. i think that ones his dads surname, and ones his mums... i dont think he just changed it to a random name


----------



## gasmus (Feb 2, 2009)

Just to clear things up:

Yes my actual name is Breand*a*n McElhill but Vallance is just overall easier to say/spelletc. (for some reason people at school spell it McE*n*hill, i dont get how people can mistake l for n ) basically it leaves only 1 name which is difficult to spell

and its spelled Breandon McElhill on the UWR page because Joey posted it  well actually a previous time but when i updated it the name didnt change

So anyway *Breandan Vallance* is my speedcubing name and the correct spelling


Also, i assure you my solve isnt fake, the tps just seems high because i saw both of the last 2 slots at the same time which werent particularly short(15 moves) and i had 2 long (but fast for me) ll algs. with 2 extra U' moves in the pll, which was a Y perm, giving a total of 19 moves for pll. I was very surprised at the time, 59 moves is a lot even for a sub-10 IMO

and Nakajima's solve was only 7 tps because there are far less moves in his solution


----------



## qqwref (Feb 2, 2009)

bundat said:


> This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
> It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.
> 
> Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.
> ...



I completely agree with this. The measures of APM, TPS, clicks/sec in minesweeper and so on, are only useful when you use them to judge the skill of attempts that were trying to just be good in their own right. It's not an absolute measure of skill, something you can look at and immediately know how good someone is - but that doesn't mean it's not useful! I think I said this a long time ago at twistypuzzles: "Solve time = Turns * Turn speed + Delays". If you can reduce the delays down to basically nothing, the only thing separating you from faster people who use the same method is turn speed, so measuring your TPS on a legitimate solve can be very informative.

So for cubing, TPS is only useful to measure a solve that was supposed to be fast, because as Stefan pointed out anyone can get an abnormally high TPS solve by spamming RUR'U' or T-perm or whatever else they're fast at. You can do this on computer simulators too, I just did a 6.16 tps solve on IsoCubeSim, just by clicking as fast as I could. It's the same in Starcraft, and also in Minesweeper, where just counting clicks/second tells you nothing because it is possible to just click as fast as you can without doing anything. (At least in Minesweeper there is an "effective clicks per second" kind of thing, because there's a way to determine how efficient it is possible to be on a given board... in cubing this would be ridiculous, because nobody even approaches optimal solves on a speedsolve.)


----------



## joey (Feb 2, 2009)

gasmus said:


> and its spelled Breandon McElhill on the UWR page because Joey posted it  well actually a previous time but when i updated it the name didnt change


Heh yeah. People misspell my name a lot, I wanted to get my own back on someone!


----------



## ruffleduck (Aug 19, 2021)




----------



## Eli Apperson (Aug 19, 2021)

zzoomer said:


>


Lol it's a new era


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 20, 2021)

I can sub 1 e perm so that's like 16 tps


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 20, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I can sub 1 e perm so that's like 16 tps


I can sometimes get 20 TPS on Jb perm.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 20, 2021)

I can 20 TPS Jb Perm, Ja Perm, and T Perm lol


----------



## EvanCuber (Aug 20, 2021)

I have a 0.733 framecounted E Perm, however much that TPS that is.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Aug 20, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have a 0.733 framecounted E Perm, however much that TPS that is.


My man flexing his 21.82 TPS....


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 20, 2021)

According to this, my average TPS is 0.8 TPS and my best so far is a solve done at 1.14 TPS.


----------



## ruffleduck (Aug 20, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have a 0.733 framecounted E Perm, however much that TPS that is.


Impressive, that's tied with me! (~22 TPS if you're curious)


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 20, 2021)

I mean if you guys are talking about single PLL times then none of you understand the point of this thread either.



Robert-Y said:


> Hmm I'm thinking of deleting this thread as I don't really think there is really anything else to talk about...


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 21, 2021)

CFOP solvers should have higher TPS due to the number of turns they need to complete. So, can those who post TPS identify the method, please?


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)




----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> CFOP solvers should have higher TPS due to the number of turns they need to complete. So, can those who post TPS identify the method, please?


That's not how logic works


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> That's not how logic works


In a way, yes. You can get higher TPS in lbl just by spamming moves whereas methods with fewer moves rely on other things like efficiency which can slow down TPS.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> In a way, yes. You can get higher TPS in lbl just by spamming moves whereas methods with fewer moves rely on other things like efficiency which can slow down TPS.


Yes, buthigher movecount does not inherently mean higher tps. It is being able to see many moves into the future that creates high tps


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 21, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> In a way, yes. You can get higher TPS in lbl just by spamming moves whereas methods with fewer moves rely on other things like efficiency which can slow down TPS.


That's what I found even at my beginner level. Most of my solve times was spent on block building (like 66%). I can get higher TPS in Beginner Roux, by just grabbing any pair as fast as I can and then turn and get them in place, instead of looking for a better or more efficient pair. (I learned from other experts that it is best to develop oneself early by focussing on efficiency rather than speed.) In fact, most of my higher TPS results are from solves done this way, and in most cases the number of moves is higher as a result, and interestingly the total solve time is often longer ins pite of the high TPS and shorter recognition time.


----------



## StrategySam (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> That's not how logic works


Also RU gen is faster then MU gen. If it wasn't then Roux would clearly be the best method in 2h.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Yes, buthigher movecount does not inherently mean higher tps. It is being able to see many moves into the future that creates high tps


Is "spamming moves" more acceptable than twirling without too much thought? I also think that with CFOP, it is easier to see more moves into the future, than another method that are more varied and intuitive. And that is why I thought it's not fair to Roux and some other methods, to have an inspection time of 15 seconds (instead of no inspection, 4 seconds, or 20 seconds). That 15-second time seems to be a decision based on popularity, and the popularity is probably due to the vast majority of competitors who use CFOP, who most likely need 15 seconds to get a good inspection and plan many steps ahead (clearly harder for Roux). This seems to me to favour CFOP and continue the dominance of CFOP


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 21, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> Is "spamming moves" more acceptable than twirling without too much thought? I also think that with CFOP, it is easier to see more moves into the future, than another method that are more varied and intuitive. And that is why I thought it's not fair to Roux and some other methods, to have an inspection time of 15 seconds (instead of no inspection, 4 seconds, or 20 seconds). That 15-second time seems to be a decision based on popularity, and the popularity is probably due to the vast majority of competitors who use CFOP, who most likely need 15 seconds to get a good inspection and plan many steps ahead (clearly harder for Roux). This seems to me to favour CFOP and continue the dominance of CFOP


I don't think 15-second inspection particularly benefits CFOP over roux; both first steps (cross and FB) are quite similar (4 pieces vs 5 pieces) and can be inspected within a few seconds for any reasonably developed solver (15-20 seconds). It is true that very few roux solvers plan further than FB+DR, but its also true that most CFOP solvers rarely plan further than Cross+1, both of which are 6 pieces. Obviously some CFOP solvers plan into cross+2, but some roux solvers occasionally plan to FB+Square.

Even something like ZZ with it's relatively complex eoline/eocross can be inspected in just a few seconds at a moderate level -- I averaged about 12 and could inspect EO in 0.5-0.8 seconds and get a rough eoline in 2-3 seconds. In fact, inspection actually benefits methods that require significant planning at the first steps -- ZZ would be essentially unusable if there was no inspection allowed.

I think a major consensus for the continuing dominance of CFOP is how easy it is to transition from almost all of the beginner methods, not the 15 second inspection. It also has incredibly widespread and overwhelming resources (not to mention it's proven times and official rankings). Virtually any search of how to solve the Rubik's cube quickly will direct you to a CFOP tutorial as opposed to an overview of different speedsolving methods like ZZ or Roux.


Back on topic, to what you had said earlier:


Dan the Beginner said:


> CFOP solvers should have higher TPS due to the number of turns they need to complete. So, can those who post TPS identify the method, please?


For solves of the same speed across different methods, yes, the CFOP solves will tend to have a slightly higher TPS due to the method's higher movecount when compared to Roux, ZZ, or Petrus. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that CFOP solvers will have a higher maximum TPS.
Anyone acquainted with ZZ meta will tell you that after EOCross, ZZF2L is simplified even further than CFOP F2L and allows for greater TPS spamming. However this isn't the case for EOLine and ZZ blocks, but that method isn't common these days :(.

Hyeon Kyo Kyoung is known for having incredibly high TPS, and although he is a CFOP main, he is quite excellent at ZZ and has stated that he uses it to help with his turning speed.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

StrategySam said:


> Also RU gen is faster then MU gen. If it wasn't then Roux would clearly be the best method in 2h.


Only when it is regripless, but never the less you are right the tps cap for roux is slightly lower


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 22, 2021)

Robert-Y said:


> What is the highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve?
> 
> The highest I have come across is about 8.18 done by Breandan in his 7.21 solve (59/7.21 = 8.18 (2.d.p.). My highest is about 5.9 (time was about 10.5). I think that other fast cubers have gotten over 6 tps before (Harris for sure, probably Erik and Nakaji). I think the highest reachable tps might be 10-15tps.


I assume everybody has watched Ruihang Xu's 13 TPS solve analysed. Maybe not everybody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWs

His highest is 16 TPS, as recorded in Cube Station, but it is not an official recorded being a solve using a smartcube (Check Cube Station's Top 20). 61 Turns, 3.81 sec.

His highest PLL speed record is 60 TPS. 

*UPDATE. The 60 TPS is not true. See my next post about a video I have seen and why I was confused. *


----------



## ruffleduck (Aug 22, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> His highest PLL speed record is 60 TPS.


Which PLL? I don't think that's humanly possible. 30 TPS is the limit


----------



## abunickabhi (Aug 22, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I assume everybody has watched Ruihang Xu's 13 TPS solve analysed. Maybe not everybody.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWs
> 
> ...


60 TPS on a PLL that is just insane. Hard to believe without any evidence.


----------



## UNO_FASY (Aug 22, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Only when it is regripless, but never the less you are right the tps cap for roux is slightly lower


Yeah MU definitely nerfed Roux TPS a bit, MU TPS at best gonna be 12-13 TPS.
Although even be able to turn 9-10 TPS at roux consistently is already enough for sub 5 avg


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 22, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I assume everybody has watched Ruihang Xu's 13 TPS solve analysed. Maybe not everybody.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWs
> 
> ...


He's gotten a 14.37 TPS solve in Monkey League before (Check the Monkey League discussion thread). It's a lot easier to get a 16 TPS solve with a smart cube so it's probably equivalent to a 14(?) TPS stackmat solve. Still impressive. I do agree with zzoomer, 60 TPS is probably impossible for any person even for the fastest triggers. What PLL was it, what time, and where's the source?


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 22, 2021)

Sorry if it is incorrect, but the 60 TPS was mentioned in the description of this video. I actually don't know if it is true and I also suspect it is humanly impossible. What do you think?

*UPDATE. I checked the video again and it said 60 fps, which should be the frame rate of the video, not TPS. My mistake.  Sorry.*


----------

