# Frame rate number needs improvement

**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/frame-rate-number-needs-improvement/17774
**Category:** Development
**Created:** [October 25, 2026, 1:33am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/frame-rate-number-needs-improvement/17774 "2026-10-25T01:33:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jaswantp](https://discourse.paraview.org/user_avatar/discourse.paraview.org/jaswantp/32/11456_2.png) [@jaswantp](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/jaswantp)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2026, 1:33am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/frame-rate-number-needs-improvement/17774/1 "2026-10-25T01:33:13Z")

</div>

I’m rendering volumes in a paraview client (macos). The data lives on a different machine running `pvserver`. I notice that Paraview uses remote rendering all the time for even small volumes and there’s no way to override this. This is not interactive at all, even on a really good connection. I wanted to check the fps but the values it shows do not make sense.

If you turn on the “Show Annotation” checkbox in ParaView Settings → Render View, the value shown for the “Frame rate (approx): … fps” is unrealistic. It shows numbers in the range 2400-2600, but that’s not true.

In the screen-recording below, only the orientation axes is drawn. `vtkRenderWindow::Render()` takes 0.4ms so 1000/0.4 ~ 2500 is where it got that number from.

I believe the label is incorrect, and should be called render throughput. A frame rate should take into account display refresh, qt blits.

 ![Screenshot 2026-10-24 at 21.11.03](https://discourse.paraview.org/uploads/default/original/3X/d/9/d91b3173aedb48e00f69340ac22bacd1f6d40a7f.png)