@[email protected] to [email protected] • 4 months agoDoes anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?arstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square44fedilinkarrow-up164arrow-down14cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up160arrow-down1external-linkDoes anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?arstechnica.com@[email protected] to [email protected] • 4 months agomessage-square44fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•4 months agoYou absolutely can tell the difference between 90Hz and 1kHz. Just draw a squiggly line! See this video for a rather dramatic demonstration: Microsoft Research: High Performance Touch
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•edit-24 months agoThis is a demonstration of latency, not frame rate. Did you intend to link something different?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•4 months agoA 1000Hz display necessarily has a latency of 1ms between frames. For 100Hz, that’s 10ms. But this is only the lower bound. You have to include all other sources of latency, such as software, input hardware, drivers, graphics card, etc.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•edit-24 months agoAhhh, now I see the connection! It’s the update interval. I had to chew on it for a minute but the math checks out.
You absolutely can tell the difference between 90Hz and 1kHz. Just draw a squiggly line! See this video for a rather dramatic demonstration:
Microsoft Research: High Performance Touch
This is a demonstration of latency, not frame rate. Did you intend to link something different?
A 1000Hz display necessarily has a latency of 1ms between frames. For 100Hz, that’s 10ms.
But this is only the lower bound. You have to include all other sources of latency, such as software, input hardware, drivers, graphics card, etc.
Ahhh, now I see the connection! It’s the update interval. I had to chew on it for a minute but the math checks out.