misk@sopuli.xyz to Hardware@lemmy.ml · 6 months agoDoes anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?arstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square31fedilinkarrow-up162cross-posted to: games@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up162external-linkDoes anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?arstechnica.commisk@sopuli.xyz to Hardware@lemmy.ml · 6 months agomessage-square31fedilinkcross-posted to: games@sh.itjust.works
minus-squarechonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·6 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-squareSoleInvictuslinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-26 months agoThis is a demonstration of latency, not frame rate. Did you intend to link something different?
minus-squarechonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·6 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-squareSoleInvictuslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-26 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.