I think that's what he's talking about. Since Dolphin is not the bottleneck when it comes to pushing out frames, the question shifts to how fast a monitor can put them on screen. My understanding is that a CRT basically draws the frame in realtime since the cathode ray starts from the top scanline at (roughly) time t=0ms and finishes at the bottom scanline at t=16.67ms. Meanwhile an LCD with 1ms display lag would receive the frame information across that same time interval, but not actually display that frame until t=16.67+1ms.
I don't think that a 144hz refresh rate would make that faster though. Display lag can be thought of as a question of how fast frames are added at the beginning of a buffer or queue and not how fast they are unloaded at the end of said queue. Except that in the case of displaying frames on a TV the unload only happens as fast as something is loaded in its place, so for a 60FPS game a higher monitor refresh rate doesn't have any extra effect.
(01-31-2015, 09:47 AM)FenrirWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's what he's talking about. Since Dolphin is not the bottleneck when it comes to pushing out frames, the question shifts to how fast a monitor can put them on screen. My understanding is that a CRT basically draws the frame in realtime since the cathode ray starts from the top scanline at (roughly) time t=0ms and finishes at the bottom scanline at t=16.67ms. Meanwhile an LCD with 1ms display lag would receive the frame information across that same time interval, but not actually display that frame until t=16.67+1ms.
I don't think that a 144hz refresh rate would make that faster though. Display lag can be thought of as a question of how fast frames are added at the beginning of a buffer or queue and not how fast they are unloaded at the end of said queue. Except that in the case of displaying frames on a TV the unload only happens as fast as something is loaded in its place, so for a 60FPS game a higher monitor refresh rate doesn't have any extra effect.
Running out of patience saying the same stuff over and over. But AGAIN - if you have a faster refresh rate, that means you can output frames individually faster.
Let's look at an imaginary race:
60hz Display vs 144hz Display
Both displays are starting at 0ms and both just got the data to display the frame but haven't displayed anything yet. The moment JUST happened - but nothing has been displayed yet.
The 60hz display is starting to render the frame, and is half way there to finishing at 8.3ms.
The 144hz display is also starting to render the frame, and at 8.3ms, it's already 93% complete even if you include the 2ms from input processing lag.
At 8.94ms, the 144hz display is finished rendering the entire frame and 60hz display is 54% complete at displaying the whole frame.
And not until 16.67ms goes by, finally, the 60hz display has finished rendering the frame (assuming it's a CRT - it would be ~18.67ms if it was a gaming monitor)
If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. All I can do is repeat myself and leave out sources...
[color=#222222]
[color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/4[/color][/color]
[color=#222222]
[color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/5[/color][/color]
[color=#222222]
[color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/7
[/color][/color]
http://meleeiton.me/2014/03/27/this-tv-lags-a-guide-on-input-and-display-lag/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag
All you have to understand is that 144hz displays can display each one of those individual 60 frames per second FASTER than a 60hz display. It'll still only be 60FPS for the game, but each one of those frames will only take ~9ms to display fully instead of 16.67ms per frame. If you're still in your head thinking like, "idk but I don't think that's how it works" - then you are completely ignoring transmission time being faster for 144hz monitors. This is the most important part and you're ignoring it. You're assuming the transmission time would be the same based on the 60fps. But it's not, it just means that there won't be MORE frames per second. You don't need to be running a game at 120fps to experience the benefits of reduced transmission time from a 144hz display. Now if I hooked a 144hz display to a Wii or something, it would only be connected at 60hz because that's what the consoles are limited to and it wouldn't be a benefit - but on the PC, the connection is 144hz - so every frame going through it benefits from a reduction in transmission time.
You weren't using display lag as a term earlier, hence why I got confused...
I want to meet one of these people with the superhuman reflexes necessary to make having a 1ms response time important in the first place.
(02-02-2015, 01:54 PM)Aleron Ives Wrote: [ -> ]I want to meet one of these people with the superhuman reflexes necessary to make having a 1ms response time important in the first place.
The thing to understand if that the people that really need the lag free displays are people that are doing things that have a 1 frame input window (AKA speed runners). They aren't actually reacting as much as they are anticipating. People that competitively play games also benefit massively because they are able to more accurately anticipate actions in the game. You are correct that human reaction speed is pretty terrible, but you are missing the fact that we are able to predict actions in incredibly small windows of time.
(01-31-2015, 05:59 PM)TruckJitsu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2015, 09:47 AM)FenrirWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's what he's talking about. Since Dolphin is not the bottleneck when it comes to pushing out frames, the question shifts to how fast a monitor can put them on screen. My understanding is that a CRT basically draws the frame in realtime since the cathode ray starts from the top scanline at (roughly) time t=0ms and finishes at the bottom scanline at t=16.67ms. Meanwhile an LCD with 1ms display lag would receive the frame information across that same time interval, but not actually display that frame until t=16.67+1ms.
I don't think that a 144hz refresh rate would make that faster though. Display lag can be thought of as a question of how fast frames are added at the beginning of a buffer or queue and not how fast they are unloaded at the end of said queue. Except that in the case of displaying frames on a TV the unload only happens as fast as something is loaded in its place, so for a 60FPS game a higher monitor refresh rate doesn't have any extra effect.
Running out of patience saying the same stuff over and over. But AGAIN - if you have a faster refresh rate, that means you can output frames individually faster.
Let's look at an imaginary race:
60hz Display vs 144hz Display
Both displays are starting at 0ms and both just got the data to display the frame but haven't displayed anything yet. The moment JUST happened - but nothing has been displayed yet.
The 60hz display is starting to render the frame, and is half way there to finishing at 8.3ms.
The 144hz display is also starting to render the frame, and at 8.3ms, it's already 93% complete even if you include the 2ms from input processing lag.
At 8.94ms, the 144hz display is finished rendering the entire frame and 60hz display is 54% complete at displaying the whole frame.
And not until 16.67ms goes by, finally, the 60hz display has finished rendering the frame (assuming it's a CRT - it would be ~18.67ms if it was a gaming monitor)
If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. All I can do is repeat myself and leave out sources...
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/4[/color][/color]
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/5[/color][/color]
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/7
[/color][/color]http://meleeiton.me/2014/03/27/this-tv-lags-a-guide-on-input-and-display-lag/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag
All you have to understand is that 144hz displays can display each one of those individual 60 frames per second FASTER than a 60hz display. It'll still only be 60FPS for the game, but each one of those frames will only take ~9ms to display fully instead of 16.67ms per frame. If you're still in your head thinking like, "idk but I don't think that's how it works" - then you are completely ignoring transmission time being faster for 144hz monitors. This is the most important part and you're ignoring it. You're assuming the transmission time would be the same based on the 60fps. But it's not, it just means that there won't be MORE frames per second. You don't need to be running a game at 120fps to experience the benefits of reduced transmission time from a 144hz display. Now if I hooked a 144hz display to a Wii or something, it would only be connected at 60hz because that's what the consoles are limited to and it wouldn't be a benefit - but on the PC, the connection is 144hz - so every frame going through it benefits from a reduction in transmission time.
Your logic is wrong. 60 Hz doesn't mean it will take 1/60 of a second for the monitor to transition from one frame to the next (or as you were saying, "render" the frame). Refresh rate is how many times per second a new frame is drawn, not how fast the frame is drawn. Response time is how fast the frame is drawn. Also, no LCD monitors have 2 ms input lag, the fastest on the market is 9 ms (you're confusing input lag with response time).
Helpful glossary:
- Response time is the amount of time a pixel in a display takes to change.
- Refresh rate or the temporal resolution of an LCD is the number of times per second in which the display draws the data it is being given.
- Input lag is the delay between the television or monitor receiving a signal and it being displayed on the screen.
Refresh rate won't matter after 60 Hz because the monitor will be drawing the data more than 60 times per second, so it will be redrawing the same frame more than once. What really matters is how long it's going to take to draw the frame once the monitor is given the data to display (response time).
I know this can be confusing, so I hope you understand what I'm saying.
(02-04-2015, 12:48 PM)Buddybenj Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2015, 05:59 PM)TruckJitsu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2015, 09:47 AM)FenrirWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's what he's talking about. Since Dolphin is not the bottleneck when it comes to pushing out frames, the question shifts to how fast a monitor can put them on screen. My understanding is that a CRT basically draws the frame in realtime since the cathode ray starts from the top scanline at (roughly) time t=0ms and finishes at the bottom scanline at t=16.67ms. Meanwhile an LCD with 1ms display lag would receive the frame information across that same time interval, but not actually display that frame until t=16.67+1ms.
I don't think that a 144hz refresh rate would make that faster though. Display lag can be thought of as a question of how fast frames are added at the beginning of a buffer or queue and not how fast they are unloaded at the end of said queue. Except that in the case of displaying frames on a TV the unload only happens as fast as something is loaded in its place, so for a 60FPS game a higher monitor refresh rate doesn't have any extra effect.
Running out of patience saying the same stuff over and over. But AGAIN - if you have a faster refresh rate, that means you can output frames individually faster.
Let's look at an imaginary race:
60hz Display vs 144hz Display
Both displays are starting at 0ms and both just got the data to display the frame but haven't displayed anything yet. The moment JUST happened - but nothing has been displayed yet.
The 60hz display is starting to render the frame, and is half way there to finishing at 8.3ms.
The 144hz display is also starting to render the frame, and at 8.3ms, it's already 93% complete even if you include the 2ms from input processing lag.
At 8.94ms, the 144hz display is finished rendering the entire frame and 60hz display is 54% complete at displaying the whole frame.
And not until 16.67ms goes by, finally, the 60hz display has finished rendering the frame (assuming it's a CRT - it would be ~18.67ms if it was a gaming monitor)
If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. All I can do is repeat myself and leave out sources...
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/4[/color][/color]
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/5[/color][/color]
[color=#222222][color=#952eb8]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/7
[/color][/color]http://meleeiton.me/2014/03/27/this-tv-lags-a-guide-on-input-and-display-lag/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag
All you have to understand is that 144hz displays can display each one of those individual 60 frames per second FASTER than a 60hz display. It'll still only be 60FPS for the game, but each one of those frames will only take ~9ms to display fully instead of 16.67ms per frame. If you're still in your head thinking like, "idk but I don't think that's how it works" - then you are completely ignoring transmission time being faster for 144hz monitors. This is the most important part and you're ignoring it. You're assuming the transmission time would be the same based on the 60fps. But it's not, it just means that there won't be MORE frames per second. You don't need to be running a game at 120fps to experience the benefits of reduced transmission time from a 144hz display. Now if I hooked a 144hz display to a Wii or something, it would only be connected at 60hz because that's what the consoles are limited to and it wouldn't be a benefit - but on the PC, the connection is 144hz - so every frame going through it benefits from a reduction in transmission time.
Your logic is wrong. 60 Hz doesn't mean it will take 1/60 of a second for the monitor to transition from one frame to the next (or as you were saying, "render" the frame). Refresh rate is how many times per second a new frame is drawn, not how fast the frame is drawn. Response time is how fast the frame is drawn. Also, no LCD monitors have 2 ms input lag, the fastest on the market is 9 ms (you're confusing input lag with response time).
Helpful glossary:
- Response time is the amount of time a pixel in a display takes to change.
- Refresh rate or the temporal resolution of an LCD is the number of times per second in which the display draws the data it is being given.
- Input lag is the delay between the television or monitor receiving a signal and it being displayed on the screen.
Refresh rate won't matter after 60 Hz because the monitor will be drawing the data more than 60 times per second, so it will be redrawing the same frame more than once. What really matters is how long it's going to take to draw the frame once the monitor is given the data to display (response time).
I know this can be confusing, so I hope you understand what I'm saying.
"60 Hz doesn't mean it will take 1/60 of a second for the monitor to transition from one frame to the next (or as you were saying, "render" the frame)"
That's precisely what it is. Hz is out of 1000. 1000/60 = 16.67ms. CRTs and BenQs both render the frame from top to bottom line by line. For a CRT, it has next to 0 input lag starting the first line, but takes 16.67ms to get all the way to the bottom. I actually included sources in my post that explain this. Clearly you didn't look at them. In those sources they show visuals as well that explain this including high speed video.
"Refresh rate is how many times per second a new frame is drawn, not how fast the frame is drawn."
That's like saying MPH is how many miles you go per hour, not how fast you go in a car. When you measure how fast it takes to draw the frame, it is literally what the refresh rate is limited to. It's not like the monitor is rendering then waiting rendering then waiting. The refresh rate determines how fast the frame is drawn because it needs to be fixed to that rate. When you look at transmission time, this is literally what it is limited to. All 60hz displays have a minimum of 16.67ms of input lag from transmission time alone.
"Response time is how fast the frame is drawn"
That's a PART of the overall process to "draw" a frame. If you look at my sources you'll see that transmission time comes before response time. CRTs don't even have response time because there is no digital signal to interpret. The analog nature skips the whole process and directly displays the signal. And guess what, it still takes 16.67ms to display the entire frame from top to bottom. Why? Because it runs at 60hz.
"Also, no LCD monitors have 2 ms input lag, the fastest on the market is 9 ms (you're confusing input lag with response time)."
This is just a misunderstanding on your part. When we're talking about input lag for 60hz displays, we already are are of the 16.67ms from transmission lag. When we say 2ms of input lag that is really 16.67ms + 2ms making it 18.67ms overall. The fastest on the market is not 9ms btw for 60hz displays. The fastest is around 18.67ms. When you get in the realm of 144hz displays, you have the ability to cut down on transmission time and that's when you get the 9ms times. Which all of this I already explained in detail in my earlier posts and I posted sources. You literally didn't read anything and just came in here and just assumed a bunch of stuff.
"Refresh rate won't matter after 60 Hz because the monitor will be drawing the data more than 60 times per second, so it will be redrawing the same frame more than once. What really matters is how long it's going to take to draw the frame once the monitor is given the data to display (response time)."
Again, your understanding of response time needs further education. Response time is only PART of the process in rendering a frame. As far as, "it will be redrawing the same frame more than once" - there's nothing wrong with this because overall, we'll get the initial frame faster. Melee is only 60fps - but each frame takes 16.67ms to fully display. So even though at 144hz, it might display the same frame a couple times, it'll display each frame fully after only 9ms instead of the full 16.67ms. I explained this above in my other post but I guess you didn't read it.
"I know this can be confusing, so I hope you understand what I'm saying."
Yeah confusing alright, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about. If you actually looked at the sources I provided, you'd get a better understanding about the FACT that refresh rate determines how fast a frame is drawn. Still don't believe it? Watch high speed video of a CRT rendering a frame. And thoroughly read my sources before you reply if you choose to.
An Nvidia card using a G-Sync monitor playing a game at 60 fps actually scans out the frame buffer at 144 hz. After spending 6.9 ms drawing the image, the monitor then spends the remaining 9.7 ms waiting for the next frame to be sent. It's odd to think about, but what ends up happening with g-sync is that the top of the image has more latency then a CRT, but the bottom of the image has less latency then a CRT.
(02-04-2015, 02:58 PM)TSM Wrote: [ -> ]An Nvidia card using a G-Sync monitor playing a game at 60 fps actually scans out the frame buffer at 144 hz. After spending 6.9 ms drawing the image, the monitor then spends the remaining 9.7 ms waiting for the next frame to be sent. It's odd to think about, but what ends up happening with g-sync is that the top of the image has more latency then a CRT, but the bottom of the image has less latency then a CRT.
I don't know enough about G-Sync to verify but that sounds about right.
This site has some good info about G-Sync:
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview/
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/