Here’s a real-world use case where this difference is noticeable to the average person. We don’t need to render video games at 1000 Hz, but many things that can be rendered with comparatively low GPU power could be made a better experience with it. The real question is whether/when the technology becomes cheap enough to be practical to use in consumer goods.
90hz is enough to prevent motion sickness in vr. That’s a frame per 11ms and that’s basically the limit of human perception. 120 is allegedly even better, but beyond that there’s no point. Yeah we’re rehashing the 30 vs 60 fps debate again but this time for reals.
Latency between your input and computer output. It might not be that noticeable on PCs with keyboards and mice, but my god latency is awful on touch screens! Even the fastest screens in mobile phones are slow AF. 1,000Hz is a must for touch screens.
Refresh rate isn’t inherently tied to response time. We already have 1ms response time monitors that aren’t 1000hz. It just takes that long for the monitor to display the signal it’s receiving.
It is though. 1ms response time for monitors is the time they need to switch pixel colour. But if it runs at 100Hz you are getting at least 10ms delay between your action and what the screen is showing. In practice it’s even larger.
Now wait for humans who can see the difference
Here’s a real-world use case where this difference is noticeable to the average person. We don’t need to render video games at 1000 Hz, but many things that can be rendered with comparatively low GPU power could be made a better experience with it. The real question is whether/when the technology becomes cheap enough to be practical to use in consumer goods.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here’s a real-world use case where this difference is noticeable to the average person
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
90hz is enough to prevent motion sickness in vr. That’s a frame per 11ms and that’s basically the limit of human perception. 120 is allegedly even better, but beyond that there’s no point. Yeah we’re rehashing the 30 vs 60 fps debate again but this time for reals.
It’s not about the perception of an image, it’s about latency.
Latency between frames? Or latency to the screen? We have low latency monitors already.
Latency between your input and computer output. It might not be that noticeable on PCs with keyboards and mice, but my god latency is awful on touch screens! Even the fastest screens in mobile phones are slow AF. 1,000Hz is a must for touch screens.
Refresh rate isn’t inherently tied to response time. We already have 1ms response time monitors that aren’t 1000hz. It just takes that long for the monitor to display the signal it’s receiving.
It is though. 1ms response time for monitors is the time they need to switch pixel colour. But if it runs at 100Hz you are getting at least 10ms delay between your action and what the screen is showing. In practice it’s even larger.