• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    66 months ago

    “Now wait for 1,000 Hz content and capable GPUs.”

    Now wait for humans who can see the difference

    • @SkyezOpen
      link
      -76 months ago

      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.

      • @Aux
        link
        16 months ago

        It’s not about the perception of an image, it’s about latency.

        • @SkyezOpen
          link
          06 months ago

          Latency between frames? Or latency to the screen? We have low latency monitors already.

          • @Aux
            link
            16 months ago

            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.

            • @SkyezOpen
              link
              06 months ago

              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.

              • @Aux
                link
                16 months ago

                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.