5 ms·

> Also, "Hey monitor, here's a frame in a new resolution" "Right away, ma'am, I just need to wait 30ms for the next refresh and your content will be visible" E

> Also, "Hey monitor, here's a frame in a new resolution" "Right away, ma'am, I just need to wait 30ms for the next refresh and your content will be visible" Eh? There's no shortage of monitors with well under 10ms of signal to photon latency: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/gigabyte_aorus_ad27qd/lag.png https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/gigabyte_aorus_ad27qd/la... That's processing time + pixel response time measured across a handful of monitors. None of them are higher than 9ms. I have no idea where you got 30ms from? Or even what you're talking about at all. Are you exclusively talking about bottom of the barrel monitors here? Even IPS panels are being driven at 144hz these days and adaptive vsync is increasingly everywhere. Nobody is tolerating being slow?

ajross 7y ago
You skipped the "in a new resolution" part. I'm talking about mode switch time. Change resolutions or swap an input on your monitor and watch it dance for a few seconds trying to "resync" in a digital environment where AT MOST you need to wait through one frame of data to find the right timings.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  For some reason most if not all screens even cycle their backlight when switching modes.
- __david__ 7y ago
  Yeah, the fact that it's not a single frame but, in fact, like 1 to 3 seconds to switch resolutions is absolutely insane. Trying to watch a PC bios boot on my new-ish monitor is an exercise in frustration—it spends more time off than on!
tlamponi 7y ago
what are you walking about? OP just used 30 ms as example, replace it with 9 ms or 3 ms or whatever the example of a new resolution from OP still works..
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  > replace it with 9 ms or 3 ms or whatever the example of a new resolution from OP still works No, it doesn't. I missed that they were talking about mode switch, but if the mode switch happened in 9ms the OP's example doesn't work anymore because the switch becomes faster than refresh rate.
  - db48x 7y ago
    In an ideal world it would only take one frame to switch resolutions, and even if the frame time is usually 16.66ms, it is sometimes faster than that. Since mostly what a monitor needs to do is resample the image from the source resolution to destination resolution, and possibly composite in the UI for adjusting the settings, it seems quite possible to implement. I'm sure if we actually looked at what all the layers are doing (X, video drivers, PCIe commands, etc) then we would probably be pretty horrified. Hacks and work-arounds and backwards compatibility at every level.

ajross 7y ago

You skipped the "in a new resolution" part. I'm talking about mode switch time. Change resolutions or swap an input on your monitor and watch it dance for a few seconds trying to "resync" in a digital environment where AT MOST you need to wait through one frame of data to find the right timings.

blattimwind 7y ago
For some reason most if not all screens even cycle their backlight when switching modes.
__david__ 7y ago
Yeah, the fact that it's not a single frame but, in fact, like 1 to 3 seconds to switch resolutions is absolutely insane. Trying to watch a PC bios boot on my new-ish monitor is an exercise in frustration—it spends more time off than on!

tlamponi 7y ago

what are you walking about? OP just used 30 ms as example, replace it with 9 ms or 3 ms or whatever the example of a new resolution from OP still works..

kllrnohj 7y ago
> replace it with 9 ms or 3 ms or whatever the example of a new resolution from OP still works No, it doesn't. I missed that they were talking about mode switch, but if the mode switch happened in 9ms the OP's example doesn't work anymore because the switch becomes faster than refresh rate.
- db48x 7y ago
  In an ideal world it would only take one frame to switch resolutions, and even if the frame time is usually 16.66ms, it is sometimes faster than that. Since mostly what a monitor needs to do is resample the image from the source resolution to destination resolution, and possibly composite in the UI for adjusting the settings, it seems quite possible to implement. I'm sure if we actually looked at what all the layers are doing (X, video drivers, PCIe commands, etc) then we would probably be pretty horrified. Hacks and work-arounds and backwards compatibility at every level.