4 ms·

Apple IIe managed 30ms total[0]. There's no reason why modern computers, which are thousands of times faster, shouldn't manage 16ms. The slow response of modern

by mrob 7y ago

Apple IIe managed 30ms total[0]. There's no reason why modern computers, which are thousands of times faster, shouldn't manage 16ms. The slow response of modern systems is the result of a deliberate choice to prioritize ease of development over user experience. We can do better. [0] https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://danluu.com/input-lag/

viklove 7y ago
You speak as if ease-of-development doesn't enhance UX. Of course it does. If a team can ship features and fix bugs faster, the UX does improve. Most would say that's worth it over shaving 15ms off the input lag.
nemothekid 7y ago
The mechanism that gave the Apple IIe such low latency has little to do with processing power - the keyboard had an exotic setup that you likely won't get over something as generic USB.
- fsh 7y ago
  High end USB peripherals are polled in 1 ms intervals and even the cheapest ones every 8 ms at most.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Exotic how? Just being 533Hz isn't; you can get very cheap chips that are capable of polling the keys at 1000Hz or higher. If you really want to minimize latency on a modern system, and can choose whatever commodity hardware you want, you can get the input+rendering+scanout delay below 10ms. At that point it's a matter of how often your screen accepts new frames. And with a high-end, frame wait plus pixel response time can also be under 10ms. 20ms for local end-to-end latency is a completely achievable goal. https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/3/ https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-a... Their best combo here achieved an end-to-end latency of 12-15ms, on a 200/240Hz screen with counterstrike running at 2000+ fps. At a more mainstream 144Hz to the screen, running the game at 'only' 288Hz, end-to-end latency was 13-19ms. Even at 60Hz they could easily keep the latency below 30ms.
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    Exotic in the sense that pretty much all gear that is polling 1000Hz nowadays is gaming gear. I never implied it was unattainable - I have a 240Hz monitor, G903, and still use the ps/2 port and the games. However I wouldn't doubt the fact that my 240Hz monitor is exotic. As for touch screen technology, the Apple Pro Pen I believe is only 20ms and is state of the art. While I do believe that developer ux has contributed to lazy resource management, it's also clear that sub-60hz latency has regularly required exotic hardware.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      It's still "generic USB". When we're talking about the difficulty of it, it's entirely fair to pull in a $30 keyboard. Touch is hard to keep ultra fast. But with physical buttons it's mostly apathy.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  usb interrupt endpoints (used for keyboards and mice) can poll every 1ms. Giving you 15.5ms on average to do the rest

by mrob 7y ago

viklove 7y ago

You speak as if ease-of-development doesn't enhance UX. Of course it does. If a team can ship features and fix bugs faster, the UX does improve. Most would say that's worth it over shaving 15ms off the input lag.

nemothekid 7y ago

The mechanism that gave the Apple IIe such low latency has little to do with processing power - the keyboard had an exotic setup that you likely won't get over something as generic USB.

fsh 7y ago
High end USB peripherals are polled in 1 ms intervals and even the cheapest ones every 8 ms at most.
Dylan16807 7y ago
Exotic how? Just being 533Hz isn't; you can get very cheap chips that are capable of polling the keys at 1000Hz or higher. If you really want to minimize latency on a modern system, and can choose whatever commodity hardware you want, you can get the input+rendering+scanout delay below 10ms. At that point it's a matter of how often your screen accepts new frames. And with a high-end, frame wait plus pixel response time can also be under 10ms. 20ms for local end-to-end latency is a completely achievable goal. https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/3/ https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-a... Their best combo here achieved an end-to-end latency of 12-15ms, on a 200/240Hz screen with counterstrike running at 2000+ fps. At a more mainstream 144Hz to the screen, running the game at 'only' 288Hz, end-to-end latency was 13-19ms. Even at 60Hz they could easily keep the latency below 30ms.
- nemothekid 7y ago
  Exotic in the sense that pretty much all gear that is polling 1000Hz nowadays is gaming gear. I never implied it was unattainable - I have a 240Hz monitor, G903, and still use the ps/2 port and the games. However I wouldn't doubt the fact that my 240Hz monitor is exotic. As for touch screen technology, the Apple Pro Pen I believe is only 20ms and is state of the art. While I do believe that developer ux has contributed to lazy resource management, it's also clear that sub-60hz latency has regularly required exotic hardware.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    It's still "generic USB". When we're talking about the difficulty of it, it's entirely fair to pull in a $30 keyboard. Touch is hard to keep ultra fast. But with physical buttons it's mostly apathy.
dmitrygr 7y ago
usb interrupt endpoints (used for keyboards and mice) can poll every 1ms. Giving you 15.5ms on average to do the rest