3 ms·
If it's just the refresh rate, that's nothing to do with the CPU (or, at least, nothing to do with the parts of the CPU that are meaningfully different between
by regularfry 6y ago
If it's just the refresh rate, that's nothing to do with the CPU (or, at least, nothing to do with the parts of the CPU that are meaningfully different between x86_64 and arm64).
- packetlost 6y agoMy point is that even if the primary reason it appears better to the user is the high refresh rate, then the CPU must be no worse than the other, because that would cause a degradation in CPU intensive tasks such as web browsing.
- regularfry 6y agoIt depends how big the effect is. Human perception is abysmal at judging performance. Particularly with web browsing, if you've got snappy compositing and the UI is otherwise slick, a slow browser performance will get blamed on the site, not the CPU.
- mekkkkkk 6y agoThe argument wasn't that they were equal, but that the ARM chip appeared _more_ performant than the x64 one. It's a legit point that refresh rate could make it appear so even if the actual performance is roughly the same.
- pjc50 6y agoFor non-games, screen refresh does not incur additional CPU usage, it only hits the video memory bandwidth. There may be a few things like scrolling that are limited to one action frame per display frame, but it's not common to tie code to vsync.