4 ms·

120Hz is incredible for gaming. Unity and Unreal Engine dynamically scale tessellation and many other things to accommodate hardware performance, so as to maint

120Hz is incredible for gaming. Unity and Unreal Engine dynamically scale tessellation and many other things to accommodate hardware performance, so as to maintain FPS on high-refresh screens. The polygon counts, texture detail, AI complexity of modern games is bonkers, but multiple moon landings of engineering time has gone into keeping solid 100Hz+ frame rates. However, you are definitely correct when it comes to GUI productivity applications. Drawing text in boxes is apparently much harder than rendering an immersive world in real time. The implications are too disturbing to consider, so I do not.

mrob 6y ago
Some of it is deliberate: https://github.com/GNOME/vte/blob/master/src/vte.cc#L10543 https://github.com/GNOME/vte/blob/master/src/vte.cc#L10543 It's another harmful effect of mobile-first design. A trivial power saving gives measurably improved battery life, but the horrible latency is ignored.
badsectoracula 6y ago
> 120Hz is incredible for gaming. ...if you're playing with v-sync :-P. I got a (rather expensive too) 165Hz monitor recently and the main benefit is to lessen the lag that Windows' forced composition (which also does v-sync) has. But in games i always played with v-sync turned off (i do not mind the tearing, unless it only happens at a fixed position i never really notice it) and the responsiveness was already very high. And on Linux and older versions of Windows where i could disable the compositor, i already had high responsiveness on the GUI too (if anything i feel like even with the 165Hz monitor, the Windows 10 desktop is still not as responsive as Windows 7 and previous versions of Windows were with the compositor disabled). Though a large issue with that is how modern monitors work. I also have a CRT connected to an older computer here which can do 120Hz and the motion feel is considerably better to the point where i wonder what the hell was wrong with people in the mid-2000s to switch away from CRTs when in pretty much every other area except size and weight, the CRTs were superior - especially at the time (better image quality, better and true dark colors, better responsiveness/no 'response time', higher refresh rates, higher resolutions, variable resolutions with no scaling artifacts, etc). In fact a reason i decided to try a 165Hz monitor was because i recently connected that CRT to a machine that can do 120Hz and have some games to run at 120fps and wanted that experience for my main PC too. (sadly i do have a feeling that if i hadn't used a CRT the last few years i'd be more enthusiastic about my new monitor since i do not think the currently technology can do much better - at least without going to something like that gigantic $3k OLED monitor though even that would annoy me for its size)
- micv 6y ago
  The size and weight of CRTs was basically unbearable. Huge problems. You can give up a lot to get out from that, and most CRTs weren't that sort of high quality. Most of us lost nothing but a huge inconvenience when we moved from CRT to LCD/TFT/whatever.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    But it isn't like you'd get your CRT out for a walk or anything, you'd buy a monitor and leave it at your desk for months - often years - so that weight wasn't much of an issue unless you moved around all the time.
- nullify88 6y ago
  > if you're playing with v-sync High refresh rate monitors tend to support freesync or Gsync. For minimum latency disable vsync, enable free / gsync. Only enable vsync if your fps is above the monitors refresh rate. Alternatively you can enable a framerate limit just below the refresh rate.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    My monitor supports Freesync but after testing with some games i found vsync off to have the minimum latency. Which is expected, since it always has the minimum latency even with 60Hz monitors, but i decided to try it anyway because i've seen very conflicting reports out there. The neat thing with the monitor is that i can switch it on and off while the game is running (there is an OSD option) but so far i haven't found any game where it is better.
CarbyAu 6y ago
Every now and again I think a "Windowing/Compositing" desktop experience replacement in the form of an Unreal Engine based "game" would be cool. Even supports VR. '80s Cyberpunk matrix here I come! pulls out a virtual gun to kill a process dead
- influx 6y ago
  Have you seen psdoom?
  - CarbyAu 6y ago
    No I had not! It seems like what I was thinking. Take the same idea and put it into Unreal Engine. Add further OS interactions like files, maybe a floating virtual window for web browsing etc. The UX has to be done very well though otherwise you are a prediction by TV show Community: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FGzE4endQ&ab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FGzE4endQ&ab

mrob 6y ago

Some of it is deliberate: https://github.com/GNOME/vte/blob/master/src/vte.cc#L10543 https://github.com/GNOME/vte/blob/master/src/vte.cc#L10543 It's another harmful effect of mobile-first design. A trivial power saving gives measurably improved battery life, but the horrible latency is ignored.

badsectoracula 6y ago

> 120Hz is incredible for gaming. ...if you're playing with v-sync :-P. I got a (rather expensive too) 165Hz monitor recently and the main benefit is to lessen the lag that Windows' forced composition (which also does v-sync) has. But in games i always played with v-sync turned off (i do not mind the tearing, unless it only happens at a fixed position i never really notice it) and the responsiveness was already very high. And on Linux and older versions of Windows where i could disable the compositor, i already had high responsiveness on the GUI too (if anything i feel like even with the 165Hz monitor, the Windows 10 desktop is still not as responsive as Windows 7 and previous versions of Windows were with the compositor disabled). Though a large issue with that is how modern monitors work. I also have a CRT connected to an older computer here which can do 120Hz and the motion feel is considerably better to the point where i wonder what the hell was wrong with people in the mid-2000s to switch away from CRTs when in pretty much every other area except size and weight, the CRTs were superior - especially at the time (better image quality, better and true dark colors, better responsiveness/no 'response time', higher refresh rates, higher resolutions, variable resolutions with no scaling artifacts, etc). In fact a reason i decided to try a 165Hz monitor was because i recently connected that CRT to a machine that can do 120Hz and have some games to run at 120fps and wanted that experience for my main PC too. (sadly i do have a feeling that if i hadn't used a CRT the last few years i'd be more enthusiastic about my new monitor since i do not think the currently technology can do much better - at least without going to something like that gigantic $3k OLED monitor though even that would annoy me for its size)

micv 6y ago
The size and weight of CRTs was basically unbearable. Huge problems. You can give up a lot to get out from that, and most CRTs weren't that sort of high quality. Most of us lost nothing but a huge inconvenience when we moved from CRT to LCD/TFT/whatever.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  But it isn't like you'd get your CRT out for a walk or anything, you'd buy a monitor and leave it at your desk for months - often years - so that weight wasn't much of an issue unless you moved around all the time.
nullify88 6y ago
> if you're playing with v-sync High refresh rate monitors tend to support freesync or Gsync. For minimum latency disable vsync, enable free / gsync. Only enable vsync if your fps is above the monitors refresh rate. Alternatively you can enable a framerate limit just below the refresh rate.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  My monitor supports Freesync but after testing with some games i found vsync off to have the minimum latency. Which is expected, since it always has the minimum latency even with 60Hz monitors, but i decided to try it anyway because i've seen very conflicting reports out there. The neat thing with the monitor is that i can switch it on and off while the game is running (there is an OSD option) but so far i haven't found any game where it is better.

CarbyAu 6y ago

Every now and again I think a "Windowing/Compositing" desktop experience replacement in the form of an Unreal Engine based "game" would be cool. Even supports VR. '80s Cyberpunk matrix here I come! pulls out a virtual gun to kill a process dead

influx 6y ago
Have you seen psdoom?
- CarbyAu 6y ago
  No I had not! It seems like what I was thinking. Take the same idea and put it into Unreal Engine. Add further OS interactions like files, maybe a floating virtual window for web browsing etc. The UX has to be done very well though otherwise you are a prediction by TV show Community: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FGzE4endQ&ab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FGzE4endQ&ab