7 ms·

One frame, in this case, is the time it takes to do a full iteration of its loop containing all the input handling and rendering, up to and including the point

One frame, in this case, is the time it takes to do a full iteration of its loop containing all the input handling and rendering, up to and including the point where it flips its buffers for the main screen. Enabling v-sync would bring that down to your monitor's refresh rate, as it prevents the buffers from flipping until your monitor is refreshing.

bloniac 5y ago
So to be clear, there are no thousands of frames per seconds actually being displayed anywhere. There’s 144 at best. The internal buffer is being updated thousands of times per second. The user will see their regular 60FPS.
- miltondts 5y ago
  Where exactly is it claimed that it displays thousands of frames per seconds? The purpose is to show how fast the program is. This is standard practice in benchmarks. You show an FPS counter that doesn't correspond to the frames the monitor displays.
  - andruc 5y ago
    It is claimed very clearly in the linked tweet, and the metrics are shown in the video.
    - alpaca128 5y ago
      No. The linked tweet says it is running at thousands of FPS. Which is correct. It's not the program's problem when the graphics hardware cannot process every single frame. Referring to FPS as the framerate rendered is the standard, when you talk about e.g. the display's output you use Hz. Every professional esports player runs their game at hundreds of FPS if possible, to minimise latency.
- jacoblambda 5y ago
  Yep. This is pretty standard terminology in the graphics space. In reality all it really means is that the AET (average execution time) for a single loop is some fraction of a millisecond even for decently heavy loads. I'm honestly more interested in the actual WCET (worst case execution time) would be however I imagine it's at least decent all things considered. In the end as long as the WCET is only a few milliseconds (sufficient for up to 240Hz monitors) or at least the AET for most loads is beneath that then anything extra just means more power to throw at anything else.
  - Narishma 5y ago
    > In the end as long as the WCET is only a few milliseconds (sufficient for up to 240Hz monitors) or at least the AET for most loads is beneath that then anything extra just means more power to throw at anything else. It also means a cooler and quieter laptop, and longer lasting if running on battery.
- craftinator 5y ago
  There are thousands of FPS being pushed to the frame buffer, where they could be displayed at that rate with the right hardware (Although I'm not sure there are display technologies that could update that quickly...). Another way of looking at it is that the FPS rate is now display hardware bound, rather than software bound.

bloniac 5y ago

So to be clear, there are no thousands of frames per seconds actually being displayed anywhere. There’s 144 at best. The internal buffer is being updated thousands of times per second. The user will see their regular 60FPS.

miltondts 5y ago
Where exactly is it claimed that it displays thousands of frames per seconds? The purpose is to show how fast the program is. This is standard practice in benchmarks. You show an FPS counter that doesn't correspond to the frames the monitor displays.
- andruc 5y ago
  It is claimed very clearly in the linked tweet, and the metrics are shown in the video.
  - alpaca128 5y ago
    No. The linked tweet says it is running at thousands of FPS. Which is correct. It's not the program's problem when the graphics hardware cannot process every single frame. Referring to FPS as the framerate rendered is the standard, when you talk about e.g. the display's output you use Hz. Every professional esports player runs their game at hundreds of FPS if possible, to minimise latency.
jacoblambda 5y ago
Yep. This is pretty standard terminology in the graphics space. In reality all it really means is that the AET (average execution time) for a single loop is some fraction of a millisecond even for decently heavy loads. I'm honestly more interested in the actual WCET (worst case execution time) would be however I imagine it's at least decent all things considered. In the end as long as the WCET is only a few milliseconds (sufficient for up to 240Hz monitors) or at least the AET for most loads is beneath that then anything extra just means more power to throw at anything else.
- Narishma 5y ago
  > In the end as long as the WCET is only a few milliseconds (sufficient for up to 240Hz monitors) or at least the AET for most loads is beneath that then anything extra just means more power to throw at anything else. It also means a cooler and quieter laptop, and longer lasting if running on battery.
craftinator 5y ago
There are thousands of FPS being pushed to the frame buffer, where they could be displayed at that rate with the right hardware (Although I'm not sure there are display technologies that could update that quickly...). Another way of looking at it is that the FPS rate is now display hardware bound, rather than software bound.