4 ms·

GFN is tested to be faster than native consoles in terms of input latency. https://imgur.com/TzPnCLs https://imgur.com/TzPnCLs People are talking about turn b

GFN is tested to be faster than native consoles in terms of input latency. https://imgur.com/TzPnCLs https://imgur.com/TzPnCLs People are talking about turn based games but my experience is that it's flawless and indistinguishable from native in twitch games like fortnite and counterstrike. But then again I live on the East Coast pretty close to a datacenter and I'm on fiber, so obviously this won't be the case for people in rural areas. But for people who are in situations like mine, it's great.

jb_s 4y ago
I've unfortunately played way too many twitch shooters on PC and latency is really noticeable to me. To the point where I can't stand using my work-supplied laptop because of slight mouse lag (I think the mouse travels maybe 30-40ms behind my hand) and 60hz screens. This is somewhat annoying coming from 165Hz, gaming peripherals. Then I have to connect to a VM to do development. Absolute hell.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  Yeah, it won't match the requirements for very high end competitive gamers. I was just talking empirical results found by Digital Foundry matching consoles. > mouse travels maybe 30-40ms behind my hand That sounds awful. But it reminds me that the chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers in a vacuum but more comparatively. GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz. I know it's not compelling for anyone who hates 60hz heh but for people who are okay with 60hz then GFN latency won't feel any different to you.
  - blibble 4y ago
    given GFN is running the same software as you'd run locally (the game), and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally? unless there's some trick I'm missing it's going to be at least the same (plus the network latency)
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally? Something is a little weird with the numbers as shown. 120hz to 60hz only gains 18ms on PC, but it gains 45ms on xbox. Presumably with the same peripherals, tv, network connection, etc. Not really sure what's going on there.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
        I'm not entirely sure either but I just go with what Digital Foundry tells me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcFSlniGrw&t=676s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcFSlniGrw&t=676s Watch the video yourself.
        blibble 4y ago
        I suspect it's an unfair test they should be comparing the same input/output hardware with the xbox then only switching out the xbox for a PC connected to the same inputs/output what would be terrible: comparing xbox plugged into TV+controller with geforce now running on a PC with keyboard+mouse+PC monitor the numbers don't make sense otherwise
        KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
        I'm getting the feeling that you want a test of the internet connection or something like that by your standard of what a fair test is. I don't think that's what they're going for, but a more holistic "typical usecase" test. That said I haven't bothered to check the video for exactly how the test is setup maybe someone will comment with that info.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      I said same as native console, not the same as the equivalent hardware on PC. If you look at the chart it's comparing different hardware not the same hardware. The "trick" here is that native devices already have some amount of latency, just they are in an acceptable range for most people. However nvidia can optimize PC hardware to reduce the device's latency such that even with the network latency added it's still faster than the average person's native device. Hope that makes sense.
  - beebeepka 4y ago
    You're both right. As some SLI/Crossfire enthusiasts found, high fps don't mean much when they're late. Latency is king
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      Nobody mentioned fps, my post was entirely about latency.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    An extra 40ms is absolutely terrible, and apparent to everyone. Anyone who says otherwise is accustomed to ultra bad games. > GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz False. 60Hz input lag is subtle and if someone can't notice an extra 40ms, they won't notice this.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      The input lag is measurable, I'm talking about empirical results.
Quikinterp 4y ago
That is a crazy amount of input lag 80ms on every single input doesn't sound fun to me for a game with constant motion
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  The chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers in a vacuum but more comparatively. GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz. The tool tests time from button click to muzzle flash. It's not a 80ms delay on every motion, this is the total latency including the time the game takes to react to an input and fires a gun. It's hard to know how much base latency there is, the game could decide to wait a few ms before doing anything who knows, so I wouldn't read into that. Things like spinning around in a circle feels flawless. This chart should really be used comparatively.
  - blibble 4y ago
    only peasants are playing at 120hz in 2022!
bschwindHN 4y ago
I'm having trouble understanding this part - GFN being faster than a console for latency. Is it simply the particular game delaying actions in an arbitrary way? Are the GFN machines just _that_ much beefier that they simulate and render a frame significantly faster than a console? It would be interesting to see a pipeline diagram of some sort, breaking down the total time for each stage of the test, to see where the console is falling behind.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  Most console players don't know this but a well optimized PC is simply much lower latency than a console (mostly beef but also optimization). Here are the results from a different game: https://youtu.be/jOcFSlniGrw?t=831 https://youtu.be/jOcFSlniGrw?t=831 I think a pipeline diagram would be cool too, though I don't think it's possible to get that information from a third party at least.
dbttdft 4y ago
> my experience is that it's flawless and indistinguishable from native in twitch games like fortnite and counterstrike This is just your opinion and it's wrong for at least 50% of humans. Nobody with a mouse will find fortnite or cs playable with 40ms added lag. 40ms lag is higher than the mere 16.66ms you get from going from 60 FPS to 60 Hz vsync (that is, running the monitor at 60Hz and enabling vsync. it will be the same framerate but much laggier). In the 60 FPS days, EVERYONE complained about this mere 16.66ms added difference. This included people who just started playing their very first video game one day ago. On Twitch, still everyone notices vsync and turns it off once they figure out that it is the cause of the shitty sluggy mouse feel. Your next idea > The "trick" here is that native devices already have some amount of latency, just they are in an acceptable range for most people. However nvidia can optimize PC hardware to reduce the device's latency such that even with the network latency added it's still faster than the average person's native device. Hope that makes sense. Is also utterly wrong. You don't need "le graphics pipeline" to make input lag noticeable. Just plug in a monitor with 16ms input lag to your computer and you will notice that the mouse is annoyingly difficult to position over anything in the Windows or Linux desktop. OR another explanation: Make a program to move a small shape around the screen using the mouse position. It waits until the monitor is about to start scanning out a frame from the framebuffer and only then draws the shapes new position in the framebuffer where the mouse is at that time (since it's just a blank image with a small shape it's near instant to do this in the CPU, a few microseconds). If you use a monitor without lag (like a CRT) and it's running at 60Hz, that means there is now a total input lag of up to 16.66ms (accounting for the time between frames), and perhaps 1ms if you run the mouse at 1000Hz like you should be doing, then maybe some small delay from the OS. Now if you make this program render the slow vsync way, i.e, rendering the frame to temporary memory and doing nothing for the next 16.66ms then swapping it to the framebuffer once the monitor is about to scan out the next frame, this adds another 16.66ms of input lag. And it will feel terrible. Ergo, getting far greater than 16.66ms lag caused by some network streaming service will NOT magically feel less laggy than native hardware. Also the idea that optimizing small isolated components randomly will fix input lag is laughable, it's all about timing. Almost no lag is caused by CPU (or GPU core) bottlenecks, aside from the straight up most basic problem of low framerate.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago

jb_s 4y ago

I've unfortunately played way too many twitch shooters on PC and latency is really noticeable to me. To the point where I can't stand using my work-supplied laptop because of slight mouse lag (I think the mouse travels maybe 30-40ms behind my hand) and 60hz screens. This is somewhat annoying coming from 165Hz, gaming peripherals. Then I have to connect to a VM to do development. Absolute hell.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
Yeah, it won't match the requirements for very high end competitive gamers. I was just talking empirical results found by Digital Foundry matching consoles. > mouse travels maybe 30-40ms behind my hand That sounds awful. But it reminds me that the chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers in a vacuum but more comparatively. GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz. I know it's not compelling for anyone who hates 60hz heh but for people who are okay with 60hz then GFN latency won't feel any different to you.
- blibble 4y ago
  given GFN is running the same software as you'd run locally (the game), and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally? unless there's some trick I'm missing it's going to be at least the same (plus the network latency)
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally? Something is a little weird with the numbers as shown. 120hz to 60hz only gains 18ms on PC, but it gains 45ms on xbox. Presumably with the same peripherals, tv, network connection, etc. Not really sure what's going on there.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      I'm not entirely sure either but I just go with what Digital Foundry tells me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcFSlniGrw&t=676s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcFSlniGrw&t=676s Watch the video yourself.
      - blibble 4y ago
        I suspect it's an unfair test they should be comparing the same input/output hardware with the xbox then only switching out the xbox for a PC connected to the same inputs/output what would be terrible: comparing xbox plugged into TV+controller with geforce now running on a PC with keyboard+mouse+PC monitor the numbers don't make sense otherwise
        KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
        I'm getting the feeling that you want a test of the internet connection or something like that by your standard of what a fair test is. I don't think that's what they're going for, but a more holistic "typical usecase" test. That said I haven't bothered to check the video for exactly how the test is setup maybe someone will comment with that info.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    I said same as native console, not the same as the equivalent hardware on PC. If you look at the chart it's comparing different hardware not the same hardware. The "trick" here is that native devices already have some amount of latency, just they are in an acceptable range for most people. However nvidia can optimize PC hardware to reduce the device's latency such that even with the network latency added it's still faster than the average person's native device. Hope that makes sense.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  You're both right. As some SLI/Crossfire enthusiasts found, high fps don't mean much when they're late. Latency is king
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    Nobody mentioned fps, my post was entirely about latency.
- dbttdft 4y ago
  An extra 40ms is absolutely terrible, and apparent to everyone. Anyone who says otherwise is accustomed to ultra bad games. > GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz False. 60Hz input lag is subtle and if someone can't notice an extra 40ms, they won't notice this.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    The input lag is measurable, I'm talking about empirical results.

Quikinterp 4y ago

That is a crazy amount of input lag 80ms on every single input doesn't sound fun to me for a game with constant motion

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
The chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers in a vacuum but more comparatively. GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz. The tool tests time from button click to muzzle flash. It's not a 80ms delay on every motion, this is the total latency including the time the game takes to react to an input and fires a gun. It's hard to know how much base latency there is, the game could decide to wait a few ms before doing anything who knows, so I wouldn't read into that. Things like spinning around in a circle feels flawless. This chart should really be used comparatively.
- blibble 4y ago
  only peasants are playing at 120hz in 2022!

bschwindHN 4y ago

I'm having trouble understanding this part - GFN being faster than a console for latency. Is it simply the particular game delaying actions in an arbitrary way? Are the GFN machines just _that_ much beefier that they simulate and render a frame significantly faster than a console? It would be interesting to see a pipeline diagram of some sort, breaking down the total time for each stage of the test, to see where the console is falling behind.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
Most console players don't know this but a well optimized PC is simply much lower latency than a console (mostly beef but also optimization). Here are the results from a different game: https://youtu.be/jOcFSlniGrw?t=831 https://youtu.be/jOcFSlniGrw?t=831 I think a pipeline diagram would be cool too, though I don't think it's possible to get that information from a third party at least.

dbttdft 4y ago

> my experience is that it's flawless and indistinguishable from native in twitch games like fortnite and counterstrike This is just your opinion and it's wrong for at least 50% of humans. Nobody with a mouse will find fortnite or cs playable with 40ms added lag. 40ms lag is higher than the mere 16.66ms you get from going from 60 FPS to 60 Hz vsync (that is, running the monitor at 60Hz and enabling vsync. it will be the same framerate but much laggier). In the 60 FPS days, EVERYONE complained about this mere 16.66ms added difference. This included people who just started playing their very first video game one day ago. On Twitch, still everyone notices vsync and turns it off once they figure out that it is the cause of the shitty sluggy mouse feel. Your next idea > The "trick" here is that native devices already have some amount of latency, just they are in an acceptable range for most people. However nvidia can optimize PC hardware to reduce the device's latency such that even with the network latency added it's still faster than the average person's native device. Hope that makes sense. Is also utterly wrong. You don't need "le graphics pipeline" to make input lag noticeable. Just plug in a monitor with 16ms input lag to your computer and you will notice that the mouse is annoyingly difficult to position over anything in the Windows or Linux desktop. OR another explanation: Make a program to move a small shape around the screen using the mouse position. It waits until the monitor is about to start scanning out a frame from the framebuffer and only then draws the shapes new position in the framebuffer where the mouse is at that time (since it's just a blank image with a small shape it's near instant to do this in the CPU, a few microseconds). If you use a monitor without lag (like a CRT) and it's running at 60Hz, that means there is now a total input lag of up to 16.66ms (accounting for the time between frames), and perhaps 1ms if you run the mouse at 1000Hz like you should be doing, then maybe some small delay from the OS. Now if you make this program render the slow vsync way, i.e, rendering the frame to temporary memory and doing nothing for the next 16.66ms then swapping it to the framebuffer once the monitor is about to scan out the next frame, this adds another 16.66ms of input lag. And it will feel terrible. Ergo, getting far greater than 16.66ms lag caused by some network streaming service will NOT magically feel less laggy than native hardware. Also the idea that optimizing small isolated components randomly will fix input lag is laughable, it's all about timing. Almost no lag is caused by CPU (or GPU core) bottlenecks, aside from the straight up most basic problem of low framerate.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago