4 ms·

You're twisting my words and changing what you claimed. >my statement that 500 fps is not 5x better than 100 fps to a human I never said that. I also stated t

You're twisting my words and changing what you claimed. >my statement that 500 fps is not 5x better than 100 fps to a human I never said that. I also stated that I know about diminishing returns. You claimed "There’s a good reason to never go above 70fp". There absolutely is a large difference in motion clarity between 70 and something like 120/240/etc. Is the difference from 70->120 as large as 30->60? No, absolutely not. But it is significant and can be seen easily with a cheap monitor. >You aren’t really addressing what was main point: that fps throughput isn’t the reason for high frame rates in games. The primary reason for this happening is to decrease latency. >We wouldn’t need 500fps for games if we lowered the latency. Or at the very least, the benefits would be much lower. Reducing latency is a great reason to want high fps, but there are other ways to reduce latency. While there is a latency improvement and some people care about that, the motion clarity is also significantly improved. (again, just drag some windows around on a 120hz monitor) That's true of movies just as well as games. Movies have pulled a lot of tricks to mask this issue over the years, but 60 is quickly becoming the standard over 30. (And once bandwidth and processing improves, it's likely some day decades from now it will jump even higher) >You replied to the wrong comment, btw. I almost didn’t catch your reply. Yeah, not sure how that happened.

dahart 3y ago
Alright we’re in a cycle of misunderstanding each other, and rabbit holing on something that is rather tangential to my original point. I acknowledge I should not have used the word “never”. I meant rarely, and I meant for “most” games, not literally never, and not all games. When you said “No. Please don't spread this nonsense rumor. It hasn't ever been true and still isn't.”, combined with the downvote, I assumed you were referring and objecting to everything I said including diminishing returns (even though I see you acknowledging it next paragraph.) We are mostly agreeing violently, I acknowledge that there’s no known hard fps threshold above which nobody can see something. I acknowledge that there are benefits above 60fps, even if they grow smaller. But it’s still true that the primary reason games are going to 500fps is for the latency benefits, not for the smoothness or high flicker rate. A frame rate that high isn’t generally perceptible, while the latency of today’s games - a latency of multiple frames - is actually well inside the known measurable threshold of response times. The problem isn’t generally the need for more frames per second, the big problem is the time between input and the visible change on screen. The other topic that would be nicer to discuss is the quality trade offs. High frame rate takes away from other options.

dahart 3y ago

Alright we’re in a cycle of misunderstanding each other, and rabbit holing on something that is rather tangential to my original point. I acknowledge I should not have used the word “never”. I meant rarely, and I meant for “most” games, not literally never, and not all games. When you said “No. Please don't spread this nonsense rumor. It hasn't ever been true and still isn't.”, combined with the downvote, I assumed you were referring and objecting to everything I said including diminishing returns (even though I see you acknowledging it next paragraph.) We are mostly agreeing violently, I acknowledge that there’s no known hard fps threshold above which nobody can see something. I acknowledge that there are benefits above 60fps, even if they grow smaller. But it’s still true that the primary reason games are going to 500fps is for the latency benefits, not for the smoothness or high flicker rate. A frame rate that high isn’t generally perceptible, while the latency of today’s games - a latency of multiple frames - is actually well inside the known measurable threshold of response times. The problem isn’t generally the need for more frames per second, the big problem is the time between input and the visible change on screen. The other topic that would be nicer to discuss is the quality trade offs. High frame rate takes away from other options.