> Even with vsync there’s up to one frame to recognize inputs, then another frame to produce new game state & submit the render, then 1 or 2 more for double or

> Even with vsync there’s up to one frame to recognize inputs, then another frame to produce new game state & submit the render, then 1 or 2 more for double or triple buffering, then maybe supersampling and/or denoising, then whatever the monitor does, and I might be missing some steps that add latency. VSync introduces latency, so it always gets disabled, same with double/triple buffering. I don't think gaming monitors do anything to process the image, they're usually advertised with ~1ms response times. > Does CS:GO and do other modern games poll the controller at the display refresh rate? Modern gaming mice and possibly keyboards use 1000hz polling. > I know it’s pretty common for a lot of games to decouple rendering from game state. I think all modern games do. Some old games have issues running at fps other than 60 due to this coupling. > I’m curious where the perceptual limits really are, and what the max framerate we actually need is. I don't know exactly; there are definitely diminishing returns, like you've mentioned: - 30fps: 33ms / frame - 60fps: 17ms / frame (2x cost for -16 ms) - 144fps: 7ms / frame (2.4x cost for -10 ms) - 240fps: 4ms / frame (1.6x cost for -3 ms) - 500fps: 2ms / frame (2x cost for -2 ms) - 1000fps: 1ms / frame (2x cost for -1 ms) Just from looking at those numbers, 144fps is still a clear win and 240fps probably makes sense too, if you've optimized your setup for latency. Everything beyond is probably pointless, unless it's your job to play competitive FPS games ;)