5 ms·

Could you explain in what scenario you think it is better to have a display show two half images slightly faster (milliseconds) than one full one?

by JelteF 3y ago

mrob 3y ago
Text editing. I mostly work on a single line at a time. The chance of the tear ending up in that line is low. And even if it does, it lasts only for a single screen refresh cycle, so it's not a big deal. And you're not limited to two images. As the frame rate increases, the number of images increases and the tear becomes less noticeable. Blur Busters explains: https://blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-refresh-rate/ https://blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-ref...
- kaba0 3y ago
  As the frame rate increases, the latency decreases, making it a non-issue. I rather chose this option, over blinking screens.
  - mrob 3y ago
    The minimum latency is bottlenecked by the monitor unless you allow tearing.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      No, the monitor’s refresh rate is a hard limit on the minimal maximal-latency. It doesn’t mean that you are actually close to that minimum, or that it is the hard limit that is active, aka the bottleneck.
- Too 3y ago
  Text editing is mostly about reading, not writing. Scrolling up and down code is actually one of the worst scenarios i can think of, where you absolutely don't want to have tear. Because even as the document is moving you are still reading it. When touch typing, fingers work decoupled from the eyes anyway, unless you are waiting for the intellisense or copilot prompt, that is usually constrained by language servers anyway, not the framerate.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Many technologies have been invented to allow to display "two half images slightly faster", such as interlaced scanning... Most humans will actually prefer the "slightly faster" option. (Obviously if you can do both, then they'd prefer that; but given the trade-off...)
andreyv 3y ago
First person shooters. Vertical synchronization causes a noticeable output delay. For example, with a 60 Hz display and vsync, game actions might be shown up to 16 ms later than without vsync, which is ages in FPS.
- play_ac 3y ago
  Key word here being "might". What actually gets displayed is highly dependent on the performance of the program itself and will manifest as wild stuttering depending on small variations in the scene. I've seen no game consoles that allow you to turn vsync off, because it would be awful. No idea why this placebo persists in PC gaming.
badsectoracula 3y ago
Input latency. I find the forced vsync by compositors annoying even when doing simple stuff like moving or resizing windows - it gives a sluggish feel to my desktop. This is something i notice even on a high refresh rate monitor.
beebeepka 3y ago
Personally - gaming. Never liked vsync

Could you explain in what scenario you think it is better to have a display show two half images slightly faster (milliseconds) than one full one?

by JelteF 3y ago

Could you explain in what scenario you think it is better to have a display show two half images slightly faster (milliseconds) than one full one?

mrob 3y ago

Text editing. I mostly work on a single line at a time. The chance of the tear ending up in that line is low. And even if it does, it lasts only for a single screen refresh cycle, so it's not a big deal. And you're not limited to two images. As the frame rate increases, the number of images increases and the tear becomes less noticeable. Blur Busters explains: https://blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-refresh-rate/ https://blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-ref...

kaba0 3y ago
As the frame rate increases, the latency decreases, making it a non-issue. I rather chose this option, over blinking screens.
- mrob 3y ago
  The minimum latency is bottlenecked by the monitor unless you allow tearing.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    No, the monitor’s refresh rate is a hard limit on the minimal maximal-latency. It doesn’t mean that you are actually close to that minimum, or that it is the hard limit that is active, aka the bottleneck.
Too 3y ago
Text editing is mostly about reading, not writing. Scrolling up and down code is actually one of the worst scenarios i can think of, where you absolutely don't want to have tear. Because even as the document is moving you are still reading it. When touch typing, fingers work decoupled from the eyes anyway, unless you are waiting for the intellisense or copilot prompt, that is usually constrained by language servers anyway, not the framerate.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

Many technologies have been invented to allow to display "two half images slightly faster", such as interlaced scanning... Most humans will actually prefer the "slightly faster" option. (Obviously if you can do both, then they'd prefer that; but given the trade-off...)

andreyv 3y ago

First person shooters. Vertical synchronization causes a noticeable output delay. For example, with a 60 Hz display and vsync, game actions might be shown up to 16 ms later than without vsync, which is ages in FPS.

play_ac 3y ago
Key word here being "might". What actually gets displayed is highly dependent on the performance of the program itself and will manifest as wild stuttering depending on small variations in the scene. I've seen no game consoles that allow you to turn vsync off, because it would be awful. No idea why this placebo persists in PC gaming.

badsectoracula 3y ago

Input latency. I find the forced vsync by compositors annoying even when doing simple stuff like moving or resizing windows - it gives a sluggish feel to my desktop. This is something i notice even on a high refresh rate monitor.

beebeepka 3y ago

Personally - gaming. Never liked vsync