2 ms·
BTW, remember, most people still have 60hz monitors. Min latency can only be 16.6ms, and "fast as possible" is just going to vary inbetween 16.6 and 33.3ms. Th
by DiabloD3 3y ago
BTW, remember, most people still have 60hz monitors. Min latency can only be 16.6ms, and "fast as possible" is just going to vary inbetween 16.6 and 33.3ms.
The real improvement wouldn't be reducing latency as much as allowing VRR signaling from windowed apps, it'd make the latency far more consistent.
- aidenn0 3y agoBest-case median latency @60hz is 8.3ms (i.e. if there were 0 time consumed by the input and render, it would vary equidistributed between 0 and 16.6ms.
- bobmcnamara 3y agoLinux, for better or for worse, doesn't have universal support for VSYNC. Without it, you can race the scanout and minimum latency can get well under 1ms. This was required for me to get a video stream down below 1 frame of latency.
- Qwertious 3y ago>BTW, remember, most people still have 60hz monitors. Min latency can only be 16.6ms, and "fast as possible" is just going to vary inbetween 16.6 and 33.3ms. No the minimum will be 0ms, since if the signal arrives just before the monitor refreshes then it doesn't need to wait. This is why people disable VSync/FPS caps in videogames - because rendering at higher than <60FPS> means that the latest frame is more up-to-date when the <60Hz> monitor refreshes. The maximum monitor-induced latency would be 16.6ms. Which puts the average at 8.3ms. Again, not counting CPU/GPU latency. 33.3ms would be waiting about two frames, which makes no sense unless there's a rendering delay.
- DiabloD3 3y agoThe article is about testing actual user experienced latency, and Mutter still buffers 1 frame. Actual observed latency is going to be between 16.6ms and 33.3ms before the user can see anything hit their eyeballs.