3 ms·
We don't even know if it's actually a 1.5 frame latency for real because the test didn't try to establish that. The author said it looked like it was 1.5 frames
by Edman274 2y ago
We don't even know if it's actually a 1.5 frame latency for real because the test didn't try to establish that. The author said it looked like it was 1.5 frames, but that could be a coincidence. It just looks like a 1.5 frame overhead. It could, in reality, be a constant time overhead rather than a function of frames and so would be fine with a lower frame rate.
Tearing would affect everyone that uses a computer with X11 but your proposed example of a TV with 30i refresh rate would only affect the tiny subset of users that use a CRT television as a monitor, right?
- estebank 2y agoI don't think there was ever a 30i screen. GP probably meant 60 interlaced, which needs two full scans for a change, so an effective 30 full frames per second, but enough for 60 half images. For a Wayland compositor and the entire hardware stack would treat it as 30hz only if it really wanted to avoid interlace artifacts, but I don't recall that being a configuration that existed in my lifetime.