Just fuck off. You literally don't know what you are talking about.
Work at electronic salvage operation
Hunter Sullivan
Luke Ramirez
It's not a hard concept to understand. The more frames you have the faster you can respond. This is fact. If you're arguing against this then you should probably take your own advice.
Caleb Bailey
I'm from /vr/.
/CRT/ general too.
I can honestly say I feel nothing to OPs topic.
I'm just here because it looked like a good bait thread and I wanted to see autists arguing.
Elijah Fisher
And the thing about CRTs is that the image is being drawn constantly.
A frame doesn't need to be fully built by the GPU and fully uploaded to the display before displaying. The actual time between frames on a CRT is taken up by the electron beam moving diagonally from the bottom right corner to the top left. After that, the frame is drawn as it flows in.
The tube doesn't wait for a frame ever.
CRTs weren't abandoned, they were perfected. The tubes got to a point where manufacturing was too expensive and the earth's magnetic field could fuck with the image, needing a recalibration if you rotated one.
By that time the tech was already a century old. Being an analog display device is its last advantage, and the only reason to get one now is for personal, subjective taste.
Adam Turner
>GDM-FW900
That monitor has given me lots of happy years. Image is still better than 99.9% of LCDs.
Too bad it was 120lbs.
Noah Watson
You're right. I'm applying sample and hold measures of input latency to a situation where you don't necessarily need to wait for entire frames to be rendered, so I'm not entirely correct. Even taking that into account though, an LCD can still update fast enough that you will see 240/480 distinct frames. They may not be as sharp as if a CRT drew them, but you will still see more than you possibly can on a 120hz, even without v-sync.
Zero input lag stops mattering when you have half the framerate of the competition. Any 240/480hz LCD is going to have low enough input lag that it shouldn't close the gap.
Ryan Roberts
Who hurt our feelings op? CRTs are just comfy.
Andrew Ortiz
So retarded, it hurts.
Eli James
>have a shit job
>your only comfort is imagine someone else suffering for a retard fetish
David Butler
>because it'll be 120hz at best that means the fastest you can possibly respond to a frame is 8ms
This is only true if the software processes input at a rate locked to the display refresh rate. The real limit on how fast one can respond depends on the point at which a change to what's meant to be displayed happens in the software. If it happens right after a new (display) frame has started scanning it could be up to the full 8 ms but if it happens right before a new frame it can be close to 0. So all else being equal with a faster screen refresh the average and maximum software-to-display latency will be lower but the absolute lowest possible latency is the same.
All things aren't equal though, tftcentral measured around 3 ms of signal processing lag on the 240 Hz displays they've tested. A 4 ms frame-time with a 2 ms constant delay will have ~4 ms average latency which is the same as an 8 ms frame-time with 0 constant delay. You could take this even further still since the original idea of reacting to something on the display depends also on where it is on the image since display scanout isn't instant and can be accelerated or slowed down (reduced blanking) in some cases.