/v/ BTFO

/v/ BTFO
youtube.com/watch?v=W3ehmETMOmw

Attached: 1542792138927.png (681x757, 229K)

Other urls found in this thread:

blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yeah I think most people understand how this works

Frame time is literally 1/FPS, fucking retards

They don't compare frame rates for playability retard, everyone realized two decades ago that 60fps was perfectly smooth.

30FPS to 60FPS is a 50% increase in the frames per second
100FPS to 130FPS is a 30% increase in the frames per second

it is not far to compare the two

>They can't notice a 2ms faster frame time
Eyelets everybody

> implying delta is timed to framerate

Variability in frame latency is important. Imagine you got 59 frames in the first 0.1 second, then the last frame took 0.9 seconds. Silky smooth 60fps. Frame latency measurements reveal sub-second choppiness.

nope, its 1FPF

The problem is mismatches between rendering times and frame refresh frequency.

To avoid stutter you either need a dynamic refresh rate or a static refresh rate several times higher than your target render fps.

30FPS --> 60FPS = 100% increase throughput

33.33ms --> 16.66ms = 50% decrease in calculation time???

So?
To display more frames per second you need to compute them quicker during that second

this is only surprising if you have no idea what 'fps' represents.

No shit. They can't get your shekels by increasing fps but they still can get you by increasing resolution

72 FPS is much more reasonable than 60 FPS
you can display 72 FPS on any monitor with refresh rate higher than 100Hz
anything higher and you're into stronger diminishing returns
If you have a 144Hz or 120Hz monitor you should still strive to reach maximum frame rate and/or/maybe vsync
but if you want the game to look good, strive for 72, not 60
also fuck any resolution higher than 2160p

It's basic math. Why are you posting this? Is GN now a ltt tier channel? Are people on /v/ actually not capable of correctly using fps as a unit of measurement?

>30FPS --> 60FPS = 100% increase throughput
>33.33ms --> 16.66ms = 50% decrease in calculation time???
exactly
if you increase your work by 100% (aka double) it will be done in 50% of base time

OP BTFO
blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

95% of benchmarks you can find online only show you fps averaged over an often undisclosed period of time.

one's a difference of 17 ms, the other of 3. one's noticeable, the other not really.

>30fps to 60fps is a 50% increase

Attached: 9aQ347V.gif (499x246, 1.97M)

If this was supposed to be an argument against high end GPUs then its not very effective, particularly for more competitive games like Esports titles on the range of Dota 2, CSGO, R6S, etc.....

Frame time is definitely correlated to the frames per second and thus there is the diminishing effect but it is still noticeable. How? Input delays. You know the whole bullshit about human eyes can't see above 60 fps meme? Its a total lie. The difference between vsync 60 fps and no vsync for me on R6S is massive because it feels much more responsive. I got only one example that I play, but other games DEFINITELY do apply as well. I'm not superhuman, all of you are just like me thus your perception of frame time definitely does not peak at 13.33 ms / 60 fps. It goes a bit further. Even I can't explain this very well since I initially thought vsync off is useless if you have only a 60hz monitors but guess what? The input delay in commands actually improves massively when your turn vsync off.

The argument is good for RTS and other sorts of games though. Maybe HOI4, but nothing can run that fucking heavy mess just yet.

Did you even watch the video?

I don't need to watch the video. Am I supposed to just say all fps bench are now flawed and that I shouldn't play at anything higher than 60 frames per sec?

I don't own a high-end GPU. I don't push the idea that all esports titles requires high-end GPUs. I always turn my settings on most game down to low and vsync off for the lowest frame latency. That's the only thing that I'm been saying. Why don't you do it yourself in the games that you play and tell me if you feel a difference.

But again, even there is a limit to what Im saying. i think 120/144 is the goat since I have a hard time reaching it in R6S at 768p low but 90 already feels responsive. 144+ is a hack.

Why are you talking about vsync mate?

You should watch it before commenting on it

That's not the point.
The point is that the higher your framerate, the more you hit diminishing return on your frame time.
16.7ms at 60Hz
6.9ms at 144Hz (-9.8ms)
4.2ms at 240Hz (-2.7ms)
3.3ms at 300Hz (-0.9ms)
2.5ms at 400Hz (-0.8ms)
2ms at 500Hz (-0.5ms)
It as also about how consistent frame time should also be used as a metric, as the FPS are an average and an average is flawed by definition.

I remember when 120hz monitors were becoming popular and NPC's were spouting the "humans can not see over 60FPS" meme. Utter fools.

How is vsync not related to what I'm talking about? its all to do with getting all the extra frames you can!

vsync doesn't give you more frames
it actually holds frames longer and gives you stale frames.
brainlet.

well duh that's how divisions work

Ok this I can agree on with the reliability of FPS as a metric comparison. And diminishing returns definitely do exists. Just look at what you posted. In the process of getting to 144hz from 60hz, you already cut the frame time to less than half. Most games feels incredibly responsive above 60 already so I'm willing to bet 144 is the point where we really feel the diminishing returns.

Well I can't say it doesn't help me in games. Shit gets more responsive. You're not gonna say otherwise aren't you?

>I'm willing to bet 144 is the point where we really feel the diminishing returns
Nope.
That's the point where anything beyond is audiophile territory.
In a few years you'll get 300Hz monitors and mobs of gaymers claiming they can notice that 0.9ms difference over their older 240Hz panel.

Sad. That progress should have went instead to screen resolution, power consumption, colours, speakers, etc..

144 is a terrible refresh rate compared to 120 because it's no longer divisible by 60. 240 is the best refresh rate out now, but I don't care enough to go above 120 yet. 300 will suck because it's not divisible by 24, gotta skip from 240 to 360

>144 is a terrible refresh rate compared to 120 because it's no longer divisible by 60
?

Every refresh rate should be divisible by both 24 and 60 for NTSC movie/cartoon/game purposes. 120 Hz was the first refresh rate to reach that.

there won't be 300 or 360 you arsehat.
Fighter pilots can see 250ish frames per second at best and there's no way common gaymer will ever see this much

That's fine with me. But somebody will fucking make one, you know it. And if in 10 years, every monitor I can buy is 300Hz instead of something divisible by 120, I'll be mildly irritated every time I think about framerates, which is something I think about daily for some reason.

Wrong.
If audiophiles can hear a difference between 2 lossless codecs, then serious gamers can see a difference between 300 and 301 FPS.

Ok for movie/cartoons, but certainly not for games. Your games don't have a fixed framerate, that is unless you're into some fancy retrogaming or playing Fallout 76 :)

>Ok for movie/cartoons, but certainly not for games. Your games don't have a fixed framerate, that is unless you're into some fancy retrogaming or playing Fallout 76 :)
I mainly retrogame; you got me there. I also play fighters which are very frame dependent. And a handful of random modern games do bug out if you set the framerate above 60 fps. Either way, 120Hz multiple or bust for me.

>30FPS to 60FPS is a 50% increase
Are you braindead?

Attached: 1544409513484.jpg (690x588, 79K)

>I mainly retrogame; you got me there
Fair enough.

Why does it matter that it doesn't divide by 60?
Do you think we still use 60Hz AC power for timing? LMAO we use crystal oscillators.

Is your processor clock speed divisible by 60? HAH.

BULLSHIT

THERRES A VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 120HZ AND 200HZ ON MY FW900S

Duh?
30 to 60 is double or 100% more... 100 to 130 is a fraction of that. Do you not know simple math?

You only really need 24FPS

60 is fine
120/144 is better
freesync/gsync 144 is best
also, having a cushion so when performance drops is fantastic

There is a qualitative aspect too.

Yes, 1/x, thank you very much.

Another question is, what kind of graph would you want it to be to look like as if the FPS rate matters more than it should?

Or a second divided by FPS.

There literally is a FPS limit of human perception.

>30 to 60
>50%
boiiiiii

>30FPS to 60FPS is a 50% increase
der ewige /v/toddler

Attached: laughing_pepe.gif (360x346, 170K)

>these are the people who whine about calculus requirements in CS

Attached: YILKTid.png (471x400, 141K)

/thread
they are just retarded and dont know about moving pixel response times. its not worth our time to discuss with these worms because they will collapse their entire egos onto you until you give up trying to help them and then they will shout they're correct.

excellent b8 my boi

stable 40 fps is enough
lower stable fps is better than jumping fps with higher max
if you have stable 60 fps you don't need more

>BEING A FRAMELET
OH NO NONONONO

Low FPS is only fine in movies where proper motion blur is baked-in so it all still appears smooth. For computer graphics you either need infinite FPS or some hacks to emulate proper motion blur. Low FPS is especially eye-bleeding in 2d graphics - like in that UFO site or hyper light drifter before the 60fps patch, I literally couldn't play it for extended periods of time.

fucking embarrassing

Too lazy to watch the video but what's exactly the argument? Sure, FPS provides diminishing returns in frame times, but the PC still needs to render twice as many frames for 2x FPS so it's perfectly valid for measuring performance.

>speakers
Monitors don't need speakers to begin with so no point in investing on things that doesn't exist.