I would like to try a 1 kHz display. I can definitely tell the difference between 120 and 240 Hz for mouse pointer motion. The motion blur tests mentioned in the article make it obvious as well. And Microsoft research has shown that when using direct touch interaction people can perceive latency all the way down to 1 ms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
Also an underrated feature of high frame rate is that it's a universal fix for poorly written software with multiple frames of latency. An application with 10 frames of latency will be faster on a 1 kHz display than a perfectly coded application on a 60 Hz display.
Except applications don't tend to lag "for ten frames", but for "ten ms". Your application that skips ten frames at 100 Hz will skip a hundred frames at 1 KHz.
It's true that some applications have input lag due to simply being slow to process input. But there are many applications that actually process input fast enough, but still have a lot of input lag because of various forms of buffering linked to frames. A typical scenario would be 1.5 frames of latency due to the desktop compositor, 2-3 frames due to buffering in the graphics API (graphics APIs optimize for throughput instead of latency by default), and 1-2 frames because the application state doesn't completely update on the same frame as the input is received. Ten frames would be unusually bad, but it can happen. It all adds up! And all of that is made faster by higher frame rates.
Properly made applications can bypass most of that latency but few bother to really optimize for it, so a systemwide fix is welcome.
Tangentially related on the topic of latency perception: Computer latency: 1977-2017 by Dan Luu
I also remember an HN post where it was possible to measure latency in 2 halves of the screen, top folks were able to detect it to single digit ms. I think could see upto around 16 or 32ms on my 60hz (FW13) screen.
> An application with 10 frames of latency will be faster on a 1 kHz display than a perfectly coded application on a 60 Hz display.
thats actually not true. you seem to be implying that the best a 60hz display can manage is 16.6ms of latency. indeed that is the worst case value, but you should consider that early graphics technologies involved changing display modes mid scan.
it’s actually not ridiculous to suggest that old platforms had sub-millisecond latency; they did. if the scanline was on, or just before, the line where you would interact (i.e., the prompt line), the text you enter would appear immediately.
of course, “vsync”, tear free, and such like approaches “fixed” this - necessarily by adding at least a frame’s worth of latency - but also adding perceptual latency.
it’s an oft-overlooked aspect of refresh rates. a 60hz CRT, without vsync, still has the lower bound of latency lower than a 120hz display. perhaps even 240hz.
i’ve used two 240hz displays for years now. i’ll never go slower than that.
> you seem to be implying that the best a 60hz display can manage is 16.6ms of latency
Yes, if you control the whole software stack it is possible to do beam racing to get lower than one frame of latency (assuming low latency hardware for input and display panel scanout). But I'm talking about desktop/mobile applications. In general operating systems do not do this, and many actually make it impossible. Only very recently has it become possible to do beam racing in a windowed application (not using fullscreen exclusive mode) on Windows with recent graphics hardware with multiplane overlay and very, very few people have attempted to do it. I believe it is strictly impossible to do beam racing for windowed applications on macOS and Linux/Wayland. Not sure about iOS and Android.
you don't need to "beam race" to achieve sub-frame latency - you don't need to be accurate. switching off vsync should, principally, be enough to achieve this.
otherwise, yes, modern APIs go out of their way to avoid the possibility of this (the dreaded "tearing" artifacts you see from the frame buffer being changed during the transmission of the video signal to the monitor). i don't believe older techniques like you've mentioned are at all possible today, and only really made sense to talk about when analogue displays were the norm.
apologies, i wasn't being specific; none of what i said necessitates a CRT display, it was only as an example of how an older technology had less latency.
if modern a modern 60Hz LCD/OLED display couldn't get beneath 16.6ms latency, then what exactly is tearing?
Well, with a latency floor at the real refresh rate. But it would be nice if OSes provided a feature like that. In general modern desktop compositors tend to go in the other direction, adding frames of latency universally to all applications.
CS:GO used to hit 300 cap so probably somewhat higher, but after visual upgrade of CS2 I heard it is more demanding. At that point the delay starts to become also interesting in every part. You can generate 1000 frames, but how much latency is there from inputs and so on to screen might be multiple frames.
These days graphics cards do (optional) frame generation, which gives a much higher framerate than what the game can natively do. Still not sure whether that will get you to 1khz, but it would be closer at least.
Their general conclusion is focused on competitive gaming performance, which while certainly a valuable litmus test (especially for their target audience) does not tell the whole picture.
Optimum has reviewed some higher refresh rate monitors recently and provides some examples of where they can still give an advantage, not necessarily in reaction time but in smoothness and clarity in fast scenes. Here's a good example with a 540Hz display: https://youtu.be/nqa7QVwfu7s
One advantage in the market that is overlooked in this type of "do we need X" challenge is the increased accessibility of things less than X. For example productivity monitors at 120, 144, even 240Hz are more affordable and easier to find, as panel production becomes cheaper and the gaming brands push the marketing numbers up and up. New 480/540Hz monitors cost what a 144Hz monitor cost ten years ago.
> the gaming brands push the marketing numbers up and up.
There is a trend in the opposite direction, where people read books and such on low-fps e-ink displays. It's true that people complain they are expensive and the low fps makes it useless for a lot of tasks, but there is still a market because the "like paper" display is so readable. I think that makes it clear that people have a variety of needs. Your logic is something like trickle-down economics - it is certainly important to continue doing research into displays but this doesn't necessarily translate into cheaper panels. I would say the main reason you can get a cheap $100 monitor now that is the equivalent of a $700 CRT from 30 years ago is economy of scale. The manufacturing process is more automated and streamlined with fewer assembly steps, and there are many competing manufacturers.
That doesn't actually contradict my point? Like the response times on that monitor are pretty good, per 4:17 it is generally 0.3ms to go from gray to black. But if for whatever reason you had to go from black to white the response time is 3.5ms - that is 285hz so your "540hz" monitor is not going to keep up with the signal. Talking about frame rates is sort of like talking about your fuel tank size - sure, there are cases where the extra gallons help, but practically most people care about horsepower. And similarly what actually matters for monitors is response time.
Apparently TCL didn't disclose any specs of the panel, just said "an LCD", so I wonder if the panel is actually new tech. They didn't even allow running screen tests. So it could be they just prototyped the controller and used a standard panel. Then the response times are horrible but nobody can tell because it's running a prerecorded demo that avoids showing the glitchy artifacts.
What I meant is that fps by itself, without other information, is meaningless for judging panels. Like if someone says they got a 500hz panel, it is not necessarily better than a 240hz - LCD vs. OLED for example. But if you are comparing panels from the same manufacturer, same tech etc. then of course it is relevant. And obviously if you have a panel it would be stupid to run it at anything less than max fps, if your system can keep up.
Read: No, and nothing mainstream is ever going to design for it. There's always gonna be more visual processing you can cram in for more impressive looks if you accept a lower framerate and/or lower resolution. The trade-off will always be there. If you make the GPU fast enough to push 4K @ 1kHz, then developers are going to prefer to use the 32 times more compute they get by dropping to HD @ 120Hz to render more impressive graphics.
I’m honestly more curious about the display connector. AFAIK 4K120/8K60 already max out a single modern Thunderbolt/DisplayPort connection’s bandwidth. Is it using 8-9 separate display cables?
Seems like it would be hugely important for making pass-through AR work completely seamlessly if the hardware can keep up with it. Of course then you'd have to deal with your head literally being on fire from the heat.
The top concerns for AR displays are field of view, brightness, and size/weight. Frame rate is less important than those three after 90 Hz. Frame rate doesn't constrain head tracking latency because head motion can be sampled arbitrarily close to the frame presentation time.
It's a perfect analogy, because we pointlessly reshaped our world around automobiles before realizing that no, in fact, most of us didn't need one, and we would have been better off had we not created a society in which everyone has to have one in order to exist.
There was a lot of horse shit everywhere before cars.
You could go back to bicycles but that's not great when you have a family of groceries and kitty litter to carry home in the rain.
Or when need a trip to the hospital or any other emergency.
So yes, many people need a car, and it enables personal freedom.
I live in a small town you can walk end to end in 15 minutes, it has everything you need in a small area, but a car still makes life easier and more fun.
How do you propose we structure society where you don't need cars?
Not having cars doesn't mean not having motorized transport, it just means restructuring our priorities around much more efficient forms of mass transportation, ranging from increased walkability and cycling infrastructure on a local scale, to buses, trams and trains on a larger scale, with specialised vehicles like ambulances and cargo-taxis for those rare cases where you really do need a whole motorized vehicle to yourself.
So what does society look like where you can still have ambulances and taxis but not a car for yourself?
Don't you still need roads for those? So just normal civilians can't have them?
And I won't hold my breath for local politicians to improve public transportation.
I'd love better public transportation, in addition to cars.
-- I hit some sort of post limit, replying to below --
Civilians are still allowed to have and drive their own cars, even in Europe.
I'm all for better designed cities in America though, but it's not a car problem, and especially not a universal issue (towns are perfect).
Instead of hating on cars I think a more useful approach would be to contact your local politicians that are in charge of zoning and public transportation.
Horses release methane. The scale of horses you would need would certainly be worse. It was a problem in the past at a much smaller scale. Plus with shit you have disease and rats, which means more disease.
I have, and there are bicycles littered everywhere and huge amounts of traffic on them.
And no it doesn't solve the problems I listed. Those things are still difficult.
If I'm feeling sick I guess my wife can hook a wagon to the bike and pull me.
Don't get me wrong I bike around town all the time, but some days are really hot, some are really rainy, some days I need to carry more stuff than is possible on a bike, some days I'm not feeling well enough to bike.
Bikes, (non humiliating) public transport, and more compact city design all have to work together.
I think cars in small towns are pretty sweet - but they suck for everyone in big cities. They take up huge amounts of space during rush hour, and move very few people compared to any form of transit you like
There are very few people for who cycling is not possible; there are so many options to make it accessible for almost everyone. Here is an example for people in a wheelchair: https://www.roam.nl/runner-handbike-20/a3535 , it basically hooks up to their existing wheelchair and turns it into a hand-operated tricycle.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Because you can make up some edge case for whom cycling is not feasible the 99.999% for which it is shouldn’t either?
> No, people are able to drive long after they can bike.
Like hell they are.
> The only thing that basically stops you from being able to drive is your vision, which will impact biking as well.
Looking at some studies, vision is not a major factor in accidents caused by the elderly. The reasons are mainly mental: reduced reaction speed, reduced ability to quickly grasp complex situations in traffic. Physical reasons are mostly around reduced motor functions: reduced muscle strength and fine motor skills.
Biking is impacted a lot less by these cognitive changes since you don’t go 130 km/h on a bike. Elderly are more likely to get hurt in a cycling accident, as they are more frail, but they are less likely to cause an accident.
> Handicap and elderly people are not edge cases.
Are you saying the majority of people are either elderly or handicapped ?
> We adapt our society to fit the disabled everywhere, as we should.
And we do. There are many options for both the elderly and disabled people to cycle, as I have shown in my earlier posts. None of those are exceptional, I regularly encounter those ‘in the wild’.
> Bikes do not work for many, many people and situations. It's not an edge case problem, it's a fundamental problem.
Cars do not work for many, many people and situations. Lots of places are simply not reachable by car. What do you think is easier for an elderly person: driving their bike right up to a store and walking 5 meters or driving their car to the edge of the city center and then having to walk a kilometer or more to get to the store they need to go to?
Hard disagree. I love the freedom of going anywhere I want in the country on a whim. I love suburban and rural living that would be very hard without extensive roads. I could go on and on about the benefits of cars over public transit.
Of course you're imagining the world we have now with all the cars simply removed, instead of one that had developed without cars in the first place. A lot of competing infrastructure was deleted, or never made in the first place, because of cars.
Driving a car isn't a good analogy because if we were driving a car remotely from a system with only 100hz refresh rate we'd definitely notice the difference even if only driving at 100 mph.
I mean, if it has zero safety concerns and it's possible to actually go 1000 MPH on the freeway, then sign me up! Who wouldn't want to get there faster if there were no downsides?
But there are safety concerns, and it's not possible to go 1000km/h on the highway. So there's not much point in having a 1000km/h car, because you will never use its full potential. Just like a 1khz display (supposedly).
The analogy is strained and no longer applicable. Sure, you won't be running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1 kHz, but you'll use a 1 kHz display to its full potential of imperceptible latency and eliminated motion blur in regular desktop use, with every movement of your mouse and scroll of its wheel.
Even in gaming, less demanding games can hit 1000 Hz and console emulators will benefit from reduced latency too; you could actually beat CRT latency.
Well, maybe I'm biased - I've tested a 120Hz monitor recently and I legitimately didn't see a huge difference between 60Hz. Maybe in mouse trails when I was intentionally looking for the difference. I can't imagine how insignificant the change to 1Khz would be for me. But I'm not a gamer and I've spent my whole life on screens like this, so maybe I'm just blind and other people are much more sensitive to this - in this case I agree my analogy doesn't make sense.
Motion blur is for real, particularly in VR. A 1000Hz monitor for gaming has the potential to be great but could be worse in other ways (tradeoffs) and generating 1000 frames per second.
Other people might not be so affected but I find 30ms or so of latency in the display system throws me off for games. If I play League of Legends or Titanfall I just get hit and can’t do anything about it if I am playing with the slow panel on my “gaming” laptop or a Samsung TV in normal mode. I even struggle with some single player games like Sword Art Online: Fatal Bullet. If I hook up a cheap but fast monitor or put on Game Mode it is a night and day difference for me.
It is reasonable to use gold plated connectors when the jacks are gold plated just as with any other electrical connection. Matching metals avoids oxidation do to galvanic action. Sure it probably doesn't matter with audio cables, but it is reasonable in that case.
But of course $20 gold cables connecting two $1000 electrical components with steel jacks doesn't make technical sense. For many people it makes emotional sense in a way where nobody gets hurt so it's not a place I find my outrage and it's not the most ignorant thing I am likely to come across on any given day. YMMV.
Anyway, you can measure the difference between a 1000Hz and a 120Hz display with an ordinary oscilloscope. With audio cables not so much.
I used to make my own RCA cables out of bulk RG59 or RG6 coax (which has excellent performance [1] and is cheap) and decent connectors. “Decent” means that it doesn’t corrode, goes on easily, stays on, and makes good electrical contact with the shield and center conductor.
A really nice compression connector costs under $2. The tool costs about $20. The cable costs basically nothing. Other than being a thick and a bit stiff, the results are excellent.
[1] Unbalanced audio is sensitive to picking up 60Hz noise. RG6 isn’t designed for such low frequencies, but any decent coaxial cable will fairly effectively limit this type of noise to the shield. Balanced cable would be much better but needs different gear.
I buy my RCA cables for a buck from bins in charity shops. It doesn't make sense for me to make them economically or time wise. But that's me. Because I am cheap and informed, I wouldn't buy a new gold-plated audio cable anymore.
But I understand why people would and the usual reason is reasonable. People buy gold plated HDMI cables as insurance in the face of uncertainty. Same as any other insurance.
Sure the gold plated HDMI cable market is exploitive. That's capitalism baby. There's a lot of specific life circumstance that's led me to make slightly-informed right cable for the right job choices.
Likewise there's a set of circumstances that put me in a place where I think it makes sense to me to think about how I am choosing. I don't begrudge anyone having more money than sense. That amount of money exists for everyone.
- It could be unshielded. Yes, this is a thing. It can pick up all kinds of easily audible noise.
- It could have no contact or intermittent contact at one of the terminations. A bad shield contact will result in a cable that mostly works but can buzz horribly.
- It can be hard to connect or can fall out by accident.
But the real reason I made my own is for length. A cheap $1 cable is probably fine for, say 2 feet, but if I needed 11 feet, that cheap cable wouldn’t reach. Even the least audiophilic listener can tell the difference between music and complete silence :) Making an RCA cable from coax is easier and compression connectors is faster than making one from solder terminals, especially the cheap ones with un-tinned cups and fiddly stain relief.
re: HDMI cables: that gold plating is indeed useless, but HDMI cables are built to different standards, and a cable of the wrong type won’t do what you want it to.
<-> Ten foot component video cables are not uncommon but sometimes a gang of five might be as much as three dollars, if they haven't been there long enough for the tag color to cycle.
But yes, most of my runs are shorter than that. I really only need long RCA's for running audio from instruments and outboard on one side of my desk to the mixer at the other. The short runs aren't long enough to have significant capacitance, resistance, or experience inductive noise beyond what my projects require. They are a reasonable engineering decision.
<-> Ordinary RCA cables are more supple and more compact than 1/4" or XLR. If I was making my own long run cables from scratch, I'd use CAT5/6/7 anywhere I could. The stiffness and bulk of coax wouldn't match most of my use. Though that's my use not yours.
<-> I was using gold-plated-HDMI as an obvious example of the audiophile market segment.
<-> My experience has been ordinary RCA cables are more reliable than ordinary 1/4 for general patching because the strain relief tends to be better proportioned to the weight of the cable. And there's good availability of adapters to other common unshielded plug form factors. Again, at least for my use.
Probably overkill at some point. Most casual gamers won’t see any difference though. Some professional gamers might, assuming their machine is able to sustain 1000+ fps
"The temporal modulation appeared as a spatial pattern known as a ‘phantom array’ during the saccade. The appearance of the pattern enabled the discrimination of flicker from steady light at frequencies that in 11 observers averaged 1.98 kHz."
I personally can see it at substantially higher frequencies. And note that displaying 2kHz flicker requires a 4kHz monitor.
Also an underrated feature of high frame rate is that it's a universal fix for poorly written software with multiple frames of latency. An application with 10 frames of latency will be faster on a 1 kHz display than a perfectly coded application on a 60 Hz display.