Lag Randomness from Refresh Rate Limit. Need 1000Hz display!
Posted: 30 Sep 2017, 10:30
Most sites and rreviewers don't realize that aiming accuracy is affected by lag randomness (min lag/max lag being very different), which is another error factor other than absolute lag! It even occurs during apples-vs-apples comparisions (1000fps-vs-1000fps VSYNC OFF comparisions at multiple different refresh rates).
Lag jittering (min/max/avg) improvements is especially very dramatic when you compare 60Hz versus 240Hz. This is truly yet another reason to get 240Hz instead of 144Hz.
At 1000fps @ 60Hz, your min/max is 14/27 (a 13ms random-lag range!). But at 1000fps @ 240Hz, your min/max is 12/16 (a 4ms random-lag range!).
This is based on "first-screen-reaction" measurement metric, not "single-point-screen-reaction" -- like an eSports player reacting to a full screen flash. This reveals random-lag effects that are not revealed by single-point-screen-reaction measurements (which is important too, e.g. crosshairs) but consistent lag throughout the screen can be important.
Different parts of the screen have amplified differences in lag at lower refresh rate. That close-range enemy (or explosion, or full-screen-height activity) you're about to react to to in a competitive game --- will often be noticed somewhere else on the screen far away from the crosshairs, before the pixel refresh reaches the monitor's screen centre. Your peripherial vision will react before your vision centre, often creating reaction time errors caused by refresh rate granularity. No matter how high your frame rate is during VSYNC OFF.
Going to 240Hz instead of 144Hz reduces this lag-randomness error margin caused by scanout slowness.
At any VSYNC OFF at any frame rate, lag "randomization" error margin, caused by refresh rate limitation, is up to one full refresh cycle. That improves aiming quite a lot when the refresh-rate-granularity-related forced lag jitterring (lag randomness) is reduced by sheer insanity in refresh rates.
Absolute lag is important. But lag consistency is important. High-Hz improves lag consistency. Many other mainstream sites do not understand this. But we do.
Manufacturters, bring on the 480Hz and 1000Hz monitors!
Lag jittering (min/max/avg) improvements is especially very dramatic when you compare 60Hz versus 240Hz. This is truly yet another reason to get 240Hz instead of 144Hz.
At 1000fps @ 60Hz, your min/max is 14/27 (a 13ms random-lag range!). But at 1000fps @ 240Hz, your min/max is 12/16 (a 4ms random-lag range!).
This is based on "first-screen-reaction" measurement metric, not "single-point-screen-reaction" -- like an eSports player reacting to a full screen flash. This reveals random-lag effects that are not revealed by single-point-screen-reaction measurements (which is important too, e.g. crosshairs) but consistent lag throughout the screen can be important.
Different parts of the screen have amplified differences in lag at lower refresh rate. That close-range enemy (or explosion, or full-screen-height activity) you're about to react to to in a competitive game --- will often be noticed somewhere else on the screen far away from the crosshairs, before the pixel refresh reaches the monitor's screen centre. Your peripherial vision will react before your vision centre, often creating reaction time errors caused by refresh rate granularity. No matter how high your frame rate is during VSYNC OFF.
Going to 240Hz instead of 144Hz reduces this lag-randomness error margin caused by scanout slowness.
At any VSYNC OFF at any frame rate, lag "randomization" error margin, caused by refresh rate limitation, is up to one full refresh cycle. That improves aiming quite a lot when the refresh-rate-granularity-related forced lag jitterring (lag randomness) is reduced by sheer insanity in refresh rates.
Absolute lag is important. But lag consistency is important. High-Hz improves lag consistency. Many other mainstream sites do not understand this. But we do.
Manufacturters, bring on the 480Hz and 1000Hz monitors!