Advantages of high refreshrates?

Everything about latency. Tips, testing methods, mouse lag, display lag, game engine lag, network lag, whole input lag chain, VSYNC OFF vs VSYNC ON, and more! Input Lag Articles on Blur Busters.
Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Avean » 07 May 2020, 05:47

Image

Looking at nVIDIA's post above here. See players earlier. Between 144Hz and 240Hz there is maybe 1 or 2 frames of difference. That cant be much in terms of milliseconds. When i measure my reaction time its around 200ms. There is no chance i would take advantage of this really considering my reaction time takes 200ms, and during that time all 3 player models at 60Hz, 144Hz and 240Hz would be clearly visible to me. I feel that player latency is something that not many consider or maybe im forgetting something. Obviously smoother motion and less motion blur is an advantage but lower latency?

Simon95
Posts: 57
Joined: 13 Feb 2019, 06:56

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Simon95 » 07 May 2020, 08:47

Well the biggest advantage is the motion clarity and the lower input lag. You wont be better when you see the enemie 10ms earlier, but your aim will be better with 10ms less input lag. The effect is lower the higher the refreshrate is. The step from 60 to 144hz is massive but the step from 144hz to 240hz is not that impressive.

Kamilton
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 May 2020, 13:25

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Kamilton » 07 May 2020, 13:38

Avean wrote:
07 May 2020, 05:47
Image

Looking at nVIDIA's post above here. See players earlier. Between 144Hz and 240Hz there is maybe 1 or 2 frames of difference. That cant be much in terms of milliseconds. When i measure my reaction time its around 200ms. There is no chance i would take advantage of this really considering my reaction time takes 200ms, and during that time all 3 player models at 60Hz, 144Hz and 240Hz would be clearly visible to me. I feel that player latency is something that not many consider or maybe im forgetting something. Obviously smoother motion and less motion blur is an advantage but lower latency?
You need to look at latency from a broader perspective. Latency is a long chain consisting of things like:your monitor input lag, your cpu and gpu processing time, server processing time etc. I assume you measured your reaction time on site like humanbenchmark, but the result that you saw on that site isn't exactly your pure reaction, it's your reaction + whatever delay it took to get your eyes + from your mouse back to the site. Let me be clear it doesn't matter what your reaction time is you will benefit from lower latency since your total reaction time will be lower, it's as simple as that.

Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Avean » 08 May 2020, 08:03

Kamilton wrote:
07 May 2020, 13:38
Avean wrote:
07 May 2020, 05:47
Image

Looking at nVIDIA's post above here. See players earlier. Between 144Hz and 240Hz there is maybe 1 or 2 frames of difference. That cant be much in terms of milliseconds. When i measure my reaction time its around 200ms. There is no chance i would take advantage of this really considering my reaction time takes 200ms, and during that time all 3 player models at 60Hz, 144Hz and 240Hz would be clearly visible to me. I feel that player latency is something that not many consider or maybe im forgetting something. Obviously smoother motion and less motion blur is an advantage but lower latency?
Let me be clear it doesn't matter what your reaction time is you will benefit from lower latency since your total reaction time will be lower, it's as simple as that.
Why doesnt it matter? You will get less input lag and better motion clarity. But seeing an enemy 10ms faster still requires someone to react to that change. I just dont see how that is possible. I just reacted to what nVIDIA is claiming here. "See your enemy earlier" which i doubt anyone will do going from 144Hz to 240Hz. Youre reaction speed would have to be that of Clark Kent.

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44
Location: USA

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by jorimt » 08 May 2020, 08:24

Avean wrote:
08 May 2020, 08:03
Why doesnt it matter? You will get less input lag and better motion clarity. But seeing an enemy 10ms faster still requires someone to react to that change. I just dont see how that is possible. I just reacted to what nVIDIA is claiming here. "See your enemy earlier" which i doubt anyone will do going from 144Hz to 240Hz. Youre reaction speed would have to be that of Clark Kent.
Similar to what Kamilton said, you want your reaction time to be the limitation, not the input device/system/display you're using. It's additive.

To heavily simplify, say you have a 200ms reaction time, and the person you're playing against does as well. Now (barring any netcode limitations and/or ISP differences), let's say you're running at 144Hz and they are running at 240Hz; while you both have the same reaction time, there is a chance, however slightly, that they have an advantage over you, as your display is scanning in each frame 2.7ms slower (144Hz = 6.9ms frametime per, 240Hz = 4.2ms frametime per), and (assuming your system is maintaining 144 FPS, and their system is maintaining 240 FPS), your display is refreshing 96 times less per second.
(jorimt: /jor-uhm-tee/)
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Displays: ASUS PG27AQN, LG 48CX VR: Beyond, Quest 3, Reverb G2, Index OS: Windows 11 Pro Case: Fractal Design Torrent PSU: Seasonic PRIME TX-1000 MB: ASUS Z790 Hero CPU: Intel i9-13900k w/Noctua NH-U12A GPU: GIGABYTE RTX 4090 GAMING OC RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 DDR5 6400MHz CL32 SSDs: 2TB WD_BLACK SN850 (OS), 4TB WD_BLACK SN850X (Games) Keyboards: Wooting 60HE, Logitech G915 TKL Mice: Razer Viper Mini SE, Razer Viper 8kHz Sound: Creative Sound Blaster Katana V2 (speakers/amp/DAC), AFUL Performer 8 (IEMs)

Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Avean » 08 May 2020, 11:07

jorimt wrote:
08 May 2020, 08:24
Avean wrote:
08 May 2020, 08:03
Why doesnt it matter? You will get less input lag and better motion clarity. But seeing an enemy 10ms faster still requires someone to react to that change. I just dont see how that is possible. I just reacted to what nVIDIA is claiming here. "See your enemy earlier" which i doubt anyone will do going from 144Hz to 240Hz. Youre reaction speed would have to be that of Clark Kent.
Similar to what Kamilton said, you want your reaction time to be the limitation, not the input device/system/display you're using. It's additive.

To heavily simplify, say you have a 200ms reaction time, and the person you're playing against does as well. Now (barring any netcode limitations and/or ISP differences), let's say you're running at 144Hz and they are running at 240Hz; while you both have the same reaction time, there is a chance, however slightly, that they have an advantage over you, as your display is scanning in each frame 2.7ms slower (144Hz = 6.9ms frametime per, 240Hz = 4.2ms frametime per), and (assuming your system is maintaining 144 FPS, and their system is maintaining 240 FPS), your display is refreshing 96 times less per second.
I still think its just way too fast for it to give a clear edge over someone. Like nVIDIA's photo above. The player models position is almost exactly the same. Most people would react when the whole player model is visible if he would be running there. I think you get way better edge by having better motion clarity.

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44
Location: USA

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by jorimt » 08 May 2020, 11:34

Avean wrote:
08 May 2020, 11:07
I think you get way better edge by having better motion clarity.
Motion clarity, framerate, and refresh rate are all directly connected. 240Hz at 240 FPS has more motion clarity than 144Hz at 144 FPS due the increased amount of refreshes per second. This also reduces input lag.

I think many forget the ultimate goal here is 1:1 input response and zero motion blur, not 144Hz vs 240Hz or 240Hz vs 300Hz and whether it's "worth it." Further increasing refresh rates + framerates (1000Hz/FPS and above) is the only answer to eventually eliminate motion blur and input lag.

30Hz, 60Hz, 144Hz, and even 240Hz are a technical limitation in the first place, not an end goal.
(jorimt: /jor-uhm-tee/)
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Displays: ASUS PG27AQN, LG 48CX VR: Beyond, Quest 3, Reverb G2, Index OS: Windows 11 Pro Case: Fractal Design Torrent PSU: Seasonic PRIME TX-1000 MB: ASUS Z790 Hero CPU: Intel i9-13900k w/Noctua NH-U12A GPU: GIGABYTE RTX 4090 GAMING OC RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 DDR5 6400MHz CL32 SSDs: 2TB WD_BLACK SN850 (OS), 4TB WD_BLACK SN850X (Games) Keyboards: Wooting 60HE, Logitech G915 TKL Mice: Razer Viper Mini SE, Razer Viper 8kHz Sound: Creative Sound Blaster Katana V2 (speakers/amp/DAC), AFUL Performer 8 (IEMs)

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11648
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 08 May 2020, 12:25

So...

Advantages of high refresh rates?

Someone dare ask that question on Blur Busters ;)
While OP knows some of this already, most posters don't realize how many contexts the millisecond is important in.

<Big Rabbit Hole>
I am going write a shorter version of one of famous Blur Busters flavored pieces.
This post will be a bit of a boast, justifiably so, because we're the "Everything Better Than 60Hz" website.

There are many contexts where the humble millisecond is important. Sometimes it's not important. Sometimes it's useless. But milliseconds are important in lots of display science -- motion clarity, strobe crosstalk, reaction times, refresh cycles, stutters, frametime differences, latency, etc. Sometimes you optimize a display to have 1ms less latency, but there's occasionally also (internal engineering) beneficial side effects when so many display factors interact with each other.

Frametime Context / Refresh Rate Context
The most famous Milliseconds Matter example, 144fps vs 240fps is only a 2.78ms frametime difference, YET it is still human visible as improved motion, including less motion blur on sample-and-hold displays, and reduced stroboscopic effects. Also, 240Hz vs 360Hz is only a 1.38ms difference yet still human-visible too.

Image

The above is simplified because it's slower motion (960 pixels/sec). It becomes much more visible (and 1000Hz shows limitations) at higher motion speeds like 3840 pixels/sec rather than 960 pixels/sec as in above.

That said, we ideally need to go up the curve geometrically (60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz->960Hz) rather than incrementally (144Hz->165Hz, 240Hz->280Hz). 60Hz-vs-144Hz is a 2.4x improvement in motion clarity (if GtG=0), while 144Hz-vs-240Hz is only a 1.6x improvement (if GtG=0), whereas 144Hz-vs-360Hz is a 2.5x improvement in motion clarity (if GtG=0). The jump 60Hz-144Hz is more similar to the jump 144Hz-360Hz as a result.

Stutter Context
Stutters are because of gametime:photontime variances. Many reasons exists such as the game engine, sync technology, and fluctuating frame rates, etc. Humans can still see frame rate fluctuations that are only a few milliseconds apart in frametime. 100fps vs 200fps is only a 5 millisecond difference in frametime, and it's definitely human visible on 240Hz displays with fast GtG. Variable refresh such as G-SYNC and FreeSync can make stutter less visible by avoiding the fps-vs-Hz aliasing effect of the fixed refresh cycle schedule (animation of variable refresh rate benefits), but is not completely immune and gametime:photontime can still diverge for other reasons like engine inefficiencies, multi-millisecond-scale system freezes, dramatic rendertime differences between consecutive frames, etc. There is even a a piece for game developers, regarding how multi-millisecond issues can add stutters to VRR, and it's a simpler bug to fix than many developers realize.

Input Lag Context
For input latency, you don't need to feel the milliseconds to win by the milliseconds. When you're earning $100,000 in esports, milliseconds matters when those top champions have relatively well-matched players like Olympics sprinters at the starting line waiting for the starting pistol.
- The "Olympics finish line effect": Two racers pass finish line milliseconds apart. Likewise, two esports players go around corner in an alley or dungeon, see each other simultaneously, draws gun simultaneously, shoots simultaneously. The one with less lag is more statistically likely to win that frag.
- The "I'm suddenly missing my sniping shots" factor: Remember 1ms equals 1 pixel every 1000 pixels/sec. Say, 5ms and 2000 pixels/sec (one screenwidths per second), maths out to 10 pixels offset relative to your trained aim. The "Dammit, why does this display make me feel like I'm missing my shots" effect [ugh] [later discovers that display has more lag than player's previous display].

Reaction Time Context
Also, Blur Busters commissioned a paid reaction-time study, called Human Reflex, and it has three sections with some rather interesting findings. There's many kinds of reaction stimuli (visual, aural, and of many subtypes, such as sudden appearance stimuli, or motion-change stimuli, etc), with different reaction times, and this studied a different kind of stimuli that may apparently be faster (<100ms!) than a starting-pistol-type stimuli. More study is needed, but it shows how complex reaction time stimuli is, and it's only barely scratched the surface.

Netcode Context
Yes, netcode lag and network jitter applies. But in the era of FTTH and LAN play, even with 128tick servers, 4ms means you're 50% more likely to get that earlier tick, and that frag too. 4ms is one full 1/240sec refresh cycle! And, did you know.... Battle(non)sense, the YouTube star about netcode lag, also wrote a guest article for Blur Busters.

MPRT Context
Now, milliseconds also matters in other contexts (motion quality), given that 0.25ms MPRT versus 0.5ms MPRT versus 1.0ms MPRT is now human-visible motion clarity differences in the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates -- especially at 4000 pixels/second. (Just adjust ULMB Pulse Width on an NVIDIA ULMB monitor while viewing TestUFO at 2000 thru 4000 pixels/sec, to witness clarity differences of sub-millisecond MPRT). This is thanks to the Vicious Cycle Effect where bigger displays, higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, wider FOV, faster motion, all simultaneously combine to amplify the visibility of millisecond-scale flaws.

Strobe Backlight Context
Also for improved strobe backlights -- GtG limitations is why ULMB was disabled for >144Hz. Faster GtG makes it easier to hide GtG in VBI to reduce strobe crosstalk. 0.5ms GtG is easier to hide LCD pixel response limitations between 240Hz (1/240sec = 4.16ms) refresh cycles, because you have to flash between scanout sweeps (high speed video #1, high speed video #2).

Pixel Response FAQ, GtG vs MPRT
Needless to say, Blur Busters also got one of the world's best Pixel Response FAQs, GtG versus MPRT. While 1ms is unimportant on 60Hz displays, it's a giant cliff of a problem at 360Hz and GtG needs to become faster than 1ms. GtG needs to be a tiny fraction of a refresh cycle to prevent bottlenecking the Hz improvements. Also, strobeless blur reduction requires brute Hz. In the strobeless MPRT context, doubling Hz halves motion blur, and you need approximately ~1000Hz to achieve ULMB strobelessl & laglessly. Full persistence simultaneously with low persistence, with no black periods between short-persistence frames.

Milliseconds Work With Manufacturers
We often work with vendors and manufacturers nowadays (we're more than a website) -- services.blurbusters.com .... We've also got the Blur Busters Strobe Utility, as well as the Blur Busters Approved programme.

Strobe Backlight Precision Context
Did you know 10 microseconds became human visible in this case? I once helped a manufacturer debug an erratically-flickering strobe backlight. There's 1% more photons in a 1010 microsecond strobe flash versus a 1000 microsecond strobe flash. A 1% brightness change is almost 3 RGB shades apart (similar to greyscale value 252 verus greyscale value 255). If you erratically go to 1010 microseconds for a few strobe flashes a second, it becomes visible as an erratic faint candlelight flicker when staring into a maximized Windows Notepad window or bright game (e.g. outscore scene). Yup. 10 microsecond. 0.01 milliseconds. Annoying human visible artifact.

Discovery of G-SYNC Frame Capping Trick
Oh, and we are also the world's first website in 2014 to discover how to measure input lag of G-SYNC. This led to the discovery of the "Cap below max Hz" trick -- we're the first website to recommend that. Now it's standard parrot advice to "cap 3fps below" on VRR displays, now common advice.

Journey to 1000Hz Displays
And if you're enthralled by these articles, you probably should be aware of Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000 Hz Displays, as well as other articles like Frame Rate Amplification Technology that enables more frame rates on less powerful GPUs (it's already happening with Oculus ASW 2.0 and NVIDIA DLSS 2.0 but will continue to progress until we get 5:1 or 10:1 frame rate amplification ratios). ASUS has already roadmapped for 1000Hz displays in about ten years, thanks to a lot of Blur Busters advocacy, as told to us, to PC Magazine, and to other media by ASUS PR.

Also, sometimes improving one millisecond context also automatically improves a different millisecond context (lag <-> image quality), though there can be interactions where one worsens the other.

Blur Busters exists because Milliseconds Matters. Blur Busters is all about milliseconds. Motion blur is about milliseconds. Our name sake is Blur Busters. We're paid to pay attention to the millisecond. :D

We know our milliseconds stuff! /micdrop

</Big Rabbit Hole>
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Avean
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 Feb 2020, 07:15

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by Avean » 09 May 2020, 03:51

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
08 May 2020, 12:25

Reaction Time Context
Also, Blur Busters commissioned a paid reaction-time study, called Human Reflex, and it has three sections with some rather interesting findings. There's many kinds of reaction stimuli (visual, aural, and of many subtypes, such as sudden appearance stimuli, or motion-change stimuli, etc), with different reaction times, and this studied a different kind of stimuli that may apparently be faster (<100ms!) than a starting-pistol-type stimuli. More study is needed, but it shows how complex reaction time stimuli is, and it's only barely scratched the surface.
Its basicly this part im questioning. I am all for high refreshrates and the minimum of input lag as possible, but its more the advertisement from nVIDIA "See the enemy first" i am having a hard time understand. Like you say, research show reaction times below 100ms. But we are talking about less than 10ms of difference in this example between 144Hz and 240Hz. The idea that a player is gonna take advantage of this when its happening so extremely fast. Its just a few milliseconds ... Tons of other benefits of course, but that you have an advantage in seeing the enemy first :o

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44
Location: USA

Re: Advantages of high refreshrates?

Post by jorimt » 09 May 2020, 08:54

Avean wrote:
09 May 2020, 03:51
Its basicly this part im questioning. I am all for high refreshrates and the minimum of input lag as possible, but its more the advertisement from nVIDIA "See the enemy first" i am having a hard time understand.
To be entirely fair to that comparison screen, the fact that 240Hz looks like way less of a reduction over 144Hz vs 144Hz over 60Hz in that particular test scenario is a bit of an optical illusion; if we start from the fingertips and measure the difference in distance, the delivery speed increase of 240Hz over 144Hz is still 2/3rds of the delivery speed increase of 144Hz over 60Hz:

Image

E.g. if they had captured that screen starting with the hand appearing from behind the wall first, nearly the entirety of the hand would have appeared at 240Hz before 144Hz even started to show the very tip of the fingers (if that).
Avean wrote:
09 May 2020, 03:51
Like you say, research show reaction times below 100ms. But we are talking about less than 10ms of difference in this example between 144Hz and 240Hz. The idea that a player is gonna take advantage of this when its happening so extremely fast. Its just a few milliseconds ... Tons of other benefits of course, but that you have an advantage in seeing the enemy first :o
I'm not entirely certain where you're getting that 10ms number, but, again, let's say someone has a 200ms reaction time. You add 10ms to that, and you now effectively have a higher reaction time maximum. Then, add, say (pulling these numbers completely out of my hat; for example only), 8ms from your mouse, 5ms from your monitor, 15ms+ from the game engine buffering (etc), and you have now artificially increased your max average reaction time by a fair amount.

Look, I personally don't care about the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz either. It is of my opinion that such small decreases in ms only help players that are already good at the game. In other words, if you suck at the game, it probably isn't those extra few ms that are making you perform so poorly, and/or you have a really, really bad ISP.

That, and we're all free to think that 240Hz or higher "has [little to] no advantage," and to stick to our 144Hz display (I will also say here there can still be a slight justification to this, not because 240Hz isn't better, but because so few 240Hz panels perform quite as well with overdrive as 144Hz displays, but this is another subject, and something that is getting better). That said, again, it doesn't mean these advances are not "worth" it, just because some of us can't imagine any value to some aspects of the posed reductions.

I'll say it again; refresh rate is an artificial limitation, motion blur is an artificial limitation, input lag is an artificial limitation. The fact that we're event talking about this shows how far displays have to go before refresh rate discussions become obsolete. Ideally, refresh rates and achievable framerate should ultimately become so high that it's not even something the consumer thinks about any more.

But we're not there yet...
(jorimt: /jor-uhm-tee/)
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Displays: ASUS PG27AQN, LG 48CX VR: Beyond, Quest 3, Reverb G2, Index OS: Windows 11 Pro Case: Fractal Design Torrent PSU: Seasonic PRIME TX-1000 MB: ASUS Z790 Hero CPU: Intel i9-13900k w/Noctua NH-U12A GPU: GIGABYTE RTX 4090 GAMING OC RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 DDR5 6400MHz CL32 SSDs: 2TB WD_BLACK SN850 (OS), 4TB WD_BLACK SN850X (Games) Keyboards: Wooting 60HE, Logitech G915 TKL Mice: Razer Viper Mini SE, Razer Viper 8kHz Sound: Creative Sound Blaster Katana V2 (speakers/amp/DAC), AFUL Performer 8 (IEMs)

Post Reply