Re: Optimization Hub for beginners
Posted: 26 Dec 2020, 21:55
So you'd rather use your intuition instead? I can't imagine that's what you are suggesting, but I'm not clear on what's your proposed alternative that actually exists currently.
Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™
https://forums.blurbusters.com/
So you'd rather use your intuition instead? I can't imagine that's what you are suggesting, but I'm not clear on what's your proposed alternative that actually exists currently.
In an ideal scenario you'd want to make use of both human feels and click to photon tests (until we have something better to measure with). Though, what I really dislike is the way people digest them. Instead of progressing towards "oh I see, it actually matters" it's regressing towards "see, I told you it doesn't matter at all, humans can't feel milliseconds" which ultimately leads to things like Windows being extremely bloated with a massive impact on input lag (without any backlash from user base) and endless graphical advancements at the cost of latency (most of the time forced, not optional). It just seems to me as if these tests are just further reinforcing the general consensus of "it doesn't matter, you're insane". It feels like "humans can't notice 60+ fps" all over again and I'm honestly not even sure what kind of test results would change the hive mind (except them experiencing it for themselves). Maybe I'm overestimating the impact of full latency graphs on people's opinions about this. In the end they will probably just say the same old "it doesn't matter".
Having a reflex latency analyzer monitor, I can tell you that I am still having more success with debugging and identifying issues through feel and not the numbers I'm getting over 100+ samples (although it's so goddamn frustratingly long to do this with RLA as I don't have CSV file and have to individually sample them one by one manually)
Hopefully you aren't suggesting that you can feel lag that the hard numbers don't show...diakou wrote: ↑27 Dec 2020, 21:27Having a reflex latency analyzer monitor, I can tell you that I am still having more success with debugging and identifying issues through feel and not the numbers I'm getting over 100+ samples (although it's so goddamn frustratingly long to do this with RLA as I don't have CSV file and have to individually sample them one by one manually)
Except, click to photon tests aren't hard numbers, its quite incomplete as it cannot measure latency continuously.
This is another reason why click to photon tests aren't an end all be all. Take 1k hz vs 8k hz mice for example, it's merely 0.875ms difference on paper, not even a millisecond. So someone might artificially induce 0.875ms of lag, and after seeing people couldn't notice it, come to the conclusion that 8khz is useless and unnoticeable.
TL;DR Yes, its good to have some objective measurements, and click to photon is better than nothing. But it has serious shortcomings and should not be treated as hard fact.
When performed and interpreted properly, click-to-photon test results can and should be treated as hard fact where the absolute spread of min/avg/max input lag values are concerned in the given test scenario, but they are indeed not the complete picture where distribution of said values over a period of uninterrupted frames are concerned.MaxTendency wrote: ↑28 Dec 2020, 13:13TL;DR Yes, its good to have some objective measurements, and click to photon is better than nothing. But it has serious shortcomings and should not be treated as hard fact.
The lag testing software runs on Linux
I don't see how this helps measuring optimizations affecting the pipeline between mouse and GPU output in competitive shooters on Windows.The pi draws a black background, and then roughly once a second displays a set of target rectangles (top/middle/bottom). You place the sensor over the desired target, and the piLagTester measures the monitor's response starting from the moment the frame of video data is sent over the Pi's HDMI port.
What's the source article? Is Nvidia seriously attempting to test differences in mouse tracking via a click-to-photon test? If so, of course that's not accurate. Mouse polling isn't even directly related to average input lag levels in that context.Brainlet wrote: ↑28 Dec 2020, 17:47I assume we can all agree that the jump from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz mouse polling rate is significant, yet NVIDIA research measured a measly 0.4ms latency decrease.
Exactly why I'm concerned in general. People WILL produce all kinds of data to mislead the majority of consumers when it comes to input lag impacting user experience.jorimt wrote: ↑28 Dec 2020, 19:22What's the source article? Is Nvidia seriously attempting to test differences in mouse tracking via a click-to-photon test? If so, of course that's not accurate. Mouse polling isn't even directly related to average input lag levels in that context.Brainlet wrote: ↑28 Dec 2020, 17:47I assume we can all agree that the jump from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz mouse polling rate is significant, yet NVIDIA research measured a measly 0.4ms latency decrease.