New 120Hz Xbox One update (high refresh rate, Freesync)

[SigFig]

I have traditionally been a console peasant and, while I have tried to educate myself on the technical side of input lag, motion blur, etc., I know many of the specs/tests etc. out there aren't intended for locked 60hz over HDMI. I'm sure I will error as I speak. Apologies in advance and thank you for your patience.

Background: Spent about a month trying to find an all-in-one solution for my Xbox One and the increasing number of PC FPSs I play. No dice. I found the largest limitation was the relatively small number of options that utilize HDMI 2.0. Couldn't find anything that checked all of the boxes (input lag, motion blur, resolution). Eventually made an impulse buy of a RL2460 on sale (with the intent of just getting a second monitor for PC gaming)- but think it's going back after seeing tests on the amount of overshoot it has.

Then, this info dropped yesterday (https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2018/04/20/ ... lsCvfi8.99):
"In April, we added variable refresh rate, 1440p resolution support, and auto low latency mode... Gamers with gaming monitors and televisions that support a 120Hz refresh rate can now turn on 120Hz support for 1080p and 1440p output resolutions."

My question: Does the 120Hz support, along with Freesync, help bypass/lessen some of the concerns I've seen in other threads about consoles on a 240hz monitor?

I have seen the AW2518HF at reasonable prices and wonder if it will check most of the boxes I need. Freesync over HDMI 2.0. Ability to game on my PC as well. Just uncertain if I am correctly understanding the 120Hz support and whether it lessens the input lag concerns about consoles on a 240Hz monitor.

It's probably important to note that I'm not married to the idea of a 240Hz monitor. Just didn't find many 144Hz options that had HDMI 2.0 inputs, Freesync, etc.

[jorimt]

I'll just leave this link to a video Digital Foundry did recently on FreeSync implementation for Xbox One X:

phpBB [video]

I'll let others answer your questions more directly, but long story short, FreeSync support on Xbox One is currently pretty limited, and is going to take some more time to mature.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Many games were optimized with the assumption of 60fps fixed-Hz.

Now Microsoft just threw a soup of FreeSync, 1440p and 120Hz all at once. Game developers are going to have to scramble quick. Fortunately, it's not that hard. The XBox One has PC ancestor roots, which makes porting between PC and XBox easier, will work in XBox's favour (compared to the competition, PS4). This will compensate hugely, now that future games can be ported without the assumption of a monumentally, stupidly silly 60fps frame rate cap.

On this note... I've made it news:

XBox Consoles Now Support 120Hz!



Now a "Better Than 60Hz" Rebel Alliance can team up between all Console Peasants and PC Master Race, to fight the Imperial 60Hz world, to make 120Hz+ more mainstream!

I'm rolling out the red carpet to help out... We must get more 120Hz more mainstream, everywhere. Yes, console peasants are welcome at Blur Busters to help spread 120Hz+ goodness! I've created the Console category on Blur Busters, and created the brand new XBox One Console forum.

[SigFig]

Is it a good assumption that a 120Hz input, regardless of whether the console title is optimized for it, would reduce the problem for 240Hz monitors described in the linked thread?

-- [b]It's only a bigger problem for console eSports where you connect an external fixed-60Hz signal (slow cable scanout that forces fast-scanout-only panels to prebuffer).

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3823&p=32221&hilit=console#p32221

I play Halo, which is more or less locked at 60FPS. I'm not expecting it to be optimized for greater frame rates. Purely looking at monitors from a input lag / blur perspective.

I see a RL2460 and other 1080p 60Hz monitors for ~$200, but with notable overshoot problems. I can find the Alienware 25 for ~$300. If my Xbox doesn't have a potentially crushing input lag over HDMI anymore- then a 240Hz monitor (or a good 144Hz with a HDMI 2.0 that I haven't found yet) becomes a much better investment for me.

[Chief Blur Buster]

I currently only recommend 120Hz and 144Hz FreeSync monitors for XBox One users. Several models are are capable of lagless HDMI realtime scanout already, even with older-spec HDMI (non-VRR).

There is currently a buffering behaviour in several early 240Hz monitors for less-than-240Hz modes. This is because most current 240Hz monitors only do bufferless scanout at their max Hz. Currently, at 60Hz and 120Hz, they automatically buffer the refresh cycles in order to scanout faster (1/240sec scanout of 60Hz refresh cycles or 120Hz refresh cycles).

I have not yet tested if this behaviour persists in FreeSync mode, but at the moment, the risk of latency is too high at the moment -- until we test this out more fully. That's why current 240Hz monitors have had so-so 60Hz input lag, but excellent 240Hz input lag.

Although the 240Hz monitors are technically capable of HDMI Quick Frame Transport signals at a 2:1 acceleration factor (basically 120Hz refresh cycles delivered in 1/240sec -- basically a HDMI using a Vertical Total trick that's double the vertical resolution -- a huge blanking interval). This feature is currently untested with XBox on 240Hz FreeSync monitors, as the 240Hz monitors don't advertise an EDID with VESA Quick Frame Transport yet, so XBox One can't know that some 240Hz monitors already support undocumented Quick-Frame-Transport delivery of signals. It works with ToastyX Custom Resolution Utility, and in theory an EDID-modifying-box, might be able to retroactively add Quick Frame Transport capabilities to existing FreeSync 240Hz displays so that XBox 120Hz will successfully deliver 120Hz FreeSync refresh cycles in 1/240sec. But at the moment, this is a Wild Wild West that will probably take 1-2 years to resolve itself. Only the best Blur Busters hackers will understand this custom signal Timings & Resolution voodoo stuff (at this time) behind advanced tech like FreeSync and Quick Frame Transport technologies.

I'm not 100% sure how wide-ranging the FreeSync compatibility is on an XBox One, but I'm going to begin console analysis this year. (I'm recruiting console latency testing help, by the way -- inquire within squad[at]blurbusters.com ...)

So to be safe, if you want the world's lowest console input lag, stick to 120Hz and 144Hz FreeSync monitors (at this time) for XBox One.

[SigFig]

Thumbs up- I greatly appreciate the time and education.

[Xx123456xX]

I assume the amount of XB1 games, if any, that receive a corresponding 120Hz update in a similar timeframe will be slim at best. Hopefully I'm wrong, though. I know it's essentially dead (in terms of developer support), but I hope MCC can take advantage of this new feature (I would love H3 and H2A in 120fps).

[MrBrown]

The 120hz doesnt really do much for the console. Most games use vsync at 30 or 60hz.

I mean if you use Edge browser alot, it might look smoother, other than that, if games are done properly, they will have a 30/60fps lock with dynamic res. Theres no need for freesync or 120hz support if devs do their work right.

If anything, freesync support encourages devs to optimize even less for stable framerates.

[Chief Blur Buster]

The 120hz doesnt really do much for the console.

Actually...

One important consideration: Input lag

60fps @ 120Hz has much less VSYNC ON input lag than 30fps @ 60Hz on the same display.

Frames refreshed faster onto the screen surface. Instead of a 30fps frame being scanned-out onto the panel in 1/60sec, you now have a 30fps frame scanned-out onto the panel in 1/120sec.

That _really_ makes a big difference.

Also, VRR ranges needs to be huge so that you don't get the VSYNC ON input-lag increase effect at 60 frames per second. You need to run at framerates below VRR maximum, to fully eliminate the backpressure input lag that is common to VSYNC ON or when hitting maximum framerate on a VRR monitor.

As people know from the various GSYNC articles on Blur Busters, we cap a few frames per second below max Hz. We were the world's first to measure the input lag of variable refresh rates back in year 2012 ... (FreeSync is a variable refresh rate tech, similar to GSYNC). So, 60fps would have no VSYNC ON lag due to it never being VRR max. So 60fps FreeSync has much less input lag if the FreeSync monitor is at least approximately ~61Hz or higher (preferably ~65Hz or higher).

So giving consoles 120Hz + VRR is a two-way input-lag fix:
--> Reduction in input lag from faster 120Hz refresh cycles of 30fps or 60fps content; AND
--> Reduction in input lag from no longer hitting VRR maximum.

Just one of the two is a big lag reduction. Having both is having cake and eating it too.
Low-lag 30fps and low-lag 60fps FTW!

[MrBrown]

The informations above might certainly be correct, assuming the Hz mode of the monitor doesnt switch to 60hz once the game starts.

As far as i understand on pc its required to turn off vsync inside game’s settings (engine) in order to take advantage of freesync/gsync.

We need to wait and see how 120hz will be implemented.

Most lag on consoles is usually caused by the game engine itself, but it would certainly help if the lag could be further reduced indeed.

In best case scenario, the lag would noticably be reduced as chief pointed out.