120Hz reduces input lag of 30fps and 60fps!

[Chief Blur Buster]

But that will only work if games can be forced to output at 120 Hz. We know from the PC side that most games start in 60 Hz mode, then in the settings we can select 120/144 etc.

If the Xbox games ask the monitor to switch to 60 Hz, there will be zero advantages.

The good news.... It is going to be centralized.

If you select "720p" in the centrallized settings, it stays in 720p for all games.

If you select "1080p" it stays at 1080p even if the games downscale, the signal stays 1080p (with the low-rez upscaled).

The same is for the upcoming 120Hz setting -- if you select 120Hz centrally, it stays at 120Hz signal, even if the framerate stays down at 30fps or 60fps. (Benefit: Lower lag). Just like if you select 1080p centrally, it stays at 1080p signal, even if the resolution is downrezzed. (Benefit: Looks better than 720p). Same centralization thing.

That's the plan.

[Console120]

Everyone.

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!

One question are there any monitor that will force display a higher refresh rate than that of the input signal IE a PS4 on a Acer Gaming monitor is there a way to lock the display at 120 hrz on the HDMI

[Xdico]

Any idea what’s best currently. Knowing that Xbox only supports 60hz+freesync and doesn’t support 120hz+freesync. Which one is better and are there any other ways to reduce input lag on Xbox

[yamaci1775]

a question. with a 48-144 hz vrr screen and with a game that i plan to target a locked 60 fps, is it better to let screen refresh at 60 hz or is it better to tighten the LFC window (to 72 hz) and force screen to refresh at 120 hz for 60 fps?

also would such a move broke the screen or vrr interactions?

[Chief Blur Buster]

a question. with a 48-144 hz vrr screen and with a game that i plan to target a locked 60 fps, is it better to let screen refresh at 60 hz or is it better to tighten the LFC window (to 72 hz) and force screen to refresh at 120 hz for 60 fps?

Keeping it simple: For lowest latency, try to always use max Hz VRR.

Refresh the screen at 144 Hz, even for a 60fps locked framerate game -- especially if the game can accurately framepaces the 1/60sec frames every 1/60sec.

[Enigma]

a question. with a 48-144 hz vrr screen and with a game that i plan to target a locked 60 fps, is it better to let screen refresh at 60 hz or is it better to tighten the LFC window (to 72 hz) and force screen to refresh at 120 hz for 60 fps?

Keeping it simple: For lowest latency, try to always use max Hz VRR.

Refresh the screen at 144 Hz, even for a 60fps locked framerate game -- especially if the game can accurately framepaces the 1/60sec frames every 1/60sec.

So what does the VRR do if you allow it to not reduce the monitor's Hz to the game's FPS? Do you keep it only for the opposite: preventing the GPU from having more fps than the TV's hz? If so, why not just FPS-lock it to the TV's native Hz?

[RealNC]

So what does the VRR do if you allow it to not reduce the monitor's Hz to the game's FPS?

It does reduce Hz to match FPS. That's not what Chief is talking about. This is about frame scanout speed. 60FPS VRR at 144Hz has less lag than 60FPS @ 60Hz.

[Enigma]

So what does the VRR do if you allow it to not reduce the monitor's Hz to the game's FPS?

It does reduce Hz to match FPS. That's not what Chief is talking about. This is about frame scanout speed. 60FPS VRR at 144Hz has less lag than 60FPS @ 60Hz.

So VRR can reduce the Hz for the actual FPS displayed, but retain the maximum Hz for frame scanout speed? How is this done?

[RealNC]

So VRR can reduce the Hz for the actual FPS displayed, but retain the maximum Hz for frame scanout speed? How is this done?

The speed at which the display scans out each frame is faster at higher refresh rates when using VRR.

For example, on a 240Hz display, a frame needs 4.2ms to be displayed completely (0ms at the top of the screen, 4.2ms until the frame is completely displayed at the bottom of the screen.) Even if the game is capped to 60FPS and the screen is refreshed at 60Hz, each one of those frames is still getting scanned out in 4.2ms. After the frame is completely scanned out, the display simply waits until the game sends a new frame. With VRR it can do that and doesn't have to start scanning out immediately again.

If you switch the display to 60Hz instead, then each frame needs 16.7ms to be displayed, so you get higher latency.

[Enigma]

So VRR can reduce the Hz for the actual FPS displayed, but retain the maximum Hz for frame scanout speed? How is this done?

The speed at which the display scans out each frame is faster at higher refresh rates when using VRR.

For example, on a 240Hz display, a frame needs 4.2ms to be displayed completely (0ms at the top of the screen, 4.2ms until the frame is completely displayed at the bottom of the screen.) Even if the game is capped to 60FPS and the screen is refreshed at 60Hz, each one of those frames is still getting scanned out in 4.2ms. After the frame is completely scanned out, the display simply waits until the game sends a new frame. With VRR it can do that and doesn't have to start scanning out immediately again.

If you switch the display to 60Hz instead, then each frame needs 16.7ms to be displayed, so you get higher latency.

So VRR doesn't change the display's inherent scanout Hz, but only changes the display's refreshing Hz? I thought the two were connected.