Does 120hz give FPS gamers online an advantage? if the game supports 120 fps

[cadaveca]

It's NOT that simple, phan.


At least, I do not beleive so.

It's not about one affecting another in the PC... It's much more complex and involved than that.




Otherwise, why does 120 FPS let ME play better, on a 60 Hz monitor? The monitor is just not at all capable of displaying anything over 60...

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

It's NOT that simple, phan.


At least, I do not beleive so.

It's not about one affecting another in the PC... It's much more complex and involved than that.




Otherwise, why does 120 FPS let ME play better, on a 60 Hz monitor?

I believe because the game responds to your commands at 120 FPS, because your hub is fast enough to process the I/O and turn it into a tangible command for the application/engine. Your rate of command never changes - 1000hz - but the rate of response to command processing is what dictates the entire system.

I agree with you that the system is complex - but because it is central, with a single output, and it becomes simple since the output is what matters (as you even say, on a 60FPS monitor, my hub output of 120 makes the game more responsive) - the monitor is being fed 120fps and your I/O is captured at 120 FPS, the display itself is not as relevant as the 120FPS hub output (but it would be better at 120hz).

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

the monitor is being fed 120fps

Nope, it isn't. The videocard is simply rendering that 120 FPS, and discarding the frames that are not needed to send the monitor it's 60 Hz signal.


So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?

[Depth]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?

Tsk, you put it in a different cable, silly

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Nope, it isn't. The videocard is simply rendering that 120 FPS, and discarding the frames that are not needed to send the monitor it's 60 Hz signal.


So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?

That is my point - you dont need to sync - my assumption based on a very light bit of research into this - is that FPS (or the output of the console or device or hub) is highly correlated to game responsiveness and control/actions being registered. You game better i.e. the game is more responsive at 120 FPS - FPS is measured at the rendering level - not so much at the display level - so if I turn my display down to 30 hz, but my game is running at 120 fps, my response rate will get worse, but it will still be better than 30 hz and 30 fps.

Because even though the frame did not render, the command (click) registered already, and even though the video card dropped the first 3 frames, I am at the same place in the action as I would have been had it rendered all of them.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...o_.php?print=1

We may be talking about different things, but to me the 200+ FPS in counterstrike feels better than 100 - ever so slightly, on a 60 hz display. My eyeballs are still getting the full glory of 60 pictures per second, but the engine is reading me at 200.

"Graphics Lag

The granddaddy of all lag, this is the result of a general slowdown in graphics, and is a common occurrence for any gamer. Basically, your system just can't produce enough Frames Per Second (FPS) to make everything feel nice and smooth. Anytime graphics lag happens, you'll typically get a reduction in the responsiveness of your controls. Your actions take a fraction longer to be reflected in the graphics on-screen because it takes your system a bit more time to create each new frame of graphics and send it to your monitor."

http://www.geforce.com/optimize/guid...f-lag-guide/#1\

^ basically - all lag happens at the hub. The reason 120 FPS is better at 60hz is it responds faster than 60 fps at 60 hz. There is slightly less lag.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

all lag happens at the hub.

What hub? Where is this located in the PC? Yes, Ido think we are looking at two different aspects here, although similar. I am NOT talking about rendering lag, or input lag, per se.


Let me put it this was 120 FPS will take 6 seconds to properly sync with 125 Hz polling rate of USB, and most polling will be out of sync.


125 FPS, woudl sync PERFECTLY with 125 Hz [b] notcounting input lag and rendering lag, which is to say, the time taken for that input to be processed and travel to it's destination.)

Like the nVidia article says, there are many types of lag, and lag of some sort is always going to occur. But, you cna optimize that lag in certain ways, and when considered all together, it becomes a very complex issue.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

What hub? Where is this located in the PC? Yes, Ido think we are looking at two different aspects here, although similar. I am NOT talking about rendering lag, or input lag, per se.


Let me put it this was 120 FPS will take 6 seconds to properly sync with 125 Hz polling rate of USB, and most polling will be out of sync.


125 FPS, woudl sync PERFECTLY with 125 Hz [b] notcounting input lag and rendering lag, which is to say, the time taken for that input to be processed and travel to it's destination.)

Like the nVidia article says, there are many types of lag, and lag of some sort is always going to occur. But, you cna optimize that lag in certain ways, and when considered all together, it becomes a very complex issue.

Right - I understand what you are saying - somewhere in those 6 seconds of not syncing, several commands from your mouse could have made it to the frame before, but had to wait for the next one (which is why we now have 1000hz mice, so that the sync gap is minimal)

I agree with this, what i was saying is that it has nothing to do with the hz of your monitor or keyboard, as you had listed, but that all those devices depend on FPS at the center. So there are actually 3 separate "Secret gaming numbers of life" that are not related to one another. I think i might have muddled that a bit initially though lol.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Right - I understand what you are saying - somewhere in those 6 seconds of not syncing, several commands from your mouse could have made it to the frame before, but had to wait for the next one (which is why we now have 1000hz mice, so that the sync gap is minimal)

I don't believe the human brain is capable of taking advantage of this extremely minor improvement. You're talking about seeing the difference between turning 3 degrees on one frame per given time frame (1/60th of a second in our case) and 1.5 degrees, two times in that same 60th of a second. So taking all the other advantages of 120hz such as no apparent ghosting, more vivid colors due to the newer panels, brighter LED back lighting, and higher pixel density, tell me, what about 120hz really helps you play better?

All in all, modern games usually have user input polling on its own thread, so rendering has no impact on the quality of the input by the user, assuming CPU power is plentiful. 120hz really is just more aesthetically pleasing because it's a smoother transition between the frames.

Cadaveca: +2 for you.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

I don't believe the human brain is capable of taking advantage of this extremely minor improvement. You're talking about seeing the difference between turning 3 degrees on one frame per given time frame (1/60th of a second in our case) and 1.5 degrees, two times in that same 60th of a second. So taking all the other advantages of 120hz such as no apparent ghosting, more vivid colors due to the newer panels, brighter LED back lighting, and higher pixel density, tell me, what about 120hz really helps you play better?

All in all, modern games usually have user input polling on its own thread, so rendering has no impact on the quality of the input by the user, assuming CPU power is plentiful. 120hz really is just more aesthetically pleasing because it's a smoother transition between the frames.

Cadaveca: +2 for you.

well me and dave are saying the same thing: that ur brain can and does... what we are talking about is how the system delivers it to us and the internal timings - he has a point - a synced system would be realtime - but I am saying that the controls are independent because of the game engine.

What you just said makes it even more independent so....? an independent thread makes the system even less interrelated...

not following :|

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

What you just said makes it even more independent so....? an independent thread makes the system even less interrelated...

not following :|

You don't need to stop polling for user input because another thread wants to read memory that the other is using. It just reads what is going on with the input and processes it accordingly. There is no locking or memory when you're only reading, so saying it is "out of sync" doesn't mean much of anything because it is more responsive than how quickly frames are getting rendered and your not preventing the application from reading user input.

Lets say your game is polling at 1000hz, just because the display isn't showing all the changes as smoothly doesn't mean that the input is slow. You're trying to tell me that seeing a frame 8ms earlier is going to help. Also just because a thread is running asynchronously doesn't mean it has to synchronize, because nothing would change if it had to. Weather or not your running at 60hz or 120hz, you're still polling for user input at 1000hz. Your ability to react to an external stimuli is completely unchanged because of the display your using, let me put it that way.

Originally Posted by phanbuey

he has a point - a synced system would be realtime

No, just because a system is in sync doesn't mean it is real-time. Real-time implies time restrictions on how quickly something needs to be processed. You may want to learn your terms before using them.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In computer science, real-time computing (RTC), or reactive computing, is the study of hardware and software systems that are subject to a "real-time constraint"— e.g. operational deadlines from event to system response. Real-time programs must guarantee response within strict time constraints.[1] Often real-time response times are understood to be in the order of milliseconds and sometimes microseconds. In contrast, a non-real-time system is one that cannot guarantee a response time in any situation, even if a fast response is the usual result.

Games are definitely not real-time applications.

Originally Posted by phanbuey

but I am saying that the controls are independent because of the game engine.

That is when you're doing the same thing in parallel because everything eventually has to sync up. Input and graphics are two completely different things, which aren't going to block each other because they don't write to memory that the other will need to write to.

I believe you've been misinformed.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

You don't need to stop polling for user input because another thread wants to read memory that the other is using. It just reads what is going on with the input and processes it accordingly. There is no locking or memory when you're only reading, so saying it is "out of sync" doesn't mean much of anything because it is more responsive than how quickly frames are getting rendered and your not preventing the application from reading user input.

Lets say your game is polling at 1000hz, just because the display isn't showing all the changes as smoothly doesn't mean that the input is slow.

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying - read my stuff again. I go on to say that FPS is what actually SHOWS the input to the user. Input gets taken>action applied to game>user sees rendered result. What I am saying is super basic: the game is applying your commands to frames as it draws them. Now read what dave said about syncing...

Originally Posted by Aquinus

You're trying to tell me that seeing a frame 8ms earlier is going to help.

Yes, it is a proven fact, look at the USAF research. The brain can react to to something around 1/200th of a second. Your brain is not on a refresh, my 1/200th starts 8ms earlier in this case.
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/in...an_eye_can_see

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Also just because a thread is running asynchronously doesn't mean it has to synchronize, because nothing would change if it had to. Weather or not your running at 60hz or 120hz, you're still polling for user input at 1000hz. Your ability to react to an external stimuli is completely unchanged because of the display your using, let me put it that way.

That is correct, I have been saying they don't have to sync. Again, when you move the engine registers it, but then it has to do something with that information right? It has to make the game behave... how fast does it make it behave? - that is your FPS. And yes if your external stimuli is giving you images faster, your ability to react is faster so. The second part is wrong.

Originally Posted by Aquinus

No, just because a system is in sync doesn't mean it is real-time. Real-time implies time restrictions on how quickly something needs to be processed. You may want to learn your terms before using them.

OK you're right - I didnt use "Real Time Computing," the named concept, I actually meant "real time" it to describe it the temporal nature, but fine. Sorry if I misspoke.

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Games are definitely not real-time applications.

I didn't say they were, who said they were? First of all it was Dave's hypothetical that has nothing to do with you or your knowledge of real time computing, second, it was a very lofty hypothetical with a ton of assumptions that would never happen in the real world.

Originally Posted by Aquinus

That is when you're doing the same thing in parallel because everything eventually has to sync up. Input and graphics are two completely different things, which aren't going to block each other because they don't write to memory that the other will need to write to.

I believe you've been misinformed.

So you're saying that a game at 30FPS should then be just as responsive as a game at 60, which never ever happens - so inform me - why is it that a 30 FPS game exhibits input lag?

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Yes, it is a proven fact, look at the USAF research. The brain can react to to something around 1/200th of a second.
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/in...an_eye_can_see

Nothing on that link has a source to the USAF.

Originally Posted by phanbuey

So you're saying that a game at 30FPS should then be just as responsive as a game at 60, which never ever happens - so inform me - why is it that a 30 FPS game exhibits input lag?

I highly doubt you're experiencing input lag if there is plenty of CPU power and it's limited by the GPU unless your playing a single-threaded game from 10 years ago where input has to wait on the frame being drawn. It may feel less responsive because you're seeing it happen all at once in 2 times the rate as you did before, but if you tell the mouse to move, weather its at 30fps or 120fps, it's still moving the same amount in the same time. It's a matter of when you see it and how quickly it takes your brain to register that something did happen.

I'm not saying it takes 150-200ms to see something change. It takes that long to process what you're seeing, think about what you're going to do, then actually tell your hand to do it. So weather you see an enemy on one frame or another, you're still talking about responding to something that goes from showing up 32ms later to 8ms later. That 24ms edge doesn't give you a whole lot of working room, and is small enough where you could attribute chaos and human error in any fluctuation at speeds that quick.

Please find a credible source and I will be happy to read it because these sites are what your link cited and they have no data, no sources, and no proven empirical research. I also don't like trusting wikipedia for this kind of information. Even more so from an Australian gaming website.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

[Easy Rhino]

lol this thread is hurting my brain. the hz rate of things like a mouse and keyboard are irrelevant since the CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT takes care of all that. all you need to be concerned about is matching the hz rate of the monitor with your cpu and gpus ability to talk to eachother properly and hit that hz target in the form of FPS.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Nothing on that link has a source to the USAF.


I highly doubt you're experiencing input lag if there is plenty of CPU power and it's limited by the GPU unless your playing a single-threaded game from 10 years ago where input has to wait on the frame being drawn. It may feel less responsive because you're seeing it happen all at once in 2 times the rate as you did before, but if you tell the mouse to move, weather its at 30fps or 120fps, it's still moving the same amount in the same time. It's a matter of when you see it and how quickly it takes your brain to register that something did happen.

Here you can try this yourself: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...o_.php?print=1

Originally Posted by Aquinus

I'm not saying it takes 150-200ms to see something change. It takes that long to process what you're seeing, think about what you're going to do, then actually tell your hand to do it. So weather you see an enemy on one frame or another, you're still talking about responding to something that goes from showing up 32ms later to 8ms later. That 24ms edge doesn't give you a whole lot of working room, and is small enough where you could attribute chaos and human error in any fluctuation at speeds that quick.

Yeah but that chaos and human error can be applied to the guy that is 24ms behind - in no scenario do I want to be 24 ms behind. It gives a slight edge that is magnified when you apply it to a chain of actions.

[3870x2]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

lol this thread is hurting my brain. the hz rate of things like a mouse and keyboard are irrelevant since the CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT takes care of all that. all you need to be concerned about is matching the hz rate of the monitor with your cpu and gpus ability to talk to eachother properly and hit that hz target in the form of FPS.

Thank god someone spoke up, I was beginning to lose my faith in humanity.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

Thank god someone spoke up, I was beginning to lose my faith in humanity.

I think this thread is proof that I need to work on the clarity of my writing, or something.

[Phusius]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

I think this thread is proof that I need to work on the clarity of my writing, or something.

Glad my topic helped advance the human species.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Phusius

Glad my topic helped advance the human species.

if you don't get a 120 hz monitor after this I will find your ass and kill it....



... in Borderlands 2.

[Wrathier]

On my monitor the Asus 27" VG278H LED / 3D / 120Hz it gives a great picture even running below 120Mhz. It can be seen while turning fast ex. BF3. However, that can also be, that the screen just is pretty good? Even in 2D, desktop etc, it is said that 120Mhz screens just gives a better more fluent experience. I for once totally agree.

[newlife]

Im just going to put this out there

[Wrathier]

Originally Posted by newlife

Im just going to put this out there

I have been playing with that a little, but havent really had much success with it besides in 3D Mark benchmark. - I do not use it anymore.

If my RIG cant handle it, it must be upgraded.

[newlife]

Originally Posted by Wrathier

I have been playing with that a little, but havent really had much success with it besides in 3D Mark benchmark. - I do not use it anymore.

If my RIG cant handle it, it must be upgraded.

im not not fan of it, it tends to course more probs then anything, just wanted to use it as example