I know, it's just whenever you talk to people and they say, well my PC's rockstable/hitting solid 60 Fps/whatever, and you dig a bit further, turns out that mostly they have some caveats like "mostly 60 Fps in Skyrim expcept for when I get in a fight with lots of spells whirring around" and the like.
With solid VSynced 60 FPS, I see no difference between Crossfire and single GPU.
Again, not my perception at all. I also doubt the majority of people who play games would share your lag perception.
VR applications, definitely.
Instead of absolute lag, isn't it more about lag difference between multiple parties in a multiplayer setup of otherwise equally capable (but not necessarily top) players?
If you are speaking about multiplayer games, the server usually has a fixed frequency update ration (like 25/30/60/64/96/128 updates per seconds), moreover you have to consider the network quality connection of players, plus additional device latency noise. 1 or 2 frame of latency usually is not a big deal even on multilpayer games. Depending on the network code, a big deal could be an higher frame-rate to send more accurate data to the server.
It makes a difference in games where you aim/control the camera with a mouse, ex. FPS. This is why those games typically already modify the default "maximum pre-renderered frames" (and indeed there are control panel settings to play with this in some games too) down to a single one. While this potentially even drops the frame rate slightly, it actually improves the experience and responsiveness.
Yes. And FPS pros tend to prefer 120 hz displays as it further reduces the frame length -> latency by 8.3ms.
Yeah there's definitely two components - your brain's ability to "predict" the motion of objects based on smooth motion (this one depends on good frame rate and pacing/smoothness) and how 1:1 your input feels with what happens on the screen (which is primarily latency related). Ideally you want both, but I've just found the tradeoffs of AFR - potentially more smoothness (again debatable vs. adaptive refresh in some cases) for more latency - are not that compelling even if you ignore the poor value proposition as many of us routinely have access to multiple high end GPUs if desired.
@London-boy might be better... able... to answer.Andrew, Im pleased about the dx12 discussion but when can I get some Anal
I'm definitely a convert to the high refresh monitors bandwagon, having recently acquired a 144Hz display. Even just on the windows desktop I can't go back to 60 now, and definitely not for FPS and similar "mouse controls camera" games.
You don't consider 49" large for a monitor?
I'm definitely a convert to the high refresh monitors bandwagon, having recently acquired a 144Hz display. Even just on the windows desktop I can't go back to 60 now, and definitely not for FPS and similar "mouse controls camera" games.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...s/dell-up3017q-oled-4k-monitor-1311504/reviewI meant no high refresh rate 4k large screen monitors. I guess I should edit that. LoL. It was in my head when I typed it, but it never made it to the post.
Regards,
SB
