NX Gamer Discusses Game Tech *spin* [2015 - 2017]

Status
Not open for further replies.
^Significant technological changes maybe, but unless you take a magnifying glass to these screens, the versions look damn near identical. It's not like the other versions have no SSR. They just don't have it across everything. And in a game as dark as RE7, the kind of AO you're using really doesn't make much of a difference. Can't think of any other recent multi platform game where the differences were this minute.
 
Nx Gamer compares input lag on PS4 / XB1 / PC / SNES and Megadrive and finds that PS4 games usually have a much lower input lag than XB1S games.

All those PS4 / Pro / XB1S results are using Wireless (and latest) pads, USB pads having slightly better results on both machines, those are the mean results:

- OS : PS4: 75.52 ms
- OS : XB1S: 117.12 ms

- Doom : PS4: 104 ms
- Doom : XB1S: 154 ms

- BF1 : PS4: 79.7 ms
- BF1: PS4 Pro: 75.5 ms (better than on OG PS4 oddly)
- BF1: XB1S : 125.4 ms
Nx gamer says that in BF1 the better performance on XB1 (compared to OG PS4) may have an input lag cost.

- Division : PS4: 183 ms
- Division : XB1: 221 ms

Prey being the only title tested having a (slightly) lower input lag on XB1S:
- Prey : PS4: 150ms
- Prey: XB1S: 142ms

- Mario World (SNES) and Golden axe (Megadrive) : 50 ms (wired + CRT screen).
- Starfox starwing (SNES) : 118 ms

Wired or wireless, is input latency affected? In-depth input times tested PC/XB1/PS4/Snes/Megadrive

 
Last edited:
Nx Gamer compares input lag on PS4 / XB1 / PC / SNES and Megadrive and finds that PS4 games usually have a much lower input lag than XB1S games.

All those PS4 / Pro / XB1S results are using Wireless (and latest) pads, USB pads having slightly better results on both machines, those are the mean results:

- OS : PS4: 75.52 ms
- OS : XB1S: 117.12 ms

- Doom : PS4: 104 ms
- Doom : XB1S: 154 ms

- BF1 : PS4: 79.7 ms
- BF1: PS4 Pro: 75.5 ms (better than on OG PS4 oddly)
- BF1: XB1S : 125.4 ms
Nx gamer says that in BF1 the better performance on XB1 (compared to OG PS4) may have an input lag cost.

- Division : PS4: 183 ms
- Division : XB1: 221 ms

Prey being the only title tested having a (slightly) lower input lag on XB1S:
- Prey : PS4: 150ms
- Prey: XB1S: 142ms

- Mario World (SNES) and Golden axe (Megadrive) : 50 ms (wired + CRT screen).
- Starfox starwing (SNES) : 118 ms

Wired or wireless, is input latency affected? In-depth input times tested PC/XB1/PS4/Snes/Megadrive

Numbers are a little too high in general, these likely include his display lag as well. There's no way it's 200ms input lag with an additional 30-80ms of display lag on top. It's just mental.
 
Numbers are a little too high in general, these likely include his display lag as well. There's no way it's 200ms input lag with an additional 30-80ms of display lag on top. It's just mental.
Yes it's the total input lag including his screen.

But BF1 on Pro only having 75ms input lag total should suggest that his screen has rather low input lag.
 
Yes it's the total input lag including his screen.

But BF1 on Pro only having 75ms input lag total should suggest that his screen has rather low input lag.
Low display lag I would generalize as between
10-15ms gaming gear
35ms VG (plasmas etc)
35-45 good
45-55 avg
55-70 bad
-70+ Very bad
He would have done better working in deltas between the two systems. At least to focus on the differences of the two systems.

This was one of NX Gamers slightly weaker articles imo. Information is fine, but the way the article unfolds is a bit messy. He moves to address the question of whether there is a difference between wired and unwired latency. Showcases total latency in OS. And then showcases latency between the systems. All times are total latency. Giving people a really false reading of where either consoles stand.

Should address the console with a full cocktail of tests for wired vs wireless. Testing on both console and the PC. Try to break down controller input processing only.

Once full completed and adjorned move into a completely separate suite to test something else entirely. Like the software side of things. The triple buffering etc.

Just felt too much of his experiments were mixed together and while we get it, a lot of people won't.
 
Nx Gamer compares input lag on PS4 / XB1 / PC / SNES and Megadrive and finds that PS4 games usually have a much lower input lag than XB1S games.

All those PS4 / Pro / XB1S results are using Wireless (and latest) pads, USB pads having slightly better results on both machines, those are the mean results:

- OS : PS4: 75.52 ms
- OS : XB1S: 117.12 ms

- Doom : PS4: 104 ms
- Doom : XB1S: 154 ms

- BF1 : PS4: 79.7 ms
- BF1: PS4 Pro: 75.5 ms (better than on OG PS4 oddly)
- BF1: XB1S : 125.4 ms
Nx gamer says that in BF1 the better performance on XB1 (compared to OG PS4) may have an input lag cost.

- Division : PS4: 183 ms
- Division : XB1: 221 ms

Prey being the only title tested having a (slightly) lower input lag on XB1S:
- Prey : PS4: 150ms
- Prey: XB1S: 142ms

- Mario World (SNES) and Golden axe (Megadrive) : 50 ms (wired + CRT screen).
- Starfox starwing (SNES) : 118 ms

Wired or wireless, is input latency affected? In-depth input times tested PC/XB1/PS4/Snes/Megadrive

At first I thought the Bluetooth connection might something to do with that, but it's not --I also think XO S has Bluetooth. I am quite sensitive to latency. The high latency of The Division is surprisingly above average, so it is Golden Axe on the Megadrive. For whatever reason the PC again has an advantage in this department. I could expect a higher latency in Starfox for the SNES, they used an external chip to achieve 3D graphics, although maybe that's not the reason..
 
Should address the console with a full cocktail of tests for wired vs wireless. Testing on both console and the PC. Try to break down controller input processing only.

While interesting that would not be particularly helpful, like trying to ascertain the power output of an engine outside of a car. It's the complete package you experience and you're using a controller to play games so you want to know the end-to-end lag while playing games, which vary title to title.
 
Low display lag I would generalize as between
10-15ms gaming gear
35ms VG (plasmas etc)
35-45 good
45-55 avg
55-70 bad
-70+ Very bad
He would have done better working in deltas between the two systems. At least to focus on the differences of the two systems.

This was one of NX Gamers slightly weaker articles imo. Information is fine, but the way the article unfolds is a bit messy. He moves to address the question of whether there is a difference between wired and unwired latency. Showcases total latency in OS. And then showcases latency between the systems. All times are total latency. Giving people a really false reading of where either consoles stand.

Should address the console with a full cocktail of tests for wired vs wireless. Testing on both console and the PC. Try to break down controller input processing only.

Once full completed and adjorned move into a completely separate suite to test something else entirely. Like the software side of things. The triple buffering etc.

Just felt too much of his experiments were mixed together and while we get it, a lot of people won't.
Another youtuber found 76ms input lag for PS4 OS, almost exactly NX gamer number (75.52ms). Apparently this one is using ~10ms input lag monitor so that should be roughly the input lag of NX gamer's TV.

Display lag is included in these measurements; subtract 10ms from final averaged result to receive an approximation of game engine latency.

 
Nx Gamer compares input lag on PS4 / XB1 / PC / SNES and Megadrive and finds that PS4 games usually have a much lower input lag than XB1S games.

All those PS4 / Pro / XB1S results are using Wireless (and latest) pads, USB pads having slightly better results on both machines, those are the mean results:

- OS : PS4: 75.52 ms
- OS : XB1S: 117.12 ms

- Doom : PS4: 104 ms
- Doom : XB1S: 154 ms

- BF1 : PS4: 79.7 ms
- BF1: PS4 Pro: 75.5 ms (better than on OG PS4 oddly)
- BF1: XB1S : 125.4 ms
Nx gamer says that in BF1 the better performance on XB1 (compared to OG PS4) may have an input lag cost.

- Division : PS4: 183 ms
- Division : XB1: 221 ms

Prey being the only title tested having a (slightly) lower input lag on XB1S:
- Prey : PS4: 150ms
- Prey: XB1S: 142ms

- Mario World (SNES) and Golden axe (Megadrive) : 50 ms (wired + CRT screen).
- Starfox starwing (SNES) : 118 ms

Wired or wireless, is input latency affected? In-depth input times tested PC/XB1/PS4/Snes/Megadrive



Wonder if DX 11's "maximum frames to render ahead = 9000" is rearing its ugly head. Those figures do seem to tally with 1 ~ 3 additional buffers along the way.

Who knows, with a slightly faster CPU and more buffer frames to render ahead into on Xbox One, perhaps that does have an impact on BF1's average frame rates...
 
While interesting that would not be particularly helpful, like trying to ascertain the power output of an engine outside of a car. It's the complete package you experience and you're using a controller to play games so you want to know the end-to-end lag while playing games, which vary title to title.
I respectfully disagree :) when people ask between wired and wireless I assume they are trying to get an edge or at least limit disadvantage. if measured correctly there should be a consistent difference between the two, even if it's marginal. That consistency should be proven through a variety of titles and it's entirely possible that different controllers have different latencies as well.

For players looking to get the edge in competitive MP games this matters a lot.

Latency per game won't matter as much since it's consistent for all players.

That being said, the point isn't lost, but discussing frame latency (n-1,n-2,n-3) seems to fit the discussion when they compare graphical tech for the games. So as they are charting resolution and graphical details it's a good time to also mention frame buffering comparisons per title. It seems less fitting for controller discussion.
 
Last edited:
That consistency should be proven through a variety of titles and it's entirely possible that different controllers have different latencies as well.

Did you not watch the video? There is no consistency.
 
tl;dw - can someone list whether the tested games have v-sync & double/triple buffer? Any of them only tear when dropping frames?

I assume OS tests were done on sections that aren't dependent on animation/screen transitions.
 
Last edited:
Did you not watch the video? There is no consistency.
There was no consistency between the 'total' input lag, but that doesn't mean the controller inputs don't have their own consistent latency, at least imo, they are being mixed into his larger numbers.
I assume, that when inputs come in from the joystick there is going to be a specific period of time it will require before the hardware/driver will register it as key press.
During the update() phase of the game, the code will poll the input values and update the controller inputs as required and then act on them.

Where it gets interesting is whether or not your controller inputs are verified by the driver before they are polled again.
For the sake of discussion, assume it takes 7ms for wired controller inputs to be verified by the driver, and 11 ms for wireless controller inputs to be verified respectively.
That means if your inputs are delivered 7ms before the next frame, your wired inputs will be captured for next frame. But for the wireless controller, which won't be ready for an additional 4ms, will also miss 'next' frame as well. Ultimately, we will be measuring the number of misses in this case, and not exactly the 'ms' time it takes, though that is probably the most ideal thing to figure out.

NX Gamer worked with average latency as I understand to provide an overall view of what to expect as a whole from our controller behaviour. Clearly game code and OS has a much larger factor in inputs, thus he went to discuss that. But because we're working with intervals close to factors of 16.6 and 33.3 + display lag, you're unlikely to see any other numbers crop up as your total input time.

I'm actually much more interested in the histogram of latency values (Readied, Missed, JIT) than I would be the average in this case. If after 1000 button pushes and I found that wired controllers have significantly less frequency with 'Missed' say 1:50, that's 20 frames worth of more inputs than the wireless controller that player got in every 1000 frames. When you got 1 million dollars as the prize pool, this doesn't seem so trivial to me when you're playing through millions of frames per game.
 
Last edited:
tl;dw - can someone list whether the tested games have v-sync & double/triple buffer? Any of them only tear when dropping frames?

I assume OS tests were done on sections that aren't dependent on animation/screen transitions.
He seems to speak of double/triple buffer, but doesn't fully commit to those terms consistently. I'll have to listen to it again in a bit.

Yea I can' speak for PS4, but I would have done the tests in the controller configuration screens for XBO to account for any dead zones and attempt to remove the OS out of it entirely etc. I'm unsure of his testing method (didn't look around), but one would assume he opened a controller, drew a wire from the button of testing to a LED transistor that would be taped to the screen and use a high speed camera to capture the how many frames go by from the LED light up to the results on the screen.
 
There was no consistency between the 'total' input lag, but that doesn't mean the controller inputs don't have their own consistent latency, at least imo, they are being mixed into his larger numbers.
And that's my entire point. The latency of individual controller's is interesting but irrelevant if the rest of the hardware/software stack are introducing much great variances meaning there's no latency consistency even across games on one platform, or the same games on different platforms.
 
And that's my entire point. The latency of individual controller's is interesting but irrelevant if the rest of the hardware/software stack are introducing much great variances meaning there's no latency consistency even across games on one platform, or the same games on different platforms.
right, that I don't dispute, but I would still like to know how much better wired 'could' be over wireless. I mean it's probably okay to generalize double buffer vs triple buffer games at 16 and 33.3 ms respectively. That way you attempt to cover as many bases as possible.
 
right, that I don't dispute, but I would still like to know how much better wired 'could' be over wireless. I mean it's probably okay to generalize double buffer vs triple buffer games at 16 and 33.3 ms respectively. That way you attempt to cover as many bases as possible.

Having used a variety of commercially available 2.4Ghz transceivers, from load-to-unload, is around 20ms for moderate data transfer but in a good environment (low RF noise, no corruption so no re-sends necessary) with low data transfer it can be as low as 2ms. A few bytes has lower latency then 1,000 as many bytes because of the way data is packeted and the particular protocol.

Also while it defies conventions there are many applications where wired can be slower than wireless because of the way I/O is managed. Wifi vs. USB? My money would be on wifi nine times out of ten because generally it'll have a higher priority in most operating systems. Latency, not bandwidth. :yep2:
 
Having used a variety of commercially available 2.4Ghz transceivers, from load-to-unload, is around 20ms for moderate data transfer but in a good environment (low RF noise, no corruption so no re-sends necessary) with low data transfer it can be as low as 2ms. A few bytes has lower latency then 1,000 as many bytes because of the way data is packeted and the particular protocol.

Also while it defies conventions there are many applications where wired can be slower than wireless because of the way I/O is managed. Wifi vs. USB? My money would be on wifi nine times out of ten because generally it'll have a higher priority in most operating systems. Latency, not bandwidth. :yep2:
Certainly a lot to consider. Easy to speculate that these new controllers require loads more bandwidth than previous generations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top