[quote]
[video=youtube;PmAhJO6Vp3Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmAhJO6Vp3Y[/video][B]
In the hunt for the optimal VR experience, Nvidia has developed a new display technology with a refresh rate of 1700Hz and thus, an extremely low latency
[/B]When it comes to a pleasant virtual reality experience, a high framerate accompanied by low latencies is key. Most people agree that at least 90FPS is required for VR to work properly, which is the case for the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift, but according to Nvidia the future promises a lot more.
During the GPU Technology Conference, Nvidia demonstrated a new type of display technology, allowing for refresh rates up to 1700Hz. This means that, at 1700Hz, each frame gets replaced every 0.59th millisecond, compared to each 11.11 and 8.33 millisecond with a 90Hz and 120Hz display.
"If you can apply this to a VR display, that kind of ultra-low latency would help things stay rock-solid in the environment, to the point that the display would no longer be a source of latency. So this is effectively a zero latency display"
-Nvidia's vice president of research, David Luebke
[/quote]
Sources:
[url]http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/21976-nvidia-demonstrerar-1-700-hz-skarmpanel-under-gtc-2016[/url]
[url]http://www.roadtovr.com/nvidia-demonstrates-experimental-zero-latency-display-running-at-17000hz/[/url]
Yaaahhhh
Now we just need the PC that would support modern games in anything near that 1700fps figure. It is already a problem for a lot of people to even reach the stable 90fps.
brb guys gonna put my ice on my gpu while i play crysis 4 in 2k hz and 2k fps
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;50096057]Now we just need the PC that would support modern games in anything near that 1700fps figure. It is already a problem for a lot of people to even reach the stable 90fps.[/QUOTE]
We could probably do that with DX12 and PS1-era graphics.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50096068]All we need now is a GPU that doesn't melt trying to pull off 1700FPS.[/QUOTE]
All we need now are eyeballs that can properly comprehend 1700FPS.
only available with 360p monitors
Reminds me of the story of that microsoft dude who booted up the space pinball game on a Windows XP machine and got 1 million FPS since there was no limiter.
I can see very high refresh rates like this being usable for 2D or old 3D games. Half-Life 1 and Quake 3 Arena both run at about ~700-1000 fps for me.
I don't think a refresh rate past 1000 will ever really be necessary for ANY circumstance, really.
Really getting above 60fps in VR is going to be a huge help.
People always cite high FPS as a way to reduce input in shooters, I personally don't notice but I'd totally buy that it would help a VR title.
I don't know if their goal is 1700 hz games, but I doubt it.
I think they're just looking at is a future tech goal, getting 1700 hz monitors or displays will help lower the latency perceived even at a game running at a normal frame rate, no?
[QUOTE=Daemon White;50096129]We could probably do that with DX12 and PS1-era graphics.[/QUOTE]
Good luck pushing that much pixel data over a cable though.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50096463]Good luck pushing that much pixel data over a cable though.[/QUOTE]
Easy solution to that: build GPU into the screen itself.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50096463]Good luck pushing that much pixel data over a cable though.[/QUOTE]
Displayport should do it, eventually.
From what I can tell, the idea is more that you run at a lower fps than that but then the display will always be able to present the frame practically instantly, whereas now you could be waiting 10ms or so for a refresh, which isn't much but can still matter.
Pretty much.
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;50096484]Easy solution to that: build GPU into the screen itself.[/QUOTE]
Now THAT would be pretty interesting, having the monitor handle part of the processor load. Though you'd probably need a fan (or liquid cooling system) built into the monitor as well, since processing units generate plenty of heat from all that electrical number-crunching. Coupled with the heat that monitors generate by default (though probably not as much as a CPU), you'd definitely need to keep a monitor cool if it's also crunching a ton of numbers.
Come to think of it, aren't Sony doing this with their VR headset, making it handle some of the processing load to run everything a high enough framerate?
[QUOTE=ironman17;50097586]Now THAT would be pretty interesting, having the monitor handle part of the processor load. Though you'd probably need a fan (or liquid cooling system) built into the monitor as well, since processing units generate plenty of heat from all that electrical number-crunching. Coupled with the heat that monitors generate by default (though probably not as much as a CPU), you'd definitely need to keep a monitor cool if it's also crunching a ton of numbers.
Come to think of it, aren't Sony doing this with their VR headset, making it handle some of the processing load to run everything a high enough framerate?[/QUOTE]
With newer TVs having quad core processors I really do think it could happen, I know my smart TV only has enough graphical performance for video processing, but with smaller and smaller technology we could easily see future generations of VR with built-in GPUs and CPUs. Not anytime soon, but I could see it happening, granted we don't figure out some new insanely efficient way of processing graphics.
At the moment the two biggest problems would be heat and size, not only do you not want something at 50-60 degrees celsius anywhere near your head, but the weight and size of a modern graphics card would also be limiting.
Despite these problems, I'm extremely excited for the VR technology and everything that's coming with it, I never really thought I would see anything like this back when I was younger but I'm sure as hell glad VR didn't stop at the Virtual Boy.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;50096131]All we need now are eyeballs that can properly comprehend 1700FPS.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean brain
Aren't we capable of registering about 240 "frames" in a second, or is that limit just another old fish-wife's tale?
[QUOTE=ironman17;50097730]Aren't we capable of registering about 240 "frames" in a second, or is that limit just another old fish-wife's tale?[/QUOTE]
Another old wive's tale. Even if the difference is imperceptible visually, getting latency near 1 ms is definitely a goal for VR as it matures.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50097730]Aren't we capable of registering about 240 "frames" in a second, or is that limit just another old fish-wife's tale?[/QUOTE]
Refresh rate and FPS are slightly different, as covered in the thread earlier.
In terms of FPS, because of how rasterization works, higher FPS is never a bad thing, since you can blend the frames to create accurate motion blur.
As for refresh rate, the higher is really the better, since it lets screens display frames as the gpu actually completes them, instead of waiting for the next vsync. It also causes the vsync to happen more often, giving you a lower latency per update.
This is mostly important for VR, where latency could always use a hand.
fuck how much fps we can get the latency on this will be fuckin sick.
and also with this we're basically limited by how much fps our computer can render, meaning monitor refresh rate is only a thought if we're near 1700fps
[QUOTE=Marcolade;50096131]All we need now are eyeballs that can properly comprehend 1700FPS.[/QUOTE]
I figure at that FPS developers will have problems with things being "too smooth" with animations
Whats the point with such high fps? Human eyes cannot see beyond 24 fps.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50098311]I figure at that FPS developers will have problems with things being "too smooth" with animations[/QUOTE]
'Too smooth' as in frameblending?
I think it looks pretty good:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWvKNRErip4[/media]
haha jokes on them eyeballs cant see past 12fps
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50098311]I figure at that FPS developers will have problems with things being "too smooth" with animations[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? Animations are defined with keyframes.
[QUOTE=edberg;50098360]haha jokes on them eyeballs cant see past 12fps[/QUOTE]
ACTUALLY!
That's always a fun argument, but at 1700fps it could actually become true. The eye sends signals to the brain about 800 times a second. Framerate would cease to be a visual thing and become a feel thing. Which it already does IMO after about 70fps
I can't imagine physics and animations being made to work for 1,700fps though
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50098655]ACTUALLY!
That's always a fun argument, but at 1700fps it could actually become true. The eye sends signals to the brain about 800 times a second. Framerate would cease to be a visual thing and become a feel thing. Which it already does IMO after about 70fps
I can't imagine physics and animations being made to work for 1,700fps though[/QUOTE]
Eyes don't send "signals per second". It's a continuous stream of data, so it's not really comparable.
Also, I can testify that you absolutely can see differences at least upwards to 120 fps, but mostly just with objects that move fast relative to screen space.
The feel of it is a sum of many things such as monitor sync and delay, input lag and how the game engine handles events.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.