the54thvoidIt's an easy enough study to conduct. Gather a whole bunch of participants subjected to 100, 200, 300, 400, 500Hz images without prior knowledge of what FPS they are viewing. Gather results of subjective experience and you have a population sample of sensitivity to high refresh imagery.

N/AThe inclusion of 3080 Ti would indicate how 4080 12 is the 407o. But the 192 bit bus really makes it a 406o. So the 405o is the 4060 instead. Scares me to think it would cost what I had prepared for the 4070, Jensen is one hell of a player.

sickofnormiesSo many uninformed people just jumping on bandwagon and spreading fake news. Please fact check yourself before posting.

Overwatch and Overwatch 2 does not support DLSS. All of that fps gains are rasterized without AI image upscaling.

www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-rtx-games-engines-apps/

By Andrew Burnes on May 31, 2021

Dirt ChipWake me up when we reach 1000fps.


It's just a name, drop it.

Chrispy_Has anyone done a serious, controlled study on whether framerates above, say, 200FPS really make a difference? I've seen a few videos where esports titles like CS:GO were group tested at 60, 144, 240Hz and observed in slo-mo - and yes, 60Hz was measurably worse but the difference between 144 and 240fps is negligible enough to call margin of error and human variance.

LTT's one ft Shroud was perhaps the most controlled and in-depth one I've seen and if an e-sports world champion barely sees any improvement between 144 and 240Hz, what hope do the rest of us have of capitalising on higher framerates?! Clearly 144Hz is already at the point of diminishing returns for Shroud, so perhaps the sweet spot is merely 100fps or 120fps? It's likely no coincidence that FPS higher than the server tickrate achieves nothing of value.

I'm curious if there's any real benefit to running north of 200fps whatsoever. At 500fps we're talking about a peak improvement of 3ms, a mean improvement of 1.5ms and this is taken into consideration alongside the following other variables:

1. 8.3ms server tick interval
2. 10-25ms median ping/jitter to the game server via your ISP
3. 2ms input sampling latency
4. 2-5ms pixel response time
5. 80-120ms human reflex time
   or
   20-50ms limitations of human premeditated timing accuracy (ie, what's your ability to stop a stopwatch at exactly 10.00 seconds, rather than 9.98 or 10.03 seconds, even though you know EXACTLY when to click?)

Whilst it's true that some of that is hidden behind client prediction, it's still 42ms of unavoidable latency. Throwing several thousand dollars at hardware to support 500+ FPS does seem to me like a fool's errand just to gain a mean improvement of 1.5ms in the best possible case scenario, and worst case you've spent all that for 1.5ms out of 160ms.

bobsledWhat’s the bet NVIDIA has DLSS enabled and this isn’t native 2560x1440 rendering?

BwazeAnd half a grand. ;-)

sickofnormiesSo many uninformed people just jumping on bandwagon and spreading fake news. Please fact check yourself before posting.

Overwatch and Overwatch 2 does not support DLSS.

bobsledWhat’s the bet NVIDIA has DLSS enabled and this isn’t native 2560x1440 rendering?

Chrispy_Has anyone done a serious, controlled study on whether framerates above, say, 200FPS really make a difference? I've seen a few videos where esports titles like CS:GO were group tested at 60, 144, 240Hz and observed in slo-mo - and yes, 60Hz was measurably worse but the difference between 144 and 240fps is negligible enough to call margin of error and human variance.

LTT's one ft Shroud was perhaps the most controlled and in-depth one I've seen and if an e-sports world champion barely sees any improvement between 144 and 240Hz, what hope do the rest of us have of capitalising on higher framerates?! Clearly 144Hz is already at the point of diminishing returns for Shroud, so perhaps the sweet spot is merely 100fps or 120fps? It's likely no coincidence that FPS higher than the server tickrate achieves nothing of value.

I'm curious if there's any real benefit to running north of 200fps whatsoever. At 500fps we're talking about a peak improvement of 3ms, a mean improvement of 1.5ms and this is taken into consideration alongside the following other variables:

1. 8.3ms server tick interval
2. 10-25ms median ping/jitter to the game server via your ISP
3. 2ms input sampling latency
4. 2-5ms pixel response time
5. 80-120ms human reflex time
   or
   20-50ms limitations of human premeditated timing accuracy (ie, what's your ability to stop a stopwatch at exactly 10.00 seconds, rather than 9.98 or 10.03 seconds, even though you know EXACTLY when to click?)

Whilst it's true that some of that is hidden behind client prediction, it's still 42ms of unavoidable latency. Throwing several thousand dollars at hardware to support 500+ FPS does seem to me like a fool's errand just to gain a mean improvement of 1.5ms in the best possible case scenario, and worst case you've spent all that for 1.5ms out of 160ms.

TheDeeGeelolololol, people still expecting 400% increase every generation.

HxxCan’t only speak from my limited experience but I do notice a difference in gameplay like COD between 144 fps and 220-240 fps (using rtx 3080 and Samsung g7 1440p display). Gameplay seems smoother and slightly faster . Again my subjective experience but I’ve been lowering settings on purpose to hit that 200+ mark

TheDeeGeelolololol, people still expecting 400% increase every generation.