Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
the cpu difference is measured in nanoseconds.
not even superman could notice that type of difference.
like i said before the best player in the world's reaction time is 22ms.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD vs Intel for input latency
- Thread starter GregI
- Start date
the cpu difference is measured in nanoseconds.
not even superman could notice that type of difference.
like i said before the best player in the world's reaction time is 22ms.
Using the absolute worst case difference in latency from the graph posted earlier, do you really think anyone can notice the difference between 9ms and 9.0001ms? Because that is the difference 100ns will make. It is not perceivable.
Caporegime
Let me put it this way.
60 FPS in one frame every 16.3ms, or one frame every 0.16 Seconds.
So lets get how many FPS 0.01 Seconds is: every time you double the FPS you half the latency, so 60 X2 = 120 FPS = 0.08 Seconds, X2 = 240 FPS = 0.04 Sceconds, X2 = 480 FPS = 0.02 Seconds, x2 = 960 FPS = 0.01 Seconds.
So, about 1000 frames is what it takes to see 1 frame of difference...
Take this chart, by the time you see a singular frame of difference on your screen with the 8700K vs the 3700X the 3700X is already 300 frames ahead..... in other words the 8700K is always 300 Frames slower for every 1 frame the 8700K regains from clicks.
60 FPS in one frame every 16.3ms, or one frame every 0.16 Seconds.
So lets get how many FPS 0.01 Seconds is: every time you double the FPS you half the latency, so 60 X2 = 120 FPS = 0.08 Seconds, X2 = 240 FPS = 0.04 Sceconds, X2 = 480 FPS = 0.02 Seconds, x2 = 960 FPS = 0.01 Seconds.
So, about 1000 frames is what it takes to see 1 frame of difference...
Take this chart, by the time you see a singular frame of difference on your screen with the 8700K vs the 3700X the 3700X is already 300 frames ahead..... in other words the 8700K is always 300 Frames slower for every 1 frame the 8700K regains from clicks.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Its an utterly meaningless exercise when the numbers are this tiny, that's why no one other than this idiot has done it.
Last edited:
You aren't comparing the same thing - this is full system latency over however many CPU cycles it takes between a button press and a software event - not the latency of a RAM cycle which can take place many many times in a CPU cycle.
I expect to see plenty of posts from people who aren't understanding what is going on here and directly comparing it to things like framerate and monitor refresh rate, etc. which are only one part of the story.
Caporegime
You should really unblock me....
This is about multiple CPU cycles - it takes many, many instructions involving many sources of delay like instruction batching, etc. between peripheral input, an application reading that input and then the software doing something with it and that is what is being measured here.
Also games tend to tick over their internal logic at a lower framerate - 20, 30, 60, 120 Hz being common values so a few ms difference can mean your input rolls over a game logic tick and that is often quite noticeable.
EDIT: Reaction times aren't the whole story though - I do a bit of game modding and you have to be really careful even in events that only happen once per second (one frame in every 60 with a 60Hz logic tick) as even a few ms getting bogged down in that one frame can be noticeable and my reaction times these days are probably above 150ms.
Last edited:
Caporegime
BTW @Rroff in regards to the post that you quoted.... Sonic is clearly talking about intercore latency, which in distance travelled over time is the speed of electrons over a few mm, about the speed of <light, 100ns is 0.00001 Seconds. you're not perceiving that.