Now that test looks far better than the other one (nvidia blob vs. free ati). And brings some interesting results like the low but stable framrate.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Radeon 3D Performance: Gallium3D vs. Classic Mesa
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by tball View PostHow far is the galium3d development for r6xx<= cards?
Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostI think glisse's blog shows the current state - the driver and shader compiler framework are in place and at least one triangle has been drawn successfully :
http://jglisse.livejournal.com/
I don't know if Glisse wants to comment if he has gotten any further?
Comment
-
R700 classic Mesa vs. Catalyst 10.4 testing finished up this morning... I think this article is in the queue for Monday.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
-
You can watch the commits yourself, just keep hitting "refresh"
Looks like a bunch of compiler changes since the last blog post.Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by garytr24 View PostEasy. Input lag. 1 second/60 frames = 16ms. 1/120 = 8ms.
When you add up all the other latencies in the entire equation -- from your ability to perceive events, to signaling them to the system, to hardware to software, to the software processing, to the response signals, to the hardware doing its job, to you being able to perceive them again, the latencies are hitting anyway from 66ms to 300ms on a modern system. A good PC with a high quality CRT will be the best and a console on a plasma TV will be the worst, but even most PC systems are sloshing through over 100ms of response lag you apparently weren't even aware of.
The difference is very noticeable, ask any decent musician
or pro player.
Why should I wait 16ms for my shot to fire when I can wait 8ms...
I'll hear it
and it'll get sent to the server sooner, even if I don't see it that fast.
I have never heard anyone actually measure a problem with a mere 16ms latency. I've heard plenty of people on forums repeat such claims with no actual fact or recorded measurements, but nothing "real." I strongly feel it's just another of the many excuses that some (but far too many) gamers try to use instead of just admitting, "the other guy just did better than me and that's why he won and I lost."
There are advantages to moving up to monitors with higher refresh rates (I'm still waiting for 120hz to become the norm), but the effects of moving to those will be very subtle and mostly have nothing to do with gaming.
Comment
-
I am fairly sure that your body doesn't move that quickly. The time it takes to slightly reposition and click a mouse on a target is greater than 16ms by a decent margin. Not to mention the input system latency.
Most people will need more considerably longer than 100 ms to react with a mouse movement and a click. By the same logic, a 100ms lag doesn't matter either. Anybody who has ever played an online game will know that this is not the case. The difference between a 100ms lag and a 50ms lag is enough to totally throw off your game if you're not used to it. Although you cannot react in 50ms.
Modern games are not just see and react, your brain does all sorts of interpolation and syncing. Especially if you use very high-sensitivity mouse flicks, 16ms will mean being off by hundreds of pixels.
Seriously, only people who don't really play games competitively argue this point. If you play a fast shooter for a few years, you will know that 20ms make a difference. Not a huge one, but it's there, and it's very evident.
Having said that, I'm not too fussed about fps because I'm not a pro gamer or whatnot. 60 fps is enough for me and my casual play, as long as it is stable. So I don't even care about the topic much.
Comment
-
Edit bug.
Because it doesn't matter. The shot fires in timing with the simulation updates anyway. Firing it "sooner" doesn't even really mean anything. Especially in multiplayer.
Doing simulation updates at fixed intervals only means that the events are binned together.
So if you have a 60Hz simulation, this means that an update window is 16 ms. Which makes things worse. Now a 1ms latency will become 16ms latency 1/16 of the time, and a 2ms latency will become 16ms latency 1/8 of the time.
So it's even more important that your click gets there earlier. If your opponent is 2ms slower, his shot will be 16ms later 1/8 of the time.
Comment
Comment