GNOME Wayland vs. X.Org Performance For Radeon & NVIDIA Gaming On Ubuntu 23.04

[oiaohm]

Can't see or can't process?

400 to 1000HZ some where in there your back of eye will not process as a signal to send to brain so it is cannot see at brain because back of eye filtered it out by the current studies

And if you can see at 1000hz the item has to be something that detected by the Green-sensing cones as all the other sensors in your eyes will be slower. Red sensors will be next at max of 900hz . Blue cones drop off fairly much at 500Hz for everyone.

There might be a few rare humans out there due to generics that can see a little past 1000Hz. Remember age and health also comes into it so even if you have the generics to see at 1000hz but you have a mild illness may not be able to..
.

[Vondur]

Funny to ET legacy on here, I play it everyday. I limit my FPS on it to 125 which I think was due to something with the 3d engine in use with the original software. Not sure if it’s necessary any longer.

[Anux]

The human eye doesn't work in a quantized manner, it is continous as well as our brain which interpretes those senses. The cones in your eye just need to collect enough photons for your brain to recognise something. "Enough" differes heavily for each individual.

For example it is easy to see a flash of light in pure darkness, even if it is only 1/500 s long (the brighter the flash the shorter it can be, as in "collect enough photons"). But a light switching to black for 1/500 s will not be noticed.

What's more of a concern is the fluidity of your signal and there it is possible to see strange behavior even in 240 Hz material, depending on how it is displayed. Most LED displays show a sequence of static images that get displayed till the next frame arrives. That leads to an unnatural motion feeling, because in nature every motion is smooth (endless FPS). To mittigate this effect one can use backlight blinking (displaying only short flashes instead of static images, the brain can then guess what happened in the darkness) or use motion blur.

[oiaohm]

For example it is easy to see a flash of light in pure darkness, even if it is only 1/500 s long (the brighter the flash the shorter it can be, as in "collect enough photons"). But a light switching to black for 1/500 s will not be noticed.

Everything has upper limits. There is upper limit to how fast the eye can receive protons before this starts causing temporary blindness with repeated turning into full blindness.

1/400-1/1000 of a second you start running into physical limits of the persons eye with computer monitor. Yes there is a limit to how bright you can make computer monitors.

Think about it in in pure darkness to see 1/1000 flash is likely to result in you saw the first flash but you were blind to the second flash because you eyes were overloaded. Monitor usage for games and the like you cannot go to blinding brightness to get signal in. Yes even at 1/500 light pulse you could be above the person blinding brightness.

The human eye max level physical filter is temporary blindness.

Yes back of eye is:
1) needs to collect enough photons to send signal to brain.
2) must not collect these photons fast enough to cause the cells to basically deactivate self from overload(temporary blindness) or be physically damaged possible past repair.
So there is a absolute upper limit to how fast we can see because the cells in the eye can only take so much.

If you are willing to risk the person vision a more people might be able to see past 1000hz. But it is serous-ally risk destroying vision for good.

[Anux]

What I was trying to say, there is no exact upper limit what humans can perceive visually, it depends on what you have seen before and the contrast of what you see and the individual.

[oiaohm]

What I was trying to say, there is no exact upper limit what humans can perceive visually, it depends on what you have seen before and the contrast of what you see and the individual.

No this is ignoring the studies. We don't have exactly what the upper limit is but we have ranges that the upper limit can be guessed to be or slightly above from different studies. Those studies also tell us without question that not every human can see 1000Hz.

https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2202-7-34

Yes as insane as it sounds there have been lab tested on receptor cells taken from back of human eye. Yes this one shows basically shows eye hardware limit at 500Hz. But from the different studies like give different results so we know the hardware limit of the eye is not the same between every sample used so it range. Yes current results put you 400-1000Hz and its not everyone at 1000Hz.

Once enough is understood about the DNA that causes eye construction then DNA test on someone and say there highest Hz they will be able to respond with unlimited training to because that HZ the eyes will pass on to brain.

Depend on what you have seen before is human brains means to fill in blanks with missing data and means to optimize paths..

Anux the reality is there is enough studies done that we can say majority of humans don't have 1000hz vision as a possibility that best guess for average human version is 800hz for the high point of the curve with majority the population being worse. Just because you cannot give what figure is the upper limit of humans for something does not mean the data does not exist to say past a particular point is exception not the rule.

Yes saying humans can normally see 1000hz is like say its normal for every human to sprint 100 meters as fast as Usain Bolt in his prime. Same thing there is the majority humans can do then the exceptions. The majority figure is a lot simpler to work out.

[Anux]

Those studies also tell us without question that not every human can see 1000Hz.

Your linked study leaves the human brain out (we can't see shit without our brain). And it only is applicable for flashes of light in darkness, our games are typically not black screen with seldom bright flashes, it's mostly gradual changes in color scale.

[oiaohm]

Your linked study leaves the human brain out (we can't see shit without our brain). And it only is applicable for flashes of light in darkness, our games are typically not black screen with seldom bright flashes, it's mostly gradual changes in color scale.

Other studies have done with real humans and also mechanical eye tests with gradual changes monitoring cells in eye signals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861 this study is done with humans, Yes they did test gradual changes. More gradual the change the worse the subjects respond time came.

https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.co...1471-2202-7-34 this is one of the old studies on the mechanical.

But there are a lot more studies.

The reality is our eyes are slower than our ears.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/humans-can-see-sound-hear-light/articleshow/3382084.cms

It gets interesting how human brain is wired up. Sound and Vision is mixed with each other in the brain. This is where it tricky. Person can claim they saw something when in fact they hearing something.

Anux basically if the eye is not sending the signal and the person is responding faster than the signal the eye can send some other sense is at play. Sound is a big one its signal rate from ears well and truly exceeded 1000Hz.

There is a point were audio latency is more important than visual latency.

Yes it right to say we cannot see without brain but we cannot see without eyes either. Mechanical limit of eyes give the trained max a human can see. Studies on humans have shown that.

There is lots and lots of studies in this area. The thing is you don't find major-ally disagreeing studies.

Why so many studies for safety equipment and medical equipment and weapon systems you need to know what can be left to human and what is too fast and has to be automated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/ Yes going through the existing studies that look at the brain side is good way to have particular females hate you and particular males get too far up their high horse for their own good due to them showing over and over again on average females have slower reaction times to males and its not the eyes or ears or the muscle system. Yes there is a reason why I was avoiding in detail human brain studies for what brain can react to they get really controversial. Of course a fit female can have a faster reaction time than a unfit male(just before any fool male reading reports like that get the idea they can use this the wrong way)

Anux some of those mechanical studies into eyes and ears and muscles was to attempt to find out why females are slower in reaction time than males on average and if their was some way to over come it. Yes the mechanical studies into eyes and ears ruled them out as the problem there was a little bit attributed to the input system due to muscle strength difference between males and females caused by sex. Majority is in brain processing.

There is something else out of some of the studies the faster your reaction time the lower your pain tolerance and the worse you feel when you get sick lets just say really fast reaction time comes with down side.

Turn based games are good between the sexes because those are fair and games like that you don't need really above 140hz monitor.

Yes the gamer studies normally focus on males the safety/medical/weapon funded studies that are well more funded focus on both sexes and can afford to use more expensive things like mri monitoring of brain activity. Yes even doing that you still have 1000Hz looking like exceptional male human(see where this comes problem to be hated quickly).