Nvidia announces financial results for second quarter fiscal 2024

GPUs will be bought like TVs. It took 4060, about 6 years to double the Passmark score over 1060.

Of course new games are running at 70 fps. Most games are absolutely not designed for 500hz, and have zero reason to do that. Cs:go wan’t designed for 500fps, I bet the designers of cs:go never intended people to play at 500fps, or even imagined that would ever happen; it wasn’t possible when the game came out.

There’s a good reason to never go above 70fps: human perception experts tend to agree that our visual system gives us quickly diminishing returns above 60fps, we can’t really see things any faster than that, so I’m quite skeptical that 500fps is necessary.

The whole reason 500fps is useful for competitive esports gaming is to reduce latency, not really to keep increasing frame rates forever. Because games are triple-buffering and sometimes monitors are too, and there’s another frame of latency for controller inputs to be recognized, you might still have 10ms or more of latency between controller input and changes on-screen, even if your game is rendering at 500hz. This means you could get away with 100fps if you had zero latency. When your fps is 60hz and there’s 5 frames of latency, you don’t see responses to your controller until almost 100ms later(!).

It’s been about a decade since I was a game dev, but it’s wild to me that anyone would want 500 fps, or that any games would aim for that. This gives you a grand total of 2 milliseconds do to everything, gameplay + animation + physics + audio + rendering. It’s not a lot of time, and you have to compromise your visuals and rendering (by 10x!) in order to achieve that frame rate. Looks like a lot of new gaming monitors are 144hz, and these new 240/360/480hz monitors are pretty extreme and still a bit rare.

> I understand that some games purposefully limit FPS for physics calculations, but there are many that do not.

FWIW, this isn’t the way I’d frame it, it’s kinda misleading. Very few games are purposefully limiting FPS for the sake of slowing it down. All games, however, have a budget. There are always limited compute & render resources, and both game devs and players want the highest quality available for their budget. Until very recently most games aimed for 30fps, and only really fast twitchy games went for a relatively very smooth 60fps. The games that went for 60 had to cut their polygon counts and physics and gameplay in half in order to achieve high frame rate, so you are totally trading away a richer experience in favor of high frame rates. Only certain kinds of games should even try to do that.

No. Please don't spread this nonsense rumor. It hasn't ever been true and still isn't.

There are always diminishing returns, but human vision is perfectly capable of noticing the difference between 60 and say, 120. You can literally try this yourself just moving your mouse around on a 120Hz monitor and then capping the refresh rate. In general human vision is really complicated and not tied to any specific "speed".

Also, displays are more complicated. There isn't just a refresh rate, there's differing pixel responses at differing brightness and a variety of different processing delays all the way from the moment you put in some hardware input (like the mouse), to the final result. It's a huge chain.

The end result is that two 120hz displays can behave completely differently in terms of motion clarity.

Do you have sources that show otherwise and back up your claim that this idea is “nonsense”? I will dig up some scientific sources. Are you perhaps reading into my comment and not responding to what I said literally?

You aren’t really addressing what was main point: that fps throughput isn’t the reason for high frame rates in games. The primary reason for this happening is to decrease latency.

We wouldn’t need 500fps for games if we lowered the latency. Or at the very least, the benefits would be much lower. Reducing latency is a great reason to want high fps, but there are other ways to reduce latency.

You replied to the wrong comment, btw. I almost didn’t catch your reply.

Edit: links that discuss the measured speed of human perception:

http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/fr/fulltext.pdf

(Study is limited to 60 fps, but clearly shows the trend of diminishing returns.)

https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps

(Argues it’s higher than 60 for some tasks… up to 90 or 100fps.)

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/learn/60hz-vs-144hz-vs-240hz

“there are diminishing returns when it comes to the refresh rate. Most people can perceive improvements to smoothness and responsiveness up to around 240Hz; however, the difference between a 240Hz and 360Hz panel is so small that even competitive gamers might have a hard time telling them apart. If you have a choice between a 1440p 240Hz and a 1080p 360Hz monitor, you're probably better off getting the 1440p option, as the increase in resolution has a much larger impact on the overall user experience.”

https://www.neurotrackerx.com/post/5-answers-to-the-speed-li...

(Mentions seeing a single frame of color at 500fps. This is true! Humans can see a flash of light that’s much shorter than 2ms. For perceiving imagery and tracking motion, the available evidence shows little benefit to going higher than 120fps.)