RME dac filter for competitive gaming

[ShiZo]

I haven't done it for awhile. Looks like I'm hitting 16 ms right now having not practiced or maybe I'm just getting older lol.

 

[MediumRare]

I just tried the reaction test using an iPad & WiFi to Xfinity. My times were embarrassingly long. Can I blame it on my setup?

 

[ShiZo]

Yeah, it makes a big difference what you're using.

I think the top score holders use old crt monitors tbh.

 

[Tks]

This is a non factor. Also these "human benchmark" scores are skewed and unreliable for gaming purposes. These sorts of tests only take into account binary actions awaited while you're fully focused on the awaited signal.

In gaming you have multi-factor decision making that needs to be taken into account, and you never know if and when/what sort of action you're going to be performing for example in a recent FPS title. Likewise you're not sitting there just waiting to press a button, your brain is in fact needing to make calculations like target tracking, mouse movement to get to the target, and only then firing.

And this is all before the fact you're receiving tons of informational stimuli about your setting that is constantly changing, and attention that is constantly being diverted due to sounds, images, and perhaps even teammate coordination.

So unless you're willing to go to extreme lengths like buying older PS/2 mouse and keyboard for full inturrupt that beats 1000Hz polling rate of USB mice for instance, a VGA compatible CRT monitor running at 120Hz+ refresh rates (not common, nor cheap to find any in good condition anymore), latest PCI-E and memory channel controllers with highest throughput support that will be used when loading your game fully into RAM volatile memory through a RAMDisk for example.. Also a CPU over clocked to something like 5Ghz, and a 2080Ti for example to be sure no bottleneck exists, and frametime variance is kept to an absolute minimum when running at breakneck framerates.

You're really not going to see any performance change. The stats people present with these humanbechmarks can easily be doubled depending on genre for example.

If you doubt my thoughts on the matter, try recording some of your gameplay, and see for yourself frame by frame how long it takes you to react to things. I would even guess you can easily double these scores to 300ms and that would still be pretty good by many standards. But it depends on the game, so I'd be interested in knowing what game you're thinking of when this idea popped up.

EDIT: I forgot one thing. Your network connection. You may have to relocate your home if you're playing an online game. Gonna need to go hunting for server hub closest to you.

 

[zermak]

So unless you're willing to go to extreme lengths like buying older PS/2 mouse and keyboard for full inturrupt that beats 1000Hz polling rate of USB mice for instance

About that: check this from Battle(non)sense. So a USB gaming keyboard with 1000Hz polling rate and a good controller/electronics beats the PS/2 interrupts.

 

[captain paranoia]

Looks like I'm hitting 16 ms right now having not practiced or maybe I'm just getting older lol.

You seemed to be hitting 156 to 159 ms last year. If you're hitting 16 ms now, that's quite an improvement... Or did you mean you're hitting 160 ms now...?

 

[Tks]

About that: check this from Battle(non)sense. So a USB gaming keyboard with 1000Hz polling rate and a good controller/electronics beats the PS/2 interrupts.

I saw that long ago, and I agree. Granted my commentary was to satisfy OCD in an overall sense (going with the most reliable hardware for the task, not simply fastest, which is why I spoke about getting a 2080Ti which would be useless practically speaking since the bottlneck would never be the GPU if FPS was the end-goal). I also jumped the gun technically, what I should've said is PS/2 beats USB, but you would need to hold polling rate constant, that was a clear mistake. But naturally 1,000Hz polling would be best in terms of raw metrics between each interface type, the only problem is, USB controllers get bogged down depending on overall load of the system and random background threads. Sometimes in games or even in software (like video and photo rendering processes) you have issues where you just drop inputs completely. It's the same ordeal that leads to problems with audio at times. That, I never recalled happening with PS/2 peripherals.

Also with respect to keyboards (since I moved on after getting Realforce keyboard, and leaving the "hobby" completely), polling rate was rarely if ever mentioned back then in advertising material, so I'm not sure how much it is now. Speaking of the past.. since PS/2 died before it ever progressed to stable overclocks, likewise with mice and keyboards ability to do the same. PS/2 devices died before it they ever progressed to stable overclocks, let alone the ones achived by USB like 250, 500 and 1000.

Thinking about it more.. PS/2 Mice would be stupid to use. The sort of optical sensors and the polling rate as well, makes up for any inherent PS/2 advantages. You were right, thanks for correcting me.

 

[zermak]

I saw that long ago, and I agree. Granted my commentary was to satisfy OCD in an overall sense (going with the most reliable hardware for the task, not simply fastest, which is why I spoke about getting a 2080Ti which would be useless practically speaking since the bottlneck would never be the GPU if FPS was the end-goal). I also jumped the gun technically, what I should've said is PS/2 beats USB, but you would need to hold polling rate constant, that was a clear mistake. But naturally 1,000Hz polling would be best in terms of raw metrics between each interface type, the only problem is, USB controllers get bogged down depending on overall load of the system and random background threads. Sometimes in games or even in software (like video and photo rendering processes) you have issues where you just drop inputs completely. It's the same ordeal that leads to problems with audio at times. That, I never recalled happening with PS/2 peripherals.

Also with respect to keyboards (since I moved on after getting Realforce keyboard, and leaving the "hobby" completely), polling rate was rarely if ever mentioned back then in advertising material, so I'm not sure how much it is now. Speaking of the past.. since PS/2 died before it ever progressed to stable overclocks, likewise with mice and keyboards ability to do the same. PS/2 devices died before it they ever progressed to stable overclocks, let alone the ones achived by USB like 250, 500 and 1000.

Thinking about it more.. PS/2 Mice would be stupid to use. The sort of optical sensors and the polling rate as well, makes up for any inherent PS/2 advantages. You were right, thanks for correcting me.

I see your point and well I like the PS/2 idea considering that it uses a key pressing as an interrupt action (as it is indeed) but hardware moves on and USB is mature enough to give us better performance (according to the tests provided before) and usability (LEDs, macros, media controls and so on).
And well on the mouse side USB always won against PS/2 becasue of the obvious different way of working.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Should I be using the minimum phase filter for gaming for faster response time?

All my other gear is built for speed but the linear sharp filter seems like it is better for the sound, but bad for delay in response time of the sound.

lol, you get the edge other others in fps games by practicing your aiming and reflexes by playing a lot and building muscle memory, not by using a dac filter.

t. fps gamer who got the grips on the genre playing starsiege tribes and quake 3 arena and gamed on crappy hp and bose pc speakers.

 

[Koeitje]

I have tested .15 to visually react and press a button. I've gotten faster, but that's pretty much my average.

https://www.humanbenchmark.com

try it out.

My monitor is 1ms for real though. Real world I think i do get 3ms in overwatch though. So to get your monitor to run 1ms real world isn't possible.

1ms is impossible, the fastest monitor you can buy right now has a refresh rate of 240hz which means a little bit over 4 ms between frames being updated. This excludes any input lag or pixel response times.

 

[21qz]

What headphones you guys pairing with for gaming?

 

[ShiZo]

1ms is impossible, the fastest monitor you can buy right now has a refresh rate of 240hz which means a little bit over 4 ms between frames being updated. This excludes any input lag or pixel response times.

My monitor measured 2.8 ms total input lag. One of the fastest ever tested. 1ms was gtg.

 

[Koeitje]

My monito.r measured 2.8 ms total input lag. One of the fastest ever tested. 1ms was gtg.

At 240hz you get served a new frame every 4,17ms. This has nothing to do with input lag or gtg response. Its just how often the screen updates.

 

[ShiZo]

At 240hz you get served a new frame every 4,17ms. This has nothing to do with input lag or gtg response. Its just how often the screen updates.

What do you mean this has nothing to do with input lag and gtg? Those are the only specs I mentioned.

All I care about is input lag, which is how fast I see an input or my reaction appear onscreen.

 

[Koeitje]

What do you mean this has nothing to do with input lag and gtg? Those are the only specs I mentioned.

All I care about is input lag, which is how fast I see an input or my reaction appear onscreen.

You are responding to my posts like my 4ms statement is wrong, which it isn't.

 

[mansr]

You are responding to my posts like my 4ms statement is wrong, which it isn't.

I think you're talking about different metrics. Refresh rate is not equivalent to latency. Even with a high refresh rate, the monitor might buffer several frames, resulting in a much higher latency than the frame interval. The 2.8 ms figure probably refers to the delay between image data entering the HDMI/DP port and the corresponding pixel updating on the display. The actual (worst-case) latency from a software event to image update is the frame rate _plus_ the display latency. With the numbers thrown around above, that comes out to nearly 7 ms.

 

[Koeitje]

I think you're talking about different metrics. Refresh rate is not equivalent to latency. Even with a high refresh rate, the monitor might buffer several frames, resulting in a much higher latency than the frame interval. The 2.8 ms figure probably refers to the delay between image data entering the HDMI/DP port and the corresponding pixel updating on the display. The actual (worst-case) latency from a software event to image update is the frame rate _plus_ the display latency. With the numbers thrown around above, that comes out to nearly 7 ms.

I know I'm talking about different metrics . But its the end result that matters.

 

[ShiZo]

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/rog-swift-360hz-pg259qn

That one is 360 hz and has an input lag of 1.6ms.

 

[ShiZo]

I know I'm talking about different metrics . But its the end result that matters.

It's my understanding having more than 2x the refresh rate of the monitor in fps helps with buffering frames increasing latency. It was a good excuse to upgrade my cpu and graphics card lol.

 

[Koeitje]

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/rog-swift-360hz-pg259qn

That one is 360 hz and has an input lag of 1.6ms.

Yes, and it shows a new frame every 2,78ms.