found out why the PS4 is so responsive

[Anarchist420]

I had been wondering why the PS4 seemed so responsive when I was playing around with one in a gamestop for a few minutes. And I just found out why... it turns out that the polling rate for the PS4 controller is 4 ms or as low as 1 ms in some cases which is like the only tech edge a console has had over the PC in a long time (and that is due to microsoft continuing to ruin PC gaming by imposing its console's ****ty standards on us)[1]. So I dont even know why Microsoft bothered making a new controller for the Xbox One if they werent going to change the polling rate. On top of that, the Xbox One controller's Dpad clicks and is stiffer than a teenage male's dick when they wake up in the morning.

Anyway, hasnt anyone else here noticed a huge difference in responsiveness between microsoft controllers and the PS4 controller?

 

[Anteaus]

I think you thought it was more responsible because you were playing through a computer monitor which are low latency compared to TVs. The only time I've noticed controller lag on any console was due to my TV. Switching to gaming mode cured that. Both consoles' controllers provide great polling rates. In practice, the controller is one area the XB1 is technically better, though not due to physical controller design. The XB1 uses wifi direct instead of bluetooth and has numerous advantages, but in this case the most important being frequency (up to 5 Ghz versus 2.4 Ghz) and data transfer (250 Mbps versus 25 Mbps). Frequency matters because higher frequency equals better response and transfer matters because of headsets and potentionally any other wireless devices that might come out such as cameras.

Sony didn't even put Bluetooth 4.0 in the PS4 and instead used the older 2.1 whch only widened the gap. The point being that the DS4, by design, can't be any more responsive than last gen while wifi direct offers increased response. Compared to Bluetooth 4.0, wifi direct is superior in most categories. Compared to Bluetooth 2.1 which is in the PS4, there is no contest. The PS4 has some major trump cards versus the XB1, but controller wireless technology isn't one of them.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think you thought it was more responsible because you were playing through a computer monitor which are low latency compared to TVs. The only time I've noticed controller lag on any console was due to my TV. Switching to gaming mode cured that. Both consoles' controllers provide great polling rates. In practice, the controller is one area the XB1 is technically better, though not due to physical controller design. The XB1 uses wifi direct instead of bluetooth and has numerous advantages, but in the case the most important being frequency (up to 5 Ghz versus 2.4 Ghz) and data transfer (250 Mbps versus 25 Mbps). Frequency matters because higher frequency equals better response and transfer matters because of headsets and potentionally any other wireless devices that might come out such as cameras. Sony didn't even put Bluetooth 4.0 in the PS4 and instead used the older 2.1 whch only widened the gap. The point being that the DS4, by design, can't be any more responsive than last gen while wifi direct offers increased response. Compared to Bluetooth 4.0, wifi direct is superior in most categories. Compared to Bluetooth 2.1 which is in the PS4, there is no contest. The PS4 has some major trump cards versus the XB1, but controller wireless technology isn't one of them.

I played it neither wirelessly nor on a monitor.

 

[Anteaus]

I played it neither wirelessly nor on a monitor.

You said you played at Gamestop. They use computer monitors on those demo displays.

 

[purbeast0]

there is no noticeable difference between the two consoles as far as controller lag goes. i've had both since launch and am very perceptible of input lag because i play fighters and those games require minimal input lag.

and while i'm not sure if it was the game or system, ps3 sf4 had more lag then xbox360 did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyrwGA5GND0

i agree with anteaus that it was the display. try playing ps4 on a dlp from 10 years ago (a tv i had). it'll feel like 100ms delay (because it's close to that) regardless of what game you play.

 

[BrightCandle]

The few milliseconds of latency in transferring from the controller to the device really aren't going to matter when your total latency is in the region of 100 milliseconds anyway. Most times when people notice a response change its because the TV is scaling the image and going really slowly.

FYI PCs can poll at 1000hz of they like, mouse latency is driven by the game frame rate and in general with 60+ fps you get significantly lower latency on a PC.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

What the hell are you on about? Gaming peripherals for the PC have use a polling rate of 1000hz or fixed 1ms for something like a decade. The first mouse I had that did this was the Razer Boomslang, you could unlock the polling rate of USB in windows with a hacked driver file, and many of the pro gamers did this.

It was only a few years later where we saw mice that supported 1000hz out the box with sensors capable of keeping up. So yeah...you're like 10 years late with 1000hz polling, but nice try.

Any latency you feel is more likely from display lag as TVs make really bad display devices for real time control, that's why PC gamers tend to prefer high speed 1ms monitors.

 

[smackababy]

ITT: Op states he can feel a 4ms response rate in a game where the frame is updated every 16.6 ms (assuming it was running at 60fps)...

Back to P&N please, A420.

 

[Anarchist420]

You said you played at Gamestop. They use computer monitors on those demo displays.

I thought it was a Sony TV.

and while i'm not sure if it was the game or system, ps3 sf4 had more lag then xbox360 did.

the ps3 controller had 10ms, the xbox360 controller was 8ms.

What the hell are you on about? Gaming peripherals for the PC have use a polling rate of 1000hz or fixed 1ms for something like a decade. The first mouse I had that did this was the Razer Boomslang, you could unlock the polling rate of USB in windows with a hacked driver file, and many of the pro gamers did this. It was only a few years later where we saw mice that supported 1000hz out the box with sensors capable of keeping up. So yeah...you're like 10 years late with 1000hz polling, but nice try. Any latency you feel is more likely from display lag as TVs make really bad display devices for real time control, that's why PC gamers tend to prefer high speed 1ms monitors.

You're talking about mice, I am talking about gamepads.

FYI PCs can poll at 1000hz of they like, mouse latency is driven by the game frame rate and in general with 60+ fps you get significantly lower latency on a PC.

true, but the Xbox360 controller is stuck at 8 ms.

ITT: Op states he can feel a 4ms response rate in a game where the frame is updated every 16.6 ms (assuming it was running at 60fps)... Back to P&N please, A420.

well then i dont know why it feels so responsive. perhaps i could tell a difference between 20.6 and 24.6, but my mouse clicks are a lot more responsive than my (wired) xbox360 controller is. and if there was a gamepad that was 1ms then it would probably make a noticeable difference in my setup compared to the 8ms xbox360 controller (added to 13.33ms vsync, ~2.5ms signal processing and the most the pixel response would be is about 24 with an average of 12.5ms probably; 1ms controller would be a total of ~29ms total lag, 8ms means 35ms total lag with my setup so that is ~16% difference). if i didnt have vsync on, then a 1ms controller would make total input lag almost 1/3 less than the xbox360 controller makes it. we should be striving for less input lag without sacrificing anything else to do that rather than accepting things the way they are.

 

[Anteaus]

I guess the long and short of it is, everything else being equal, any response time difference between a PS4 controller and a XB1 controller should be imperceptable. The technological argument is that it is impossible for the DS4 to have better response times than the XB1 controller purely because of its use of Bluetooth 1.2 (same as PS3/XB360).


The real world argument is that, discounting physical characteristics of each controller, response time can't be percieved at the rates in which we use them today. The big however, is that if someone has been playing on a display with higher latency and then played on a display with lower latency, there will be a perceptable improvement in the experience. In other words, I believe the OP when he/she says that the PS4 seemed smoother. I just think it has less to do with PS4 tech and more to do with the display setup.


To be fair it would be easy to confuse a tv with a PC monitor in those cases. First off, plenty of PC monitors come with integrated speakers and Sony makes some themselves. Custom configurations are not uncommon. Second, the reason they do use them is because PC monitors are more cost effective, offer lower latency on average, and do full RGB out of the box. Basically, it helps games look their best which by extension helps sales.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think you thought it was more responsible because you were playing through a computer monitor which are low latency compared to TVs. The only time I've noticed controller lag on any console was due to my TV. Switching to gaming mode cured that. Both consoles' controllers provide great polling rates. In practice, the controller is one area the XB1 is technically better, though not due to physical controller design. The XB1 uses wifi direct instead of bluetooth and has numerous advantages, but in this case the most important being frequency (up to 5 Ghz versus 2.4 Ghz) and data transfer (250 Mbps versus 25 Mbps). Frequency matters because higher frequency equals better response and transfer matters because of headsets and potentionally any other wireless devices that might come out such as cameras.

Sony didn't even put Bluetooth 4.0 in the PS4 and instead used the older 2.1 whch only widened the gap. The point being that the DS4, by design, can't be any more responsive than last gen while wifi direct offers increased response. Compared to Bluetooth 4.0, wifi direct is superior in most categories. Compared to Bluetooth 2.1 which is in the PS4, there is no contest. The PS4 has some major trump cards versus the XB1, but controller wireless technology isn't one of them.

Which doesn't matter when you actually play the game because you won't actually notice the difference at all.

When you use wired controllers on a fighting game side by side or with proper tools to measure input lag and response time from the same display, maybe.

 

[cmdrdredd]

there is no noticeable difference between the two consoles as far as controller lag goes. i've had both since launch and am very perceptible of input lag because i play fighters and those games require minimal input lag.

and while i'm not sure if it was the game or system, ps3 sf4 had more lag then xbox360 did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyrwGA5GND0

i agree with anteaus that it was the display. try playing ps4 on a dlp from 10 years ago (a tv i had). it'll feel like 100ms delay (because it's close to that) regardless of what game you play.

It had/has more input lag. Supposedly it has 1 frame more lag than the arcade. The 360 has 1 frame less lag than the arcade and on PC you could match the arcade with vsync or surpass the 360 with no vsync and deal with screen tearing. I think this is due to the system itself, but I never could find this out for sure.

the ps3 controller had 10ms, the xbox360 controller was 8ms.

Wired Arcade sticks don't have the same type of lag as wireless devices. The frame delay is usually measured using wired devices from what I understand.

 

[Drako]

Anyway, hasnt anyone else here noticed a huge difference in responsiveness between microsoft controllers and the PS4 controller?

I have a PS4 and and Xbox One. You are incorrect - there is not a huge difference in response time between the controllers.