PCPer on Crossfire problems in the Titan review

[Rikard]

and it's also not the situation i presented. i said 1/220 and with the images repeating, so as to not allow a "reset."

You have not specified how long the interval is between these 1/200 s-1 images, so I cannot tell from what you give me if the eyes have time to reset, nor if it is a relevant comparison to PCPER's example.

i agree that reaction speed is about 200ms. i don't agree that the resolution of determining if two stimuli are simultaneous is equal to that. neither does john carmack, and i'm willing to bet that a man who's received accolades from MIT among other prestigious institutes would write a thesis about input lag, latency, and motion sickness without doing a bit of due diligence.

http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2013/02/22/latency-mitigation-strategies/

Motion sickness in VR is different from what you suffer from due to input lag when using a screen and mouse, and cannot be compared like that:
http://youtu.be/O0arluK5zrQ
and

Like motion sickness brought on by planes and boats, simulator sickness seems to occur when there is a disagreement in the brain between what you're seeing and what your inner ear reports is actually happening. One theory about motion sickness posits that it occurs because the area postrema portion of the brain associates the visual/balance discrepancy with hallucination. Since seeing things that aren't there is often a sign of poison in the body, the brain tells the body to purge, unleashing the hot dogs.

How can you fix it? You might try sitting farther away from the screen so that it doesn't fill your field of vision. Also, experience often helps you get over it. It seems that after enough exposure to dizzying graphics, your brain learns that you don't die from poison every time you play a first-person shooter, and it lets you enjoy your fun.

try loading up a video in media player classic (that has the audio properly synced) and try delaying the audio 100ms with the offset/delay feature. you don't perceive a difference? i do.

You got me there. I took the 200 ms from what I read studio engineers where saying. Actually checking for myself, I see that my sensitivity is about 70-90 ms, so those are some lazy engineers!

 

[Rikard]

Bollocks, you avoided the MAIN object.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...of-perception/

I guess because you knew it would be above your own level of understanding.

No, because it is already OT and going into how the brain works in detail is not suited for this thread, nor this forum TBH. I would rather get some feedback on my proposal for how to reanalyze PCPERs data, since it needs no additional equipment or such.

You should go back and study harder...as you are totally missing the planet.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing if FPS is a useful metric, and if there are other metrics of larger relevance. But apparently we are discussing my university grades from the 90's, silly me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

No, because it is already OT and going into how the brain works in detail is not suited for this thread, nor this forum TBH. I would rather get some feedback on my proposal for how to reanalyze PCPERs data, since it needs no additional equipment or such.

Ignore reality because it dosn't agree with you is not very bright.
Vision is about much more than you percieve, sorry.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing if FPS is a useful metric, and if there are other metrics of larger relevance. But apparently we are discussing my university grades from the 90's, silly me.

Don't play holy now:

Is this the statement that makes you say I think that human vision works like a camera? The eyes are working quite similar to cameras mind you, but the brain is a very complicated piece that I deliberately avoided since it will be over your head and anyway off topic.

And you stance is wrong...no matter how much you try and appeal to you "education"

So the stance is:
Ignore relity if it helps AMD...brilliant!

Oversimplification FTL

 

[dqniel]

You have not specified how long the interval is between these 1/200 s-1 images, so I cannot tell from what you give me if the eyes have time to reset, nor if it is a relevant comparison to PCPER's example.

you're right. i didn't, so that's my fault. i meant for it to be inferred that it's a constant stream with as little delay as possible.

Motion sickness in VR is different from what you suffer from due to input lag when using a screen and mouse, and cannot be compared like that:
http://youtu.be/O0arluK5zrQ

it absolutely can be compared. you said motion sickness is due to mismatching of stimuli. that's true. you also said the brain/our eyes cannot resolve a difference below 200ms. that's not true,
because motion sickness in VR can be caused at much, much lower levels of latency. what causes the motion sickness in VR? a mismatch of stimuli- our head's movement (more specifically our vestibular system) vs our eyes' input. your proposed human resolution for minimum input lag being detectable and what we can, and sometimes don't want to, detect while getting motion sickness contradicts this.

You got me there. I took the 200 ms from what I read studio engineers where saying. Actually checking for myself, I see that my sensitivity is about 70-90 ms, so those are some lazy engineers!

voila. a large chunk of my point in pointing out the mistake in your post is finally admitted... sorta. it's absolute nonsense to believe that we can't detect discrepancies below 200ms.


what does this have to do with the topic? well, i gather from reading your original post and a lot of posts on this forum, and other forums, that people believe widely varying degrees of what humans can detect when it comes to vision, hearing, and movement. this disagreement between people means that the baseline from which arguments are made regarding stutter and framerates- the arguments regarding the quantitative point at which stutter or frame issues is a nuisance to gamers, how to effectively quantify and test for it, and how to minimize it, are all made from peoples' preconceived notion of human stimuli limitations. it's obvious that many of us disagree on the human limitations, so it's easy to see why people have varying opinions on the validity of this new approaches that TR and PCPER are taking to the issue.

 

[Rikard]

Ignore reality because it dosn't agree with you is not very bright.
...
So the stance is:
Ignore relity if it helps AMD...brilliant!

What part of OT do you not understand? The O? The T?
What does AMD have to do with my posts?

 

[Rikard]

you're right. i didn't, so that's my fault. i meant for it to be inferred that it's a constant stream with as little delay as possible.

Well that would be a delay that corresponds to the decay time of the receptors, hence ~10 ms. So with an infinitesimally short exposure (and infinite luminosity) you could theoretically see 100 Hz, ignoring all other effects. In reality it will be lower than that of course.

what does this have to do with the topic? well, i gather from reading your original post and a lot of posts on this forum, and other forums, that people believe widely varying degrees of what humans can detect when it comes to vision, hearing, and movement. this disagreement between people means that the baseline from which arguments are made regarding stutter and framerates- the arguments regarding the quantitative point at which stutter or frame issues is a nuisance to gamers, how to effectively quantify and test for it, and how to minimize it, are all made from peoples' preconceived notion of human stimuli limitations. it's obvious that many of us disagree on the human limitations, so it's easy to see why people have varying opinions on the validity of this new approaches that TR and PCPER are taking to the issue.

Agreed. So, do you have any opinion on my suggestion of how PCPER should present their results?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Well that would be a delay that corresponds to the decay time of the receptors, hence ~10 ms. So with an infinitesimally short exposure (and infinite luminosity) you could theoretically see 100 Hz, ignoring all other effects. In reality it will be lower than that of course.


Agreed. So, do you have any opinion on my suggestion of how PCPER should present their results?

You can actually see more...you keep ignoring that ~25% of the brain participties in visual processeing in the brain...most of it outside our consciousness..colors are processed in place, movement in another, object identification in another part.

And I love your excuse:

You got me there. I took the 200 ms from what I read studio engineers where saying. Actually checking for myself, I see that my sensitivity is about 70-90 ms, so those are some lazy engineers!

combined with this:

Is this the statement that makes you say I think that human vision works like a camera? The eyes are working quite similar to cameras mind you, but the brain is a very complicated piece that I deliberately avoided since it will be over your head and anyway off topic.

Foot in mouth eh?

You take flawed fata, make a conclusion...only to fall flat on your face.
How long ago did you study? ^^

 

[Rikard]

A word of advice, if you intend to derail a future thread by pretending to be a brain expert, it helps to know the difference between a brain and an eye. I tried to reason with you but it was a waste of time, since you only want to troll, so I hope you will be happier on my ignore list. (Second ignore in one thread, not bad...)

 

[Lonbjerg]

A word of advice, if you intend to derail a future thread by pretending to be a brain expert, it helps to know the difference between a brain and an eye. I tried to reason with you but it was a waste of time, since you only want to troll, so I hope you will be happier on my ignore list. (Second ignore in one thread, not bad...)

You think it a conincidence that some people perceive microstutter, while others don't?
You cannot take the human factor out of the equation, like some posters would like to and say "this number fits all!!!"

Our visual processing is the reason why some of us can percieve microstutter.
Aka:
The human brain.

All graphics does it to trick the brain into seeing something that isn't really there...introduce microstutter and some of us pick it up at very low values.
Bring up the values and more and more will notice it, untill the point were everyone can percieve it.

Your reaction time number are irrelvant, as the flag is raised BEFORE we are conscious about what we are seeing...and able to react to it.

It's complicated for sure...but oversimplifying the topic...or using it as an escape after a premature appeal to authority just dosn't cut it.

 

[Goatsecks]

You two are ruining this thread. Some one needs to gag you animals.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

You two are ruining this thread. Some one needs to gag you animals.

There have been 4 decent threads ruined in the last week by him. People getting along, and posting on topic. It's beyond just simply trolling certain individuals. Must be trolling AT Forums just to ruin them.

 

[Lonbjerg]

There have been 4 decent threads ruined in the last week by him. People getting along, and posting on topic. It's beyond just simply trolling certain individuals. Must be trolling AT Forums just to ruin them.

So the plan is to whine about me, since I do not violate the rules...because my arguments touched you in a bad place?

That is constructive :hmm:

What was it you were accusing me of again?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

So the plan is to whine about me, since I do not violate the rules...because my arguments touched you in a bad place?

That is constructive :hmm:

What was it you were accusing me of again?

I haven't seen any legitimate arguments. Just the ramblings of a unbalanced person with too much time on their hands.

 

[Shmee]

Knock it off guys. Anyways, a question for the experts? Are the "crossfire problems" worse with 7950s than with 6950s? If so, I may want to stay with my unlocked 6950s in CF. If not, I would upgrade, as I have no problems with my current CF setup.

 

[BrightCandle]

Knock it off guys. Anyways, a question for the experts? Are the "crossfire problems" worse with 7950s than with 6950s? If so, I may want to stay with my unlocked 6950s in CF. If not, I would upgrade, as I have no problems with my current CF setup.

We just don't know. Through all this no one has shown any frame time traces of 6000 series cards believe it or not! How about you capture a frame trace of our 6950's with fraps in Hitman on high and skyrim with matching settings to techreport and we'll have a data point for comparison with latest drivers but older hardware.

Indicatively I found that the 5970 was better than the 2x7970's. Except for the winter before they came out I had a lot of performance problems with the 5970, much of it profile related but even then many games didn't feel smooth that had months before. My feeling was that it was VRAM limitations but it could have been a problem introduced 18 months ago in the drivers.

Test it, post some images and we'll see

 

[Shmee]

Interesting. I would be willing to bench BF3 or crysis 1 or 2 on this rig, though I am not really sure how to do that with fraps. I will give it a try though, hope I don't need to pay anything for it

 

[UaVaj]

perception = reality.

 

[Keysplayr]

There have been 4 decent threads ruined in the last week by him. People getting along, and posting on topic. It's beyond just simply trolling certain individuals. Must be trolling AT Forums just to ruin them.

Which brings us full circle back to:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2303767

 

[Black Octagon]

Agreed. So, do you have any opinion on my suggestion of how PCPER should present their results?

I would like to see this question explored further (ideally starting with a response from the person to whom the question was addressed)