Really cool research. Overall, X11 still wins compared to Wayland(kwin) but only by 0.14 - 0.22 ms. The really bad performance hit is from XWayland which added 3.13 ms.
What a thing to worry about. I applaude the effort it is an interesting project.
But the results… calling something “bad” for 3ms of latency is a bit ridiculous. That’s only significant to a cat, to us larger meat sacks 100ms would be blazing fast reaction speed, making 3ms negligible. For an average person it means even less.
To me the message is gaming on Linux is in really good shape as far as input lag.
It’s not that you will necessarily perceive that latency in any meaningful way, but in a competitive gaming setting, a few ms of latency means you react a few ms later, which means your opponents get a few extra ms.
I mean 3ms is very good, and nothing to worry about IMO. Pretty sure Windows isn’t any better either. Either way, in a competitive setting, every ms counts.
Wtf no 100ms is absolutely unacceptable. Anything over 30 ms becomes easily noticeable. You can feel the difference between preformance dlss (30ms added latency) and 60 on quality. 10ms difference is whatever but its one part of a stack and it can compound if every part of the stack neglects latency optimisation
Whenever US players find themselves on one of the AU hosted World of Warcraft servers with 200ms latency they can’t stop complaining about how awful the game is to play.
It takes you ~100-400ms just to blink… No, you have a placebo effect on latency. You have been trained by marketing to “feel” the difference.
I think if anything, a response time with frame rate, BFI, and other technologies can be perceived as faster or slower. I remember watching my first 120hz TV for a movie… 24fps x 5 = 120hz so I worked out to be really smooth. 24 x 2.5 = 60hz so it wasn’t really “good looking” perspectively for an uneven fps/refresh rate, even if the 60hz monitor/TV had better specs, the way the 24 fits the 120 made appearance better.
Blinking has no relationship with input latency. Its not speculation people who play games universally agree that latency is noticeable. Put some on a game at a lan then put them in an online match at 140ms and you won’t find a single person who doesnt notice.
I’m not saying it does. I’m just saying your argument of 30ms being noticeable is null as blinking is ~10x that.
Anyway your new argument is online competitive play where Ethernet might have 30ms server RTT vs someone with 140ms wireless, sure, bc even if your reaction time is 100ms better than the other guy, he still has a 10ms advantage over you, minimum.
Anyway, now we’re all over the place. Look at the figure given in the article that gives a higher level of Total latency
End to end system latency on a good system is around 15-30ms. I’m saying that I can absolutely tell the difference between end to end system latency of 15-30ms and 60-75ms. Its pointed out and noticed constantly by players and reviewers its one of the biggest strikes against dlss and other framegen. The 100ms network example was an extreme one to highlight that its noticeable even though its “only a blink of an eye”.
If any part of the stack increases input latency it quickly degrades the experience. Lucky 10ms on an already very efficient system does not make Wayland a deal breaker but if that was 30ms difference it would be.
Average visual reaction time is ~15ms, but for sound it’s 5-8ms. That means that it can definitely be sensed, but nothing different than a slightly more laggy monitor.
No it’s not, lol. Science considers reacting faster than 100ms impossible, Olympic sprinting rules consider that the false start limit and you get disqualified for starting faster.
Go ahead, try to beat 100ms: https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/
No matter how fast you think you are there are physical limits to information distrubution in a biological machine.
