NVIDIA Demonstrates Experimental “Zero Latency” Display Running at 1,700Hz

[Lethal Seraph]

17 hours ago, DocSwag said:

 1700 is just a total waste.

Who says this technology is only limited to games? 

[ShadowCaptain]

Sony are like "we are releasing the PS 5000000000000"

[Senzelian]

23 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Sony are like "we are releasing the PS 5000000000000"

PS Over 9000*

[RagnarokDel]

18 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

nVidia G-Sync + nVidia display technology = nVidia display port 7.0, can you run 4K at 2000hz?  

In all seriousness this is extremely interesting, but I doubt zero-latency.  There's likely some latency, no matter it's probably extremely low, and 1700hz is incredible if true.  I'd like to see them get that on an actual monitor.  That'd be a great exclusive reason to keep buying nVidia.  G-Sync, OLED, 1ms Display-latency across the board, 200-1700hz refresh rate.

Of course there's a latency but there's a point where console peasants are right and you wont be able to perceive it. In the  case of some jet fighters, they're able to distinguish an image changing for as little time as a 1/200th of a second. 

 

ps: The human still doesnt see in frames per second.

[TetraSky]

Now we just need a GPU that can actually display games at that framerate.

[Master Disaster]

21 hours ago, Majestic said:

Yes, that is the bloody point

That exactly what I thought too, the fact we perceive no latency is exactly because its refreshing faster than we can see.

[Blackie Sheen]

On 2016-04-07 at 11:35 AM, DocSwag said:

Zero latency? Cool, though I'd like to see some real testing for that.

1700 hz? Too be honest, I don't give a crap about that. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that we can't see 1700 hz. The old thing about us only being able to see 24 fps is definitely pretty untrue, but I think that in VR our goal should be in the 200-300 fps range. That would look pretty fluid to me. 1700 is just a total waste.

Its not about seeing frames, its about not noticing the transition between frames. The higher it, the harder it is to notice frames therefore the smoother it is.

 

Our eyes capt light as long as light is emitted in its direction. The only thing is that the higher the fps means, the light stream seen from the display looks like constant flow of light

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Blackie Sheen said:

Its not about seeing frames, its about not noticing the transition between frames. The higher it, the harder it is to notice frames therefore the smoother it is.

 

Our eyes capt light as long as light is emitted in its direction. The only thing is that the higher the fps means, the light stream seen from the display looks like constant flow of light

Yeah, I know, but it seems to me that 240 fps would deliver pretty fluid motion.... The max we might need is maybe 500 or 600. 1700 really probably isn't needed. Our eyes would see the motion as pretty clear long before that.

 

Just look at the Rift and Vive. 90 fps doesn't deliver a great experience, but if that is enough for the most part, then chances are 1700 is way overkill.

[Blackie Sheen]

30 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Yeah, I know, but it seems to me that 240 fps would deliver pretty fluid motion.... The max we might need is maybe 500 or 600. 1700 really probably isn't needed. Our eyes would see the motion as pretty clear long before that.

 

Just look at the Rift and Vive. 90 fps doesn't deliver a great experience, but if that is enough for the most part, then chances are 1700 is way overkill.

I know 1700 would be overkill but it is only a prototype. This prototype is probably way to expensive to ever be marketed as a standard solution. Not only that, no current common display solution would be able to render complex animations at this sort of refresh rate anyway.This prototype is only made to show off the technology. Once they release consumer displays using this technology, the displays will probably be limited around 500-600 fps.

 

Nevertheless, there can surely be applications for displays with refresh rate as high as the prototype that the common individual cannot think off

[DocSwag]

53 minutes ago, Blackie Sheen said:

I know 1700 would be overkill but it is only a prototype. This prototype is probably way to expensive to ever be marketed as a standard solution. Not only that, no current common display solution would be able to render complex animations at this sort of refresh rate anyway.This prototype is only made to show off the technology. Once they release consumer displays using this technology, the displays will probably be limited around 500-600 fps.

 

Nevertheless, there can surely be applications for displays with refresh rate as high as the prototype that the common individual cannot think off

True, that is a good point. I can't think of anything else capable of more than around 200-300 hz.

[EmeraldKiwi]

On 4/7/2016 at 3:38 PM, Stefan1024 said:

I can controll an RGB LED with a PWM of >1 MHz.

Give me a good FPGA and I will make you a display ith 1 000 000 FPS and ~10x10 pixels.

Now that is a display that I want to buy! Seriously though that would be almost useless.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Take that consoles!

[VerticalDiscussions]

On 07/04/2016 at 4:31 PM, SurvivorNVL said:

-snip-

And a beautiful 10000€ price tag

[EmeraldKiwi]

Will someone do the math to find how many pixels per second a GPU would have to work at 1080p 60 fps, and then compare that to 1080p 1700 fps? I am curious to know actually what kind of horsepower a card would need to process this kind of refresh rate.

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, EmeraldKiwi said:

Will someone do the math to find how many pixels per second a GPU would have to work at 1080p 60 fps, and then compare that to 1080p 1700 fps? I am curious to know actually what kind of horsepower a card would need to process this kind of refresh rate.

Well, it's actually very easy to do the math.

 

To get pixels per second, you first calculate how many pixels appear on the screen for one frame:

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 (just over 2 million pixels, or 2 Megapixels (2 MP)

 

Then you take the number of pixels per frame, and you multiply that by frames per second

2,073,600 * 60 = 124,416,000

 

So with 1080p@60, you have 124.4 million Pixels per second (Or 124 Megapixels per second).

 

Now we take the same math, and just up the framerate:

2,073,600 * 1700 = 3,525,120,000

 

So with 1080p@1700, we have 3.5 billion pixels per second being transferred. Video signal cable technology is not even remotely close to being able to handle that kind of bandwidth. You might be able to do it with some sort of cable bonding process, or with custom made cables and controllers, but nothing even remotely close to what I've seen.

[EmeraldKiwi]

On 4/12/2016 at 4:14 PM, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

 

So with 1080p@1700, we have 3.5 billion pixels per second being transferred. Video signal cable technology is not even remotely close to being able to handle that kind of bandwidth. You might be able to do it with some sort of cable bonding process, or with custom made cables and controllers, but nothing even remotely close to what I've seen.

Well props to this guy. But holy cow that is a LOT of pixels. I guess we're just going to have to wait for Display Port 4725. Or HDMI 102874. Even then, we will need a GTX 9000000Ti to even push that kind of stuff.