Does the size of the monitor affect FPS?

[fastman]

All things being equal will a larger screen have a lower FPS than a smaller sceen?

 

[sandorski]

No. Only Resolution would affect that.

 

[Fallengod]

Yeah, a higher resolution would definitely affect fps, but not the monitor size itself.

 

[deimos3428]

Technically yes...insignificantly. You won't notice and the electronics won't either.

Light takes ~12 ns to travel that extra inch. So if we assume a base 60 fps on the smaller display, that's 16666667 ns per frame.

Adding another 12 ns delay puts us at 16666679 ns per frame, for a *pathetic* 59.9999556 fps.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Yes and no, it depends on the resolution and whether you play at the maximum possible one.

 

[Powermoloch]

It's not the size of the screen that dictates performance hit, it's the resolution.

 

[KingFatty]

Technically yes...insignificantly. You won't notice and the electronics won't either.

Light takes ~12 ns to travel that extra inch. So if we assume a base 60 fps on the smaller display, that's 16666667 ns per frame.

Adding another 12 ns delay puts us at 16666679 ns per frame, for a *pathetic* 59.9999556 fps.

Light travels about one foot in one nanosecond, so it would take 1/12 of that to travel an inch, or 0.08333 ns, much less than the ~12 ns you used in your calculations. I think that would throw off your calculation, but what are you calculating?

I think the electrical signals going to the screen, and the light traveling to your eye, are orders of magnitude faster than the FPS switching of the screen, to the point where the difference is so vast they can be assumed to be instantaneous and any increase in screen size would be ignored as the travel time would still be assumed to be instantaneous compared to the FPS switching of the screen. But that's very cool to actually work out the math using speed of light and screen distance etc.

 

[deimos3428]

Light travels about one foot in one nanosecond, so it would take 1/12 of that to travel an inch, or 0.08333 ns, much less than the ~12 ns you used in your calculations. I think that would throw off your calculation, but what are you calculating?

I may have divided where I should've multiplied somewhere in the conversion from metric. Anyway, the difference is tiny but not zero.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Having played BF3 and all my major games on both my 23'' 1080p monitor and 37'' 1080p,there is no performance drop of any kind on the t.v.

 

[imaheadcase]

Not that it matters, every god damn monitor is now a pathetic 1920x1080.

Monitor makers have gone full retard.

 

[imaheadcase]

Having played BF3 and all my major games on both my 23'' 1080p monitor and 37'' 1080p,there is no performance drop of any kind on the t.v.

Thats because you are going from monitor to a tv.

 

[FalseChristian]

I go with a 30" monitor to get that .000001 fps extra.

 

[MrTeal]

I may have divided where I should've multiplied somewhere in the conversion from metric. Anyway, the difference is tiny but not zero.

That's still not correct. If I broadcast out a 700kHz radio signal from a tower here and it gets picked up halfway around the world, they might get it a couple seconds later than I sent it, but it's still 700kHz.

Likewise, if it takes the signal a couple extra picoseconds to reach the edge of the screen on a 24" vs a 20" 1080p, that would create a lag. However, it would create the same lag for every subsequent write to that pixel, and the actual frames drawn per second would be the same.

 

[JTsyo]

That's still not correct. If I broadcast out a 700kHz radio signal from a tower here and it gets picked up halfway around the world, they might get it a couple seconds later than I sent it, but it's still 700kHz.

Likewise, if it takes the signal a couple extra picoseconds to reach the edge of the screen on a 24" vs a 20" 1080p, that would create a lag. However, it would create the same lag for every subsequent write to that pixel, and the actual frames drawn per second would be the same.

this is true. The screen refreshes as a whole not in parts for each frame.

 

[KingFatty]

this is true. The screen refreshes as a whole not in parts for each frame.

However, the refresh is transmitted to you via light. The light from the middle of the screen travels a shorter distance to your eye than the light from the edge of the screen. That gets worse as the screen gets bigger.

So even though the whole screen can refresh all pixels simultaneously, the farther away a pixel is from your eye, the more lag there will be for that light to reach your eye.

Like how light from the sun takes about 8 minutes to reach earth. If your screen were that big, you'd be sitting right in front of the middle of the screen and that light would reach you approximately instantly. But, the edge of the screen way out by the sun would take 8 minutes. So your FPS for that big-ass screen would be limited to one frame per 8 minutes hahah which works out to, I believe, 1 frame per 8*60=480 seconds, or 0.00208333333333333333333333333333 FPS.

So really, you should all downsize your screens, who wants that visual lag degrading the simultaneous electrical refresh of all the screen pixels?

 

[MrTeal]

Like how light from the sun takes about 8 minutes to reach earth. If your screen were that big, you'd be sitting right in front of the middle of the screen and that light would reach you approximately instantly. But, the edge of the screen way out by the sun would take 8 minutes. So your FPS for that big-ass screen would be limited to one frame per 8 minutes hahah which works out to, I believe, 1 frame per 8*60=480 seconds, or 0.00208333333333333333333333333333 FPS.

No, it wouldn't. Let's simplify here and say your big ass screen and computer are right next to the sun, pointed at the Earth.

At t=0, the monitor displays frame 1. At t=0.016667s, it displays frame 2. At t=0.033333s, it displays frame 3... at t=1s, it displays frame 61.... etc.

Now back on Earth, you don't see anything. Then at t=480s, you see the first frame. At t=480.016667s you see the second frame. At t=480.033333s you see the third frame, etc. It's still 60 FPS.

 

[96Firebird]

No, it wouldn't. Let's simplify here and say your big ass screen and computer are right next to the sun, pointed at the Earth.

How would you power them? You would need a lot of extension cords piggy-backed.

:biggrin:

 

[MrTeal]

How would you power them? You would need a lot of extension cords piggy-backed.

:biggrin:

Use the solar cell from one of those cheap calculators. If you were a million km from the sun, the solar constant would be 31MW/m^2. Even if your little 1cmx5cm cell was only 10% efficient that's still 1.5kW.

A better question is how many NH-D14s do you need to cool it?

 

[KingFatty]

No, it wouldn't. Let's simplify here and say your big ass screen and computer are right next to the sun, pointed at the Earth.

At t=0, the monitor displays frame 1. At t=0.016667s, it displays frame 2. At t=0.033333s, it displays frame 3... at t=1s, it displays frame 61.... etc.

Now back on Earth, you don't see anything. Then at t=480s, you see the first frame. At t=480.016667s you see the second frame. At t=480.033333s you see the third frame, etc. It's still 60 FPS.

Your scenario appears to create an assumption that I disagree with - or it is disregarding an important point that perhaps I was not specific enough with: that you "see" an entire frame simultaneously.

That is incorrect for large screens. You cannot see all parts of one frame simultaneously.

On a sufficiently large screen that flashes one big frame simultaneously, you will see the light arrive from the screen at your eye at different times, depending on how far apart that part of the screen is from your eye.

Thus, if you are sitting on top of the part of the screen that is near the earth, with your eye pressed to the screen, light from the part underneath your eyeball will arrive at your eye almost instantaneously, synchronized with the refresh of that frame. However, light from another part of the screen is still in transit and has not yet reached your eye, even though the refresh already occurred. Like the part of the screen way far away from your eye near the sun. That would take 8 minutes to reach your eye, even though the screen already refreshed 8 minutes prior to arrival of that light.

So, my point is that for large screens, you get a light-in-transit-to-eyeball delay that cannot be avoided except by getting a smaller screen (or have the edges of the screen predict the future and pre-display future frames that you haven't even thought to create yet depending on which way you twitch your mouse/keyboard in the next several minutes that would need to be predicted).

 

[Ben90]

A better question is how many NH-D14s do you need to cool it?

You need 4 to bring it from a hot yellow sun to a cool blue sun.

 

[MrTeal]

Your scenario appears to create an assumption that I disagree with - or it is disregarding an important point that perhaps I was not specific enough with: that you "see" an entire frame simultaneously.

That is incorrect for large screens. You cannot see all parts of one frame simultaneously.

On a sufficiently large screen that flashes one big frame simultaneously, you will see the light arrive from the screen at your eye at different times, depending on how far apart that part of the screen is from your eye.

Thus, if you are sitting on top of the part of the screen that is near the earth, with your eye pressed to the screen, light from the part underneath your eyeball will arrive at your eye almost instantaneously, synchronized with the refresh of that frame. However, light from another part of the screen is still in transit and has not yet reached your eye, even though the refresh already occurred. Like the part of the screen way far away from your eye near the sun. That would take 8 minutes to reach your eye, even though the screen already refreshed 8 minutes prior to arrival of that light.

So, my point is that for large screens, you get a light-in-transit-to-eyeball delay that cannot be avoided except by getting a smaller screen (or have the edges of the screen predict the future and pre-display future frames that you haven't even thought to create yet depending on which way you twitch your mouse/keyboard in the next several minutes that would need to be predicted).

That is true, you will get a position dependent lag, where the center pixels would be seen before the pixels at the periphery. However, that still wouldn't change the fact that you would not see a drop in FPS with the larger monitor. The pixels are still switching at the same speed, what you describe would be an aberration of the image, but it wouldn't change the speed at which the image is switched.

Now, if you wanted to recompile the driver so that you could select that as a parameter and the driver would only update as often as you could get a consistent image where you observe all the pixels as being from the same image, then you would have to artificially cap the frame rate. You would see the image update from the center outward, and when the outer edge finally updates then start the new frame. Only then would you be limited in framerate as you calculated, and even then you could mask that by delaying the center pixels to maintain a 60FPS or whatever you want, at the expense of 8 minutes of lag. That's not an option planned for any driver release that I know of though, so as far as the original question goes, it wouldn't affect the frame rate.

 

[deimos3428]

Um...I have to apologize for completely derailing the thread at this point. It was supposed to be a joke, albeit a geekish one. And yes, I flubbed the maths.

 

[KingFatty]

So then, a sufficiently large screen will have a limit to the FPS apparent to the viewer, due to time lag caused by the finite speed of light?

But for the FPS actually displayed by the screen, however, to technically not be affected by the size of the screen, you'd need to assume the electrical signals can be sent to the pixels and synchronized, but they would also be affected by time lag and light speed limits for electric signals? But as with the delay-compensation, you could do the same sort of trick to get the pixels all synched up even though it would take minutes to transmit the on/off signal from the computer to the pixel?

 

[Ben90]

I'm going to get even more technical and add Universal Expansion into the equation. This will slow the perceived framerate of the outside pixels. The farther something has to travel, the more it will redshift.

In the extreme of our theoretical monitor laying outside of the observable universe, perceived frame rate will be zero.

So technically, monitor size does affect framerate

 

[cantholdanymore]

That is incorrect for large screens. You cannot see all parts of one frame simultaneously.

That's true if you're pixel peeping