Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It is literally impossible to respond to input in 10ms on most platforms, for various reasons. The USB input lag of 12-30ms and the 60Hz refresh rate of most monitors being just the first two.


I stand corrected.

I looked it up and it is .1 seconds (100ms)

The basic advice regarding response times has been about the same for thirty years [Miller 1968; Card et al. 1991]:

- 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.

- 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.

- 10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users will then not know what to expect.

from Jakob Nielsen:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-...

less readable but the original paper:

https://www.yusufarslan.net/sites/yusufarslan.net/files/uplo...


That’s the prevailing statistic, but your original number isn’t that wrong either:

Humans can perceive much smaller latencies.

If you look at the Card & Miller reference, at least some humans can perceive differences in ~50ms vs 100ms latencies when typing (in my limited testing, it’s likely you can!). There’s some newer research I don’t have handy that I believe found error rates decreased and NSAT improved until around at least 30ms (if not 20ms).

On that note, humans can definitely distinguish 60hz vs 120hz reliably (about 8ms faster per frame).

Even faster: with a reference (eg when dragging on a touchscreen), humans can distinguish down to at least 1ms vs 10ms of latency: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4

And you can probably distinguish metronomes that are off by about 1-2ms. Much smaller for other things (like metronomes that slightly slower or faster than one another).

This is a special interest of mine XD


"The human eye can see 39620Hz": https://youtu.be/Sb_7uN7sfTw


60Hz monitors definitely prevent it, but I'm pretty sure USB lag is far less than 12-30ms. My USB mouse can make a round-trip to a remote server faster than that.


Out of curiosity, how did you measure mouse roundtrip with sub-12ms precision?


> The USB input lag of 12-30ms

How'd you get that number? USB defaults to polling at 125Hz and a lot of devices go at 1000Hz (or higher). The rest of the pipeline should be a fraction of a millisecond. I guess bad debouncing hardware can add a lot more, but that's far from USB's fault.


It's mostly due to OS-level USB stacks being quite terrible for latency for the most part, especially on Windows. Though I might've misremembered the exact numbers.


this is also why 60 hz refresh rate is all but dead outside of console gaming (not to mention 1000hz poll rate devices being the norm)


"Most" includes standard issue corporate hardware for office drones, bottom of the barrel laptops bought as gifts to children, and ultra cheap Android phones in developing countries.


absolutely not, try finding a 15" 4K OLED with a refresh rate other than 60Hz


there are plentiful OLEDs in 4k with refresh rates from 100Hz to 480Hz. your problem is a small size problem. 15” is targeted more towards portable work monitors, not gaming in 2026


that 4K monitor has touch and pen support too. and it was $300. you'd be hard-pressed to find such a thing for $3,000 and even then you wouldn't have high refresh rate




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: