Comment on Steam Deck OLED announced
MudMan@kbin.social 7 months agoYou're not driving the display at 90fps, so a 90 fps container for 30-45 fps content is actually not bad at all, and it should feel pretty smooth even with minor fps drops.
People think VRR is magic sometimes, but it doesn't work well with all types of content. For handheld you're often going to be driving at low fps a high refresh rate can be more relevant sometimes. VRR on top of everything else would be nice, but it's definitely not a must.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Oh. I don’t want to really go down that rabbit hole, but I think the 90 hz display is completely unnecessary considering the use case of the steam deck. Likely just a function of the oled.
And I do think setting a target refresh rate is probably better in the long run. It encourages people to optimize their performance settings and provides a target.
But also? Fluctuations and “running at the limits of your system” are where VRR IS magic. You never have to worry about artifacts that occur from being on the wrong multiple (especially with the math for why 40 Hz is better than 30 AND 45 for a 60 Hz display…). And that is largely where the Deck lives.
I don’t think VRR is essential for the Steam Deck. But I do think it is a “no brainer” that I assume is only not there because of how the (kind of ridiculously) low resolution OLEDs were sourced.
MudMan@kbin.social 7 months ago
I don't know what VRR windows you get on handheld displays these days, but at 30fps it shouldn't be super useful compared to vsynced 90Hz. 90 is 11ms intervals for your next frame, and if you're pushing the hardware at ~30fps you may have bigger swings between frames in VRR (e.g. you could have 8ms between two frames and 28ms between the next two), which still reads as stutter, with or without VRR.
So it's not as much of a no-brainer as you may think. That's basically the same reason Lenovo insiders gave for why the 1600p 144Hz panel in the Lenovo Legion GO is also not VRR. In that case it makes a bit more sense because that's just 7ms between refreshes, so you may genuinely struggle telling the difference between that and VRR if you're rendering less than 60fps.
I think Digital Foundry does a lot of good advocacy and educational content, but sometimes they get hung up on pet peeves and give people the wrong impression about which buzzwords are important on which contexts.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Of course Lenovo are going to have marketing for why them saving money is actually better for the consumer. That is just how marketing works. If Valve were at all competent at it, they would be doing the same.
VRR doesn’t stop stutter. But it helps a lot when you have those gradual fluctuations. Think “If I look up, my FPS drops by 20%”. At which point you no loner have to worry at all about multiples to avoid screen tearing or all of that annoying stuff. All of which is REALLY nice when you are at the limits of your system. Whether that is pushing 100-144 FPS or 20-40 FPS. It won’t make it look like it is running perfectly, but it very much helps a lot and there is a reason that VRR is one of those “most noticeable hardware improvements” you can get.
And can we please skip out on the “Oh, people just don’t notice improved graphics and refresh rates anyway” nonsense? I realize the Steam Deck is a handheld, but this isn’t a Nintendo Switch thread.
MudMan@kbin.social 7 months ago
FWIW, LTT seems to have asked about VRR and they hypothesize, based on the answer, that they're sourcing from the same place as Nintendo and that is limiting the VRR option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVXqoVi6RE
But my point stands in that you're thinking about the target spec of the display, not the games. There IS a difference between 20-40 and 100-144 fps. First, because it's a lot harder to keep a steady rate at 7ms frame budgets and second because the sense of stability doesn't have the same demands.
And yes, it's a perceptual thing. Some people will be more sensitive than others, but I would feel comfortable showing a 28-30 fps clip to people on a 144Hz vsync and a VRR display and asking them to spot which is which. Simply put the gaps in miliseconds between those two things are going to be too similar to tell apart. I know because I've tried. I have 100, 120, 144 and 165 fps displays, both VRR and vsynced. I've messed around with this for a long time for fun and profit.
I have no question that VRR would be a slight improvement, but I'm also not surprised that at these levels of speed and size both Lenovo and Valve decided that it wasn't worth to chase VRR compared to the high refresh alternative. That gels with my own experience.