this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
471 points (86.6% liked)

PC Master Race

14975 readers
143 users here now

A community for PC Master Race.

Rules:

  1. No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No NSFW content.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.
  5. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.

Notes:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wieli99@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I had an error in my calculations, read comments below for correct math

[–] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

1000 (milliseconds in a second)/140(hz) = ~7.14ms per hz

Not sure how you got 30ms being twice as fast as what a 140hz monitor can display.

[–] __dev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

AptX LL indeed has ~30ms of latency at the cost of bitrate, but last I checked it's not supported by Windows out of the box. It's also been generally dropped in favor of the higher latency AptX Adaptive due to requiring a dedicated wireless antenna. The default experience of Bluetooth is still >200ms of latency. Also 30ms is 4.2 frames at 140Hz.