VehiclesFashionRecipesBlogsHuntTravelsSportFunHandmadeITEducation
Mini-Games
x

x
zakruti.com » IT - Software » Gamers Nexus
Overhauling System Latency Test Methodology (NVIDIA Latency Analyzer Validation)

Overhauling System Latency Test Methodology (NVIDIA Latency Analyzer Validation)

FBTwitterReddit

video description

Rating: 4.5; Vote: 2
This video serves a referential deep-dive for our future total system latency (we're coining TSL) testing methodology, including NVIDIA Latency Analyzer/Reflex validation and LDAT testing. This is a testing methodology deep-dive that reviews and analyzes NVIDIA's new LDAT tool for latency testing. Specifically, the tool is meant as an easier-to-use replacement for the traditional high-speed camera system -- but because NVIDIA makes it, and because it can be used to test NVIDIA and competing products, we need to perform first-party validation on its trustworthiness. Fortunately, this tool can (1) be completely isolated such that it does not have any means of knowing what GPU is installed in the system, and (2) can be validated against standard high-speed camera approaches. We recently ran a piece where we conducted hundreds of test passes on a 1000FPS camera, and behind-the-scenes, we were also conducting those test passes on LDAT. It qualified. In this piece, we reran recent Google Stadia latency benchmarks (people often call this input latency, but it's really end-to-end total system latency) in order to verify that LDAT doesn't do anything tricky to cheat data. In our testing, it appears that LDAT produces clean, untweaked data that is just as reliable as high-speed camera methods, but much faster. Further still, our validation testing in this content shows the impressive accuracy of the old-school method of frame counting even with all the many variables in between, like slower refresh rates on some cameras (our previous method used a 240FPS camera, and then we updated to a 1000FPS camera for the CPU comparisons).
Date: 2020-09-08

Comments and reviews: 10


QC technician here: if you want higher precision you should look at the traceable calibrations of every instrument you use. If you can trace their calibrations back to a NIST standard that is calibrated by NIST, you can verify the uncertainty of all of your measurements. This does NOT mean you need a NIST calibrated timer, photometer to measure light detection and universal time of the event. Rather if you can validate that every measurement device has been calibrated against a standard device ( a device either calibrated by NIST or a device at NIST) and has a serialized calibration ID and a relative error (uncertainty) issued, you can increase your repeatability and confidence in your actual margin of error.
reply

Just because there isn t software trickery doesn t mean it s fair to use an Nvidia tool for testing Nvidia cards. Because they use the same tool internally, they may accidentally tune their cards to do better in the precise way the tool measures latency. For example, if the tool measures pixel changes in the middle of the screen, and nvidia were to render frames from the middle out, they would do better than the competition that renders from the top down.
That specific example is unlikely but the concept behind it still stands

reply

So, when testing for latency, you are taking the average? But, when the CPU benchmarks that were run by the third party company used an average, that was not ok. Not trying to be facetious, or an asshole here. Legitimately just asking a question to better understand a few things.
reply

I really appreciate how open you guys are about your methodology. It's also good for you guys to have something to point people to when they ask the same question hlas 50 other people.
Thank you for being an outlet that I really feel like I can trust the data and the analysis

reply

Hey steve ! Do you think the prices of the 30cards will increase after the first two or three months ? I really don't want to buy any card early (before the reviews) but i'm afraid it will go higher than what i can afford
reply

Better off with a dual trace digital scope and measure time between both traces, or use a frequency counter with two inputs ie start finish, dont forget switch bounce
reply

Google: Let's just call it negative latency, no one will know or put in the effort to actually validate our claims.
Steve: Let's make a video about latency.

reply

Great vid once again Steve i really like how you do your testing, feels like there's way more effort than alot of other content creators on the platform
reply

My favorite part is how heavily they direct this tech toward online gamers... without ever acknowledging internet connection speeds, ping, etc...
reply

I hope initiatives like Nvidia Reflex and the latency analyzer will lead people to care about actual latency instead of marketing latency
reply
Add a review, comment






Other channel videos