Echtek - Technology Consulting > Blog > FPS

The Truth behind HDMI Cables Revisited

July 26, 2017 Support, Technology No comments yet

It’s been 3 years since I posted my first post about Monster HDMI Cables and it’s gotten a lot of good feedback and I thought I should revisit the topic and maybe update some thoughts. (You can read the original post here)

Since typing the first post 3 years ago I have since gotten a 4K TV and with the proliferation of 4K, this is the perfect time to revisit this topic.  I will start out by saying, my initial thoughts on the different types of cables remain the same: I still would not purchase a Monster Cable or other overpriced “name brand” HDMI Cables.

I think I should explain a little about the Types of HDMI Cables that I didn’t get to do last time.

Currently the main standards of HDMI Cables you’ll see are 1.4 and 2.0.

HDMI version 1.4 2.0
Date initially released May 28, 2009 September 4, 2013
Maximum pixel clock rate (MHz) 340 600
Maximum audio throughput (Mbit/s) 36.864 36.864
Maximum color depth (bit/px) 48 48
Maximum consumer resolution over single link at 24-bit/px 3840×2160p/30 Hz

4096×2160p/24 Hz

 4096×2160p/60 Hz
Maximum consumer 3D resolution over single link at 24-bit/px 1920×1080p/24 Hz 1920×1080p/60 Hz

4096×2160p/24 Hz

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI)

 

I removed some of the other rows but if you want to see them go over to the wiki page that I pulled this table from.  Essentially, without explaining too much about the specifications, you can see a lot of the numbers are either the same or close.  The 2.0 standard will support 60 Hz at 4K, which in TV talk means that it’s displaying your picture at 60 frames per second (FPS).  Something to note though is that movies are recorded at 24FPS, and not 60.  So technically you aren’t going to get any better quality picture from the increased ability on the 2.0 standard if you are watching movies or TV.  Where the 60FPS becomes important is if you do gaming on your TV.  That being said, if you are buying HDMI Cables, definitely look for the 2.0 standard and not the 1.4 standard.

The other difference you’ll notice is the Pixel Clock Rate.  Pixel Clock Rate is the speed at which the pixels are transmitted over the HDMI Cable.  The clock rate has to be fast enough to fill the entire screen within the refresh cycle.  So the 2.0 standard moves the pixels at a maximum speed of 600 MHz (or 600,000,000 pixels per second). For comparison purposes, a 4K screen has 8,294,400 pixels.  So you can see, HDMI 2.0 can handle 4k without blinking an eye.

The HDMI Cable Bottom Line:

As long as the cables you are buying adhere to the HDMI Standards, they will work to that specification.  So a Monster Cable, while being super flashy in its packaging, won’t perform any better than a non-name brand cable that meets the HDMI Standards.  In fact, if you read their website (https://www.monsterproducts.com/support/learning-center/hdmi/differences-in-hdmi-cables) it is VERY vague on why their cables are better.  The only thing of any substance is that if the standard is not met, the cable may not work correctly which is true, but doesn’t make Monster Cables any better or worse than any other cable that meets the standards.  

Have any personal experience with the different types of cables?  Let me know below!

Read More

Starwars Battlefront Beta (PC) Thoughts

October 9, 2015 Gaming, Support No comments yet

The hype surrounding Star Wars Battlefront has been crazy over the past year.  With everything ramping up to the public beta that started yesterday.  The question is: does the game match the hype?  So far I am pleased to say that it does.

My main concern was that the game was going to end up being a re-skinned Battlefield 4 so my expectations going into the beta was pretty low.  I had tried to avoid watching too many gameplay videos as to go into it with a clear mind.  I am happy to report the game is definitely not a reskin.  In fact, to my surprise, it plays almost nothing like Battlefield.

 

Before we start, the specs of the computer I was playing on:

Geforce GTX 780 Ti

Intel Core i7 – 4770k @ 3.50 GHz

16 GB RAM

ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q @ 2560×1440, 144Hz

Windows 10 Pro

 

In the video below, I captured my first round playing Drop Zone.  Immediately, the game looks visually stunning.  The space / air battle going on above the play area is a beautiful touch and it also comes with it’s own sound effects.  I actually sometimes found myself almost confused as to what sound was enemy fire and what sounds were just ambient noise (which may just be that I don’t have a firm enough grasp on the nuances of blaster fire).

I definitely went into it with the Battlefield mindset.  I was using my iron sight / scope all the time and I assumed that crouching would make me more accurate.  Both of these assumptions were wrong.  There is no benefit to crouching other than to make you a smaller target and the accuracy between the scope and hip fire is not changed at all.  This changes the way you play the game.  Close range is hip fire 100% and mid to long range is scoped but even then, you don’t really have to.  In the video you can tell I didn’t realize this at first and probably had a lot more deaths than I should have.  The other little gameplay thing is that the laser beams actually take a bit of time to reach the target which really changes how you have to aim but on the upside you can really see exactly where you’re hitting.

The audio design is amazing, it sounds like it’s real (if blaster rifle’s were a real thing and wars were fought between the Imperials and the Rebel Alliance).  Even the transition between screens fades out like the transitions between scenes in the movies.  It’s little touches like these that make the game a pleasure to play.

The unlock system is really good.  Guns and Items unlock based on player level (you gain experience for playing and finishing games).  Once unlocked, you can use credits to buy them and use them.  Credits are accumulated at the end of games.  When you finish a match, the game divides your total experience earned in that match by 10 and that’s how many credits you get.  I’m not sure if that is the math that will be used in the final release but it seems to be pretty fair.

All of the items are referred to as cards and you can hold a max of 2 cards and one upgrade card (ie. Ion Shot for your blaster).  It looks like you’re going to be able to preset a few “hands” and be able to swap them back and forth depending on what you feel like doing (like a loadout in Battlefield games).  The guns are not classified as cards and you simply buy them when they unlock.  It looks like there are really no secondary weapons in Battlefront (ie. Pistols).  So far there is only a card that will give you a sniper rifle that acts like a second weapon.  I’m sure in full release there will be a ton of cards to unlock and play around with.

 

A few gripes:

  • You obviously don’t have to reload a blaster rifle but I constantly found myself hitting “R” to reload.  Muscle Memory is a hard thing  to break.  I just hope it doesn’t affect my Counter Strike.
  • On Drop Zone, there is no visual queue when the enemy is capping a pod, HUD or emote by the player.  This I found vaguely annoying because then everyone that even comes close to the pod needs to be shot and tactically that makes it hard to protect the pod.  They need to add a countdown HUD display or actually have the character look likes he’s punching buttons or something.  
  • The position of the radar is in the bottom left corner and almost all other shooters i’ve played the radar is in the top right corner.  Not sure why that design choice was made.
  • I hate third person view, but if you play competitively (not sure how much of that there will be) you will have to either turn it off or just use it all the time.  The problem with third person is that is gives you a much wider range of vision and even allows you to peer over cover and around corners, so a person playing in 1st person view is almost at a disadvantage.
  • No prone.  I don’t know why they chose to not include it.

 

Nasty Bug:

  • After the first match, I kept playing (see the video below) and my game started to stutter and skip around, almost like I was dropping frame rate.  It got so bad the game became unplayable.  I thought it was due to Shadowplay so I stopped recording but the stutter wouldn’t go away.  It was so bad I couldn’t navigate around the menus and I had to just open the task manager to close it.  I left the task manager open to troubleshoot and went back into the game and now it was just stuttering from the very moment I opened the game.  I noticed that my processor usage was at 100% and holding steady.  So I closed the game and the processor went back to normal.  Opened the game again and it spiked back up to 100%.  Frustrated, I closed Origin and opened it back up then went into the game and there was no stuttering.  Then I thought the Origin Overlay was causing it so I turned off the in-game overlay and continued to play.  I finished and then went to go play some Starcraft 2 and Starcraft 2 started to stutter and my processor again was at 100%.  I closed Origin and it went back to working normally.  I can’t say for certain what the issue is, but it’s got something to do with Origin and Battlefront.  I just hope they fix it in the final release.

 

Overall I am very pleased with the state of the game and am looking forward to playing the final release.  Until then, may the force be with you!

 

 

Read More

Playstation 4 vs Xbox One Controversy

November 7, 2013 Gaming, Technology No comments yet

Being that the big thing on the internet right now is the XBONE vs PS4 controversy, I figured I’d weigh in.

Something that is interesting to note is that I’ve read a ton of different blogs, gaming websites, etc… and all of them assume that people know certain things inherently.  A big term I see being thrown around is “Up-scaling” or “Up-converting”.  What exactly does that mean?

We’ll take Call of Duty Ghosts as the example here.  CoD: Ghosts runs 1080p natively on  the Playstation 4 but is up-scaled from 720p on the XBox One.  Essentially what that means is that the xbox video is being enlarged to reach the 1080p mark.  So think about the following analogy:  You have a picture and you enlarge it to post on your wall.  The more you enlarge it, the more distorted it becomes.  Essentially, when you upscale a video you are doing the same thing.  How good it ends up looking has a lot to do with the size of your TV.  On a 32” TV the difference wouldn’t be as noticeable as it would be on a 72” TV.

I would post a comparison video or pictures but the underlying truth is…  the difference is not going to be that noticeable.  I could get into the technical jargon which may prove that yes, looking purely at the numbers, there is a difference.  However, where the difference really matters is at the point where you are playing the game and at least for me, I can’t really tell the difference.

The other comparison going around and what the next gen console games are touting is the coveted 60 frames per second (FPS).  It can be argued that a game running at 30 FPS looks just as good as a game running at 60 FPS.  A really good example can be seen here:

Shown from that example, the 60 FPS does in fact look smoother.  Another example can be seen here:

The video example shows something interesting.  The difference is more noticeable when you slow down the video but at normal playing speed there is barely a noticeable difference.  Let’s go back to gaming though.  This example is taking from Sleeping Dogs:

Can you see a difference?  Now take a look at F1 2013 running at 30 FPS:

Can you see a difference?

The FPS argument is one that changes based on the person.  Some videophiles claim to be able to notice the difference more drastically than a non-videophile which is why you see so many arguments all over the internet regarding this topic.  As a typical gamer though, my purchasing of a console or game wouldn’t be changed solely based on the fact that a game was developed to use 30 FPS vs 60 FPS.

With all that being said I personally will still be purchasing both next gen consoles.  Something that gets overlooked is the fact that these consoles are just coming out and the optimization is not the best yet.  Being that both the XBox One and Playstation 4 are almost identical in specifications the question is why the huge difference?  It can be explained by the optimization process that currently exists.  The optimization processes may not be fully developed yet and as time goes on the games will look and perform better.  To give this a visual: http://kotaku.com/the-ps3-had-12-games-at-launch-heres-what-they-looked-513396910 .

So in the XBONE vs PS4 battle, I fall somewhere in the middle.  We’ll see how that changes once I get my hands on the two consoles and have some time to really dig into them.

 

Read More
Social
Recent Posts
Archives