Looked like it was reasonably quick in the demo.

200ms is five frames/changes per second, and is definitely very noticeable. You may be thinking of a figure closer to about 12ms or so, which is the approximate threshold of perception for audio lag.

iPhone X's front camera shoots at 60fps

You can notice sub-200ms lag, but for when you aren't specifically watching for lag or firing a series of rapid events one-after-another, sub-200ms seems to be roughly the point where it "feels instantaneous."

In my experience a little under 100ms "feels" instantaneous.

Definitely noticeable in gaming, 200ms is unplayable.

Depends on how the game is tuned to handle it. Somehow we all played Quake / UT back in the day with that kind of ping.

FaceID with lag compensation! As soon as it sees a face it starts to unlock based on a fast prediction, then if the authoritative secure side of the chip says "No, authentication actually failed" it rolls back the clock and relocks itself!

200ms can refer to network latency, input latency, frame render time, etc.

That's absolutely not true. I can tell the difference between 60 hz (16ms) and my 144 hz monitor. I can tell when my 144 hz monitor is accidentally running at a lower refresh rate, including 120, 100, 75, and 60.

200 ms is like a full react/response time for a human to take action in response to input, our actual sense of time is much finer than what our nervous system can make our muscles do.

That's not lag though, that's refresh rate.

The question is could you tell the difference between your 144hz monitor and your 144hz monitor with the signal delayed 100ms.

Good monitor reviews include a test of the delay. 3 frames delay (<100 ms at 60hz) is absolutely atrocious and easily detected by players in games.

But of course, that's not the problem. It's ok that the phone doesn't unlock with out me noticing the delay. It just can't be so long that I start doubting whether it works.

I notice a 1 frame in 60hz delay (<17ms) when comparing vsync on vs. gsync @ 57 fps. I'm sure many other video gamers will as well.

Yes. You'd feel quite drunk even controlling the mouse pointer with 100ms lag. This was/is actually a problem with some LCDs (VA in particular) that cached a frame or two in order to "anticipate" future changes so that they could adjust the voltage and make the image transition faster.

This overdrive is probably also the cause of burn-in-effects that seems to be especially common in VA panels.

I think almost everyone playing games could.

Is that because of the faster refresh rate, or because none of those divide evenly into 144 and thus you're getting weird frame stretching?

Curious as I just got back into gaming after several years and everyone seems to love 144fps now, wondering if I should upgrade. I have a 1080Ti, so I could presumably render that

G-sync my dude. No frame stretching/sync tears.

Ah, I was just wondering if running a 144hz monitor at 60hz was like watching a 24fps movie at 30fps... if that makes sense? But the monitor can just switch its actual refresh rate.

Yeah, it'll really trick.

Upgraded to a 165hz G-Sync panel recently and it was a revelation after running at a v-synced 60hz for years and years.

Order the 1080TI about a week later as the 970 I had wasn't cutting it at 1440p.

If you've got a 1080TI you likely don't need gsync - it's only really useful when you're running slower than native refresh rate.

When native is 165hz...

I actually find most modern games run at about 90-110fps with what I would consider "good settings".

Even if you turn settings way down 165 is really hard to maintain.