On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:03:11 +0200, Uwaysi Bin Kareem said:
Even after reading your link, it's unclear why 3956 and not 4000. All your link
said was "A granularity below 0.5 milliseconds, seems to suit the human
senses." - anything over 2000 meets that requirement. Also, if your screen
refresh is sitting at 72hz or a bit under 14ms per refresh, any jitter under
that won't really matter much - it doesn't matter if your next frame is
ready 5ms early or 5.5ms early, you *still* have to wait for the next vertical
blanking interval or suffer tearing.
There's also the case of programs where HZ=300 would *make* the time budget,
but the added 3,356 timer interrupts and associated overhead would cause a
missed screen refresh.
I think you need more technical justification of why 3956 is better than 1000.