A lot of people are holding legacy grudges about issues that have long since been fixed.

NVIDIA drivers used to be absolute hell on Linux, now they work decently well outside of some specific, older, hardware. But, if you listen to social media commentors (the source of all wisdom), you'd think that trying to boot a Linux machine with an NVIDIA card is literally(-figuratively) suicide.

So I skimmed the actual article, not sure if the author said this, but my guess as to why Wayland has a ... worse reputation generally in the latency department, than seems to be deserved?

At least for myself, there was a significant period of time where ... XWayland was the only way to actually run whatever game, on my system, with/via Wayland.

If this kind of thing was not just myself, and was generally common... well then XWayland = Wayland -> Wayland sucks.

Totally not biased

VRR on every monitor/TV I’ve tried is flickery, outside of games.

And even with games its best to be mindful of the VRR range.

If you're familiar with the setup and play something where latency matters (competitive FPS and rhythm games cone top mind) I guess it might be enough to their you off your game.
But on an unknown system, where you have no comparison, I'm not so sure.

I guess 3ms would not be noticeable to most people.

It would be interesting to see how this behaves at lower refresh rates. Loosing the same 1 or 2 frames at 60/144 Hz should be noticeable.

3ms by itself prolly not. But it adds up, if you add input lag, monitor lagetc.

They haven't

Wtf no 100ms is absolutely unacceptable. Anything over 30 ms becomes easily noticeable. You can feel the difference between preformance dlss (30ms added latency) and 60 on quality. 10ms difference is whatever but its one part of a stack and it can compound if every part of the stack neglects latency optimisation

I will absolutely notice it in rhythm games, but everything else my brain auto compensates and I don't even notice

But the results… calling something “bad” for 3ms of latency is a bit ridiculous. That’s only significant to a cat, to us larger meat sacks 100ms would be blazing fast reaction speed, making 3ms negligible. For an average person it means even less.

You are conflating reaction time and response time. They are very different things.

Yes, your reaction time is in the 100s of miliseconds, but it doesn't take much of a delay in the response to your reaction before it becomes perceivable, and the response time is what was measured here.

If you have ever played rhythm games, then you may be aware that some of them have settings that allow you to offset the delay, such that your pressing a button at the exact same time as the note plays is also registered as happening at that time, even though it took some additional time for the input to reach the game. Without such a setting, you intentionally have to press buttons early (how much depends on your setup) to ensure that your input registers at the right time. A delay of 100ms would be extremely obvious

It's not that you will necessarily perceive that latency in any meaningful way, but in a competitive gaming setting, a few ms of latency means you react a few ms later, which means your opponents get a few extra ms.

I mean 3ms is very good, and nothing to worry about IMO. Pretty sure Windows isn't any better either. Either way, in a competitive setting, every ms counts.