Fastest response time widescreen monitor for gaming?

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 04 Dec 2008, 11:19

I'm looking for the FASTEST response time monitor for gaming, the plan is to cut down the time it takes the signal to leave the xbox 360 for my eyes to see it. (I believe this would also include having a fast input lag - I heard that VGA has a faster input lag response than HDMI due to less processing of the image)

Preferably a widescreen monitor over 19" would be nice, I've seen many monitors advertise fast response times, but I've read that alot of it is hype, does anyone trully know which is the fastest monitor?

Thanks

Post by **Abram** » 04 Dec 2008, 16:46

2ms is the number I've seen representing response time, but I've compared side3-by-sdie 2ms and 5ms, and I cun't see a difference. ANd I've a pretty good eye for such things.

I've read that 2ms is actually slightly fake-o and is really 5ms... so I'd say either will do. Or be paranoid about it and grab a "2ms". They're pretty common. A better thing to watch for is little backlight bleed, where teh light from teh lamp seeps out of the edges. I really ruins gaming experience - especially dark and moody games.

DVI vs VGA is pretty negligble, but HDMI is waht you want. And you usually get what you pay for when it comes to LCDs. THough if your budget is lwoer, Acers seem pretty good for what you pay.

LG, Samsung, Benq, Dell al make higher-end eisplays and all the ones Iv'e seen have been pretty good.

Good time to shop, too, with post-xmas sales.

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 04 Dec 2008, 19:41

I don't think you need response time. It sounds like you need a low input lag.

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 04 Dec 2008, 22:39

Input lag is defiantly what your wanting

Check out these charts
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=174&p1=1747&ma2=47&ph=12

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 05 Dec 2008, 02:51

Input lag is defiantly what your wanting

Check out these charts
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=174&p1=1747&ma2=47&ph=12

On the pull-down tab in the middle where it says "Delay compared with a CRT", is this referring to the input lag?

When it says the response time at the bottom for the monitor under 'specifications', I take it that I just add the input lag and the response time together to get the total time for the image to reach my eyes from the xbox? Or is it more complicated than that?

One more question DaFox - this Belinea monitor at the right side of that webpage, was that the fastest input lag + response time total you've found on that site? Or was it just randomly selected?

Thanks in advance.

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » 05 Dec 2008, 03:05

No it is both combined.

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 05 Dec 2008, 03:16

No it is both combined.

Just to clarify, you mean the chart accounts for response time aswell, so it's the total time for the signal to reach your eyes? So even though that Belinea in that link says 3ms max image delay, and the spec is 5ms response, that 5ms number is incorrect?

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » 05 Dec 2008, 03:59

The testing method used it both displays are fed the same image of a stop watch simultaneously and then a photo of both screens with minimal exposure time is taken and the numbers displayed on both screens are compared.

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 05 Dec 2008, 19:33

Anyone know what the name of the program is that displays a clock on your screen so you can measure the input lag of a monitor? (shown here) :

http://prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-lg-l227wt-part12.html

Post by **Tamlin** » 05 Dec 2008, 22:58

Moved to correct section. :)

Prad.de uses "Virtual stopwatch pro" I think.

Response time is how fast the screen in average uses to change colors. Compared to a CRT which have to draw the image constantly, a LCD always stays lit. 5ms means it takes 5ms in average to turn from one shade of color to another. The same screen can have two response times listed in their specs. Grey to grey (G2G) which is how fast in average the screen changes from one shade of color to another. Black to white (BtW/TrTf), which is the combined number of how fast a screen turns from 10% black -> 90% white (Tr) and from 90% white -> 10% black (Tf). A number (like 12ms) can mean its 6ms(Tr)+6ms(Tf)= 12ms.

Since a picture at 60hz (standard LCD refresh) gives 60 frames per second, it needs to be below 16.67ms per frame (1000ms/60=16.67).

Input lag is the time taken from when the signal is sent from your GFX card to when its displayed on screen. If the input lag is 33ms, it roughly means that 33ms after an action has happened in a game, it is shown on screen. (Not counting extra lag caused by GFX card buffering etc. which can increase lag further).

In general, VGA is NOT faster then DVI or HDMI. The reason is simple:

Every LCD screen is digital even if you connect it with a VGA cable. In fact, an analog signal has to go through a analog->digital conversion before processed and could in worst cases cause more lag.

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 06 Dec 2008, 01:08

many thanks for your thorough info and help

I heard that when connected digitally (HDMI or DVI), the monitor applies some effects to the image, therefore making the input lag a bit slower than on VGA, which it just treats as a signal to be displayed, and does not add effects? Or is this completely wrong?

Is there anyone here who has bought a monitor specifically for gaming with a fast input lag and response time, or could someone tell me if the Benq G2400WD or the LG L227WT is any good for the purpose of gaming?

Post by **Tamlin** » 06 Dec 2008, 12:37

You're halfway right. :)

Image processing is a cause of input lag. There can be several types of processing which can cause the lag. Here I'll mention a few of them:

Overdrive: The LCD calculates each image to see which pixels to overshoot for faster response time. This is one of the major causes for input lag. Some panel types have a more agressive overdrive then others and are therefore more vulnerable to input lag.

Scaling: A LCD have a fixed amount of pixels which is the native resolution (also the native resolution is the maximum resolution). 1 pixel in image = 1 pixel on screen is something we call "pixel perfect". Under this there is no scaling.

However, if you use a non-native resolution and choose to scale this image either to aspect or to full screen, there is a picture processing going on that can cause or add to lag.

LUT: Some highend screens like my 2690WUXi have a 12-bit lookup table for colors vs. the standard 8-bit. This is to get the most accurate display of colors from the 8-bit color information received. Of course, this can cause or add to lag as well (my screen have a 33ms average of lag, which is normal for LCD's).

AD converters: Analog to digital converters can add more input lag, since its yet another picture processing going on. LCD's are native digitial, so any analog signal needs to be converted before its displayed.

Deinterlacing: Images that are sent in interlaced mode needs to be processed (deinterlaced) before they are displayed on screen. This is because an LCD is by nature progressive. Feeding the screen with 480P (progressive) instead of 480i (interlaced) can reduce the lag if the scaler/deinterlacer is slow.

I don't think connecting a LCD with analog connection like VGA would give some benifit towards input lag vs. digital HDMI and DVI, since it has to go through yet another processing on analog.

Response time is sufficiant in all the newer screens for gaming. The biggest transition people have going CRT to LCD, is the lack of phosphor fade, where a CRT's phosphore fade one image into next giving a smoother transition. Like a natural motion blur. LCD's are sharper and simply changes one screen to another without any transition. Having a faster framerate reduces this, so many wants and waits for screens with higher refreshrates. Unfortunately, many confuses the refresh rate with bad response time and thinks there are motion blur or ghosting, while it all is in their heads (not adjusting to the lack of phosphor fade).

I would suggest fokusing less on the response time (on 60hz the LCD has a whole 16.67ms to display a frame anyway) and more on input lag for gaming as our insiders suggested.

Some are not sensitive to input lag (like me), so I can play ET-Quake wars with good result on a screen with 33ms (about 2 frames of lag). Others can even suffer through 3 frames of lag without it ruining their gaming. We are different. You need to figure out what group you belong to. To play it safe, you select the screens with least input lag and then go by picture quality afterwards.

If you have the budget, best gaming screens will be the 25.5" H-IPS screens without the extra picture processing. Check out this thread:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/9781

Frag maniac have some good suggestions there.

For lower budget, TN's are often a safe bet, though some have input lag. Use the tools provided earlier in your thread like digitalversus to see which one. The LG L227WT is a safe bet, but I can't remember if it has scaling options (this is good to have on a screen, if you want to run lower then native resolutions and scale to aspect when GFX drivers doesn't do the job).

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 07 Dec 2008, 04:31

many thanks for your help again

so far the websites I have saved in my favourites are digitalversus.com, prad.de and tftcental.co.uk

Do you know of any other websites that you think are good for researching monitors? I've seen the Benq G2400WD been recommended on a couple of sites for fast input lag and response time, but I was wanting to check if there's any other information on this monitor to confirm it has the best possible lag for gaming.

That link you gave me, I don't want to go as high as 26 inch, anywhere from 17 to 24 (widescreen) would be great for me.

Overdrive: Are there some TN panels without overdrive? How can you tell if a monitor has overdrive or not?

Many Thanks

Post by **Tamlin** » 07 Dec 2008, 14:38

All TN's are with overdrive (some have the option to turn it off). Fortunately, the TN's crystal matrix doesn't make it nessesary to have such agressive overdrive compared to a PVA based matrix. PVA's usually have extremely slow transitions from two close shades, like black to dark grey, so it needs a bit more heavy calculations. Many TN's have below 1 frame of input lag, which would be unnotisable even for a hardcore gamer.

The G2400WD should serve you well in this regard, if my memory is correct. There were some user reviews @ [H] with tests confirming low input lag. :)

xbitlabs also have some indepth tests of screens, so it might be worthy going there as well for research.

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 07 Dec 2008, 23:06

thanks for your help :)

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 09 Dec 2008, 04:58

OK I've been doing some investigating, and it looks like I may have found a winner: the iiyama prolite E2201W-B1

Before I buy this monitor, does anyone have anything bad to say about it?

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 09 Dec 2008, 16:17

I've never heard of it. I guess that could be bad?

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 10 Dec 2008, 21:27

It uses a Chi Mei panel according to Prad. Chimei is a cheap Chinese brand that used to be carried by Newegg. I don't see them listed there anymore. However it could just be that Chimei does not opt to sell retail anymore, perhaps preferring the OEM market. Surprisingly Prad rates this 4 out of 5 stars, though they did say it marginally made it to the "good" category, which is 4.

They liked it's fast response time, which even displayed fast action movies smoothly, though did say it has the typical edge light bleeding of a TN this size and remarked a couple times it does not have the color brilliance of a glossy panel.

More surprising yet is their saying it even handles dimly lit scenes well, which most 6 bit TN panels struggle with. It's typical to see blotchy color smearing on Caucasian faces in dimly lit scenes of movies even on well rated Samsung TN displays.

I found it odd they didn't mention color accuracy, seemingly only referring to saturation with the brilliance remark, and even then very vaguely so. Their bottom line is they thought it would please most gamers, esp those on a budget.

If you have small insects in your area like gnats, mosquitoes, fruit flies, etc, like most do, esp in the summer, I suggest you take precautions not leaving fruit peels or rinds in your garbage and perhaps using a bug strip or light. The back lighting in LCD displays can attract small insects that can potentially cause damage, and the vents on this display are big enough for them to see the back lighting easily and get in.

Page 2 of the review says you can read about how to avoid "damage by insects" in their "Prad special", but after searching their site I only found such tips in their FAQ.

http://www.prad.de/en/news/shownews_faq633.html

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2007/review-iiyama-e2201w.html#Introduction

I've never heard of it. I guess that could be bad?

Iiyama is a name well known in the photography market, esp their aftermarket lenses. Apparently they're not doing too bad in the LCD biz either, though clearly that is a market where you outsource parts.

Zack Attack · Post by **Zack Attack** » 11 Dec 2008, 16:53

Thankyou very much :)

Widescreen Gaming Forum