Input lag on lcd's, when will that be resolved?

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 05:50

yet another bump in changing to lcd, i've been reading up on input lag. Apparently it can be up to 20-80 ms!

that is pretty bad seeings as how long these monitors have been around and this issue has not been fixed. Either it wont be with lcd's, or they will move on to new technologies.

its in every lcd which i didnt know until today, so for online fps games that adds extra lag time onto your ping, so even if you have a ping of 20 the monitor is adding an extra 20 ms of delay and 80 at worst apparently.

the thing is, not everyone knows about this.. they think "oh ill buy that monitor with 5ms response time sounds great!" but they are unaware of the input lag which is not even shown on the box or details of the monitor.

basmic · 14 Aug 2007 at 08:28

Got a link to your source/s?

I have never heard of a monitor causing lag...ever! The graphic card only outputs to the monitor, and (AFAIK) does not wait for a response or acknowledgement. that the output has been received.

Will be interesting you see your source/s that you've been reading...

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 08:50

basmic said:
Got a link to your source/s?

I have never heard of a monitor causing lag...ever! The graphic card only outputs to the monitor, and (AFAIK) does not wait for a response or acknowledgement. that the output has been received.

Will be interesting you see your source/s that you've been reading...

Well its not a joke, otherwise i would not post it.

here you go.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1026393&highlight=input+lag

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1056882

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag

basmic · 14 Aug 2007 at 08:53

Been doing my own research...this is not good for me, when I'm looking to buy a 20" LCD soon. :eek:

This is the best video I've found showing input lag.

Another nail in the coffin for LCD, IMO.

muzzler · 14 Aug 2007 at 09:12

i remember reading up on this when i first bought an lcd several years ago.....got me seriously worried as i was an avid online gamer.
ended up buying a dell 19" (8ms response time)lcd monitor and experienced no lag at all, infact loved the crisp clear image so having slapped myself for worrying and nashing my teeth like a f4tality wannabee (pity me) i was gladly getting over the old crt.
i do think some monitors suffer from it but none that im aware of now.?

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 09:16

muzzler said:
i do think some monitors suffer from it but none that im aware of now.?

Apparently they all suffer from it, but some are so slight (supposedly) that its hard to notice. So in effect it is not helping if playing FPS games, even the slightest lag can make you mess up.

fish99 · 14 Aug 2007 at 11:33

This is an excellent article covering lag on LCDs-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

As you can see the VX922 has very little, 2 ms average, and the NEC LCD20WGX2 has only 15 ms average. Even the Dell 2407WFP averages only 24 ms which is still pretty good and most people wouldn't notice that.

Also I think the article shows that panel type doesn't tell you everything about lag (although it's still a useful guide), since there's an IPS beating a TN in there, yet people keep saying TN is 'the only choice for fast gaming'.

The lag is caused I would guess by the electronics, so any technology in there that's analyzing and adjusting the screen contents on the fly is likely to add to lag. The sad thing about this is the manufacturers are spending all their time on new technologies to fix ghosting and improve measured contrast, and many of them will increase lag.

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 12:29

fish99 said:
This is an excellent article covering lag on LCDs-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

As you can see the VX922 has very little, 2 ms average, and the NEC LCD20WGX2 has only 15 ms average. Even the Dell 2407WFP averages only 24 ms which is still pretty good and most people wouldn't notice that.

Also I think the article shows that panel type doesn't tell you everything about lag (although it's still a useful guide), since there's an IPS beating a TN in there, yet people keep saying TN is 'the only choice for fast gaming'.

The lag is caused I would guess by the electronics, so any technology in there that's analyzing and adjusting the screen contents on the fly is likely to add to lag. The sad thing about this is the manufacturers are spending all their time on new technologies to fix ghosting and improve measured contrast, and many of them will increase lag.

the VX922 has only gotten average reviews though, wouldnt have thought it would be that good except for the 2ms response.. and its only a 19" monitor

fish99 · 14 Aug 2007 at 12:46

Perfect_Chaos said:
the VX922 has only gotten average reviews though, wouldnt have thought it would be that good except for the 2ms response.. and its only a 19" monitor

I didn't comment on how good they were

If you want a screen with as little lag and ghosting as possible, the VX922 achieves that. If you want better quality (ie better viewing angles) you will probably have to put up with more lag and more ghosting.

The closest thing to a high quality lag/ghost free screen would still be the NEC LCD20WGX2. Trouble is lag tests have been done on so few screens. There may be others that can match the VX922 and LCD20WGX2, but until they've been tested by someone, who is going to know?

So few people know about lag on LCDs that the manufacturers can completely ignore the problem. They know as long as the contrast ratio is high and the response time low, it will sell.

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 13:03

fish99 said:
I didn't comment on how good they were If you want a screen with as little lag and ghosting as possible, the VX922 achieves that. If you want better quality (ie better viewing angles) you will probably have to put up with more lag and more ghosting.

The closest thing to a high quality lag/ghost free screen would still be the NEC LCD20WGX2. Trouble is lag tests have been done on so few screens. There may be others that can match the VX922 and LCD20WGX2, but until they've been tested by someone, who is going to know?

So few people know about lag on LCDs that the manufacturers can completely ignore the problem. They know as long as the contrast ratio is high and the response time low, it will sell.

is there a 20" or 24" version of the VX922? i may well get one if it has the same lag time of 2ms, though if they are bigger i cant really see that happening..

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 13:08

actually, it has some good reviews on some sites, 5 stars and 5 reviews in one place.

i may go for it, it would be 1/2" smaller than the actual screen size i have on my CRT now but i cant see that harming.. im going to read up on it a bit more.

Well that one is going on my list as #1 monitor to buy for now, thanks for the link fish. Anymore links with lag time about that low but slightly bigger and widescreen? if not ill probably buy this one. The native resolution of that viewsonic is about the sweet spot i was looking for aswell for games.

fish99 · 14 Aug 2007 at 13:27

So few of these screens have been tested for lag that no one really knows if there's a 20/22/24" that performs like the VX922. Something like the SM226BW might perform similar, but who knows for sure, the dynamic contrast it has could add 30 ms of lag for all I know

TBH unless you're a serious online FPS gamer, I don't think you need a screen that has as little lag as the VX922. I think most people wouldn't be able to spot up to 25 ms of lag. It is only 1/40th of a second afterall.

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 14:11

fish99 said:
TBH unless you're a serious online FPS gamer, I don't think you need a screen that has as little lag as the VX922. I think most people wouldn't be able to spot up to 25 ms of lag. It is only 1/40th of a second afterall.

i like my FPS games, and nothing else is bad about the monitor right?
ill prob just get it until better tech monitors come out.

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 14:30

if anyone can be bothered (ive already looked) id be grateful if you can find a 20 or 24" with a lot less input lag time than the ones with 40+ms. the 0-10 on the 19" viewsonic seems like the lowest possible at the moment.

Nullvoid · 14 Aug 2007 at 14:30

Perfect_Chaos said:
i like my FPS games, and nothing else is bad about the monitor right?
ill prob just get it until better tech monitors come out.

Look at the latency graph on this page: http://www.erenumerique.fr/comparatif_ecran_lcd_22_pouces_la_suite-art-1613-7.html

To me it suggests the Samsung 226bw is the fastest monitor available. Of course there is always the panel lottery to worry about

edit - here's a face to face of the vx922 and the 226bw S panel: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=41&mo1=74&p1=794&ma2=36&mo2=224&p2=2104&ph=12

and then the vx922 and the 226bw A panel: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=41&mo1=74&p1=794&ma2=36&mo2=195&p2=1857&ph=12

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 15:50

ok, they both seem good.. only the 22" uses bigger pixels and isnt as good for video..

can someone advise me which one of the 2 to go for? i want to order asap to get it out the way.

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 16:03

Nullvoid said:
Look at the latency graph on this page: http://www.erenumerique.fr/comparatif_ecran_lcd_22_pouces_la_suite-art-1613-7.html

To me it suggests the Samsung 226bw is the fastest monitor available. Of course there is always the panel lottery to worry about

edit - here's a face to face of the vx922 and the 226bw S panel: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=41&mo1=74&p1=794&ma2=36&mo2=224&p2=2104&ph=12

and then the vx922 and the 226bw A panel: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=41&mo1=74&p1=794&ma2=36&mo2=195&p2=1857&ph=12

Those are input lag graphs and not just response time graphs right?

fish99 · 14 Aug 2007 at 17:15

Those are some excellent links Nullvoid, cheers for those

The first graph at erenumerique is response time, even though it says latency, since the horizontal axis is colour codes. The comparisons at digitalversus though are definitely lag, since it clearly says 'delay versus a CRT' in the drop down box. Pitty they didn't measure the 2007WFP in there since i'd love to know how it compares. Clearly though the SM226BW is a match for the VX922 in terms of lag.

I still think most people wouldn't notice lag until it got up to the 40-50ms range though. I can't notice in on my 2007WFP, but could on my previous older screen (a PVA).

On a side note, it's interesting to look at the reponse time photos, for the people who think a 2ms LCD responds just like a CRT

Select 'game rendering, best results' and 'game rendering, worst results' -

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=41&mo1=74&p1=794&ma2=36&mo2=224&p2=2104&ph=1

Also interesting to see my 2007WFP performs just as well in pixel response as a 2 ms SM226BW according to the best/worst photos, so I'll keep recommending it to people

Perfect_Chaos · 14 Aug 2007 at 17:19

so i need to get an S panel which is virtually unfindable?

fish99 · 14 Aug 2007 at 17:28

Why? The A panel still performs very well. No one on earth could tell the difference between 1.6 ms and 3.9 ms average lag. 3.9 ms is less than 1/250th of a second and it's still better than any other 22" TN screen I could find on there. Also the colours after calibration look very similar, although the A panel definitely needs calibrating. Response time photos look pretty similar too.