about input lag/and choosing a monitor.

Good morning everyone.
i'm ending up my home work doing a list of suitable monitor for me, trying to reach a good compromise between me and the usage.

by now i've got a reply
on another thread about i've got a nice explanation of the need of 60fps vs 120 or 144hz, for one like me that is not an fps gamer i'm more on elite gdr and 4x games, i coild understand the benefit of higher refresh, but i think i could stay on 60hz.

2 things puzzle me, what lag is considered today decent.


i took as "reference" the big brother of my monitor thei quato 300 (mine is 26,) the two i suppose react almost at same time... i copy from prad

The data sheet quantifies the response time of 12 milliseconds. We measure the fastest gray alternating with 10.9 milliseconds and black and white at 8.8 milliseconds. The over all average response time (there and back) for our 15 measuring values ​​is a little longer at 14.2 milliseconds.

" When Intelli Proof 300 excellence, we measured a very short signal delay of only 1.0 milliseconds. Until the target brightness elapse on average only another 7.1 milliseconds, the average total latency falls with a total of only 8.1 milliseconds quite short. With Overdrive is activated, the total latency shortened to only 5.8 milliseconds."

1) so i have to sum 14.2+5.8 and end withis total lag including input?

then, if is correct at its best is about is between 20 at middle 27 msec (on 1900x1200).
as i have no trouble playing with a monitor havign this reaction times, i could suppose everything modern in those range could be good for me, for modern resolution. (1440 or 4k).

2) if i not understand correctly what written on prad, i need a number, for the input lag to sum to panel gtg, that could be considered decent. or what could be considered decorous for a non competitive gamer.

I already know less is better, but as for now looking the reviews of almost all present between 27-32" i have not find one monitor that suit for me in matter of image quality (or for a lot of review, build quality) i'm looking again on pro ones, looking if i find one that could be considered acceptable for mild gaming too.

thanks.

I had monitors with various levels of input lag and 24ms is still usable value even in slower paced FPS games. By slower paced I mean also faster games but not online. I played few levels of Serious Sam 3 on W2420R which have 24ms input lag and after a while completely forgot I play on crappy IPS and not proper CRT display. In online game such as Quake Live it was completely different story. Without strobed 100Hz+ there is no point in running the game, imho, 60Hz in itself is limiting, lack of strobing and IPS blur is also limiting performance.

Many current monitors have simple scalers that do not use memory to store frames and input lag is minimal, few lines worth of lag most. Most lag come thus from pixel response times itself.

Then we have 60Hz vs 100-144Hz debate. Definitely go at least 100Hz and for faster games make sure monitor have strobing. There is night and day difference between even fastest 60Hz monitor and strobed high refresh rate monitor. If you can push enough frames per second it make difference such as this:



I would suggest Acer XB270HU
It have gamut larger than sRGB but that mean you can actually correct it to proper sRGB without clipping if necessary and frankly for games it doesn't matter imho.

TFT Central has a very comprehensive 'input lag + response time' chart for all their reviews. 20-30ms combined lag is just fine for your use IMO.
Luckily most modern desktop monitors do not have a ton of processing lag.

What kind of image quality and build quality do you need? Many monitors have 100% sRGB colour space today, even the 27" gaming ones.

Mokkat
coming from a couple beasts for their time i suppose i would follow somewhat the path.
Quato was a company that give a couple of serious kicks in the nuts of nec/eizo.
who sell barco's at that time as alternative suggest quato.
mine was 262 excellence
The sideckick was an eizo cg222
quato is closed as company,no servicing, and mine is dying developing retention an a strange haze...
the cg is on it's way to a friend in need ...

i don't work anymore on the field that need that level of precision..., but i admit going too back is a bit hard... and i cannot justify myself more than 1200 euros at max for something i cannot make money on..

or i admit i would be on an eizo 318 or nec 322..

i think i could live without an adobe rgb compliant monitor, (in some way) but i admit i'm scared to get a lemon...and more to get something worse than mine for the few gaming i do..

thanks xor monitor added to my personal list. noted all you have write.
So as you and mokkat agree,
now i know i have to stay on some reasonable range of lag we could assume 20/27.

tomorrow i would push here the huge list.. so i hope with your help i could 'cut' at least to a rose of 4


thanks to everyone.
and to anyone that would partecipate into my journey.

I'd also recommend 100-144 over 60. I recently made the upgrade from 60 and the difference is astounding.

Try to keep your 'lag chain' under 33ms whatever your setup and you'll be fine with most games.
(that's including response time of course)

But for some high-level play in timing-critical games of course you'll want less.
I'd say the comfort zone is under 1.5 frames (25ms)
The best under 1 frame (16ms)
The ideal under 1/2 a frame (8ms)

It's a matter of when the input registers and when the movement actually starts on screen, and IIRC players who care when it 'lands' speak in 1/2 frames.
If it lands in the first half of a frame it counts for the earlier, if it lands in the second half if counts for the next frame. Something like that, and that's 'speaking in 60Hz'.
But those people who really 'feel' the difference and actually perform better with a chain under 1 frame are really few, honestly lol.

sorry if i've not updated the post. but as i'm reperible for work and obiviously, this weekend turned into a blood bath.
again thanks for your patience.

Actually i'm a bit torn between 2 things..

1) i no more do any colour critical work, ( and i've bought the cintiq 27, for doing my personal photoworks, and some theater work),
and if i leave out lanscapes, that outperform even adobe rgb, one could work into srgb pretty well.
2) i admit i'm a bit "a brat" when comes to monitors.. i've got the luck to have those beautiful instrments and dumbing down is a bit a sufference..

so dividing the most interesting i see into the 2 categories...if in the end i would go versus pro:

or z27q 5k... the non glossy enemy of UP2715K i found it at limit of my budget.. all review say the panel used it's damn fast.. (i puzzle if lg manage to do this on a 5k why the 4k are so slow if we watch prad reviews?)
and hp is not with that glass on front..
and thick almost all...

(for gaming i would lower to a normal 4k, or a bit less. for photoworks no..)
yes i would have enough horsepower....

and gpu are destined to be better year by year.
monitor last for longest time..
is a bit tiny.. for the resolution..

or a more reasonable cx270.. slower and a less res. but the vantage of hardware calibration. 27.7 msec

or panel lottery with 31mu97 if i read correctly prad 24.4 ms
is the panel lottery that scare me a lot on this ticks a lot of boxes..

now off to work tomorrow the non "brat" ones....