2405fpw LCD vs. CRT - 40ms signal delay / latency for LCD users ?!?

[waddles]

With SED on the very near horizon, who cares?

Also, something that has been bothering me is the term "signal delay" in the title of the thread. There is no delay in the signal itself; it moves at the speed of light, same as in CRTs. Delays come from calculations that the LCD makes before displaying the image and from the time it takes to rotate the crystals within the display. Nobody has interpreted it this way, it looks like, but I feel better knowing that I posted it.

I also think it can be safely assumed that an increased delay in displaying the signal would cause a decrease in performance at the highest levels of gaming competition, but for the vast, vast majority of us (read: most likely everyone who has posted in this thread) the added delay at the monitor does not likely provide a significant disadvantage. For most our aim is not refined enough nor our reflexes tuned enough for this proposed "3 frame delay" to make much of an impact on our gaming performance.

Yes, all the pros used CRTs, and will do so until SED comes out, but there are still a great many good players that use LCDs.

 

[diapickle]

I also think it can be safely assumed that an increased delay in displaying the signal would cause a decrease in performance at the highest levels of gaming competition, but for the vast, vast majority of us (read: most likely everyone who has posted in this thread) the added delay at the monitor does not likely provide a significant disadvantage. For most our aim is not refined enough nor our reflexes tuned enough for this proposed "3 frame delay" to make much of an impact on our gaming performance.

Yes SED will come out. But meanwhile matches are to be played and life needs to go on. So yes, people care.

No offense but your aim is probably no good if 40ms delay doesn't make a difference for you.

I came to the conclusion of 3 frames under an moderate assumption of 75FPS, ideally you want to play at a much higher FPS for competitions and will therefore lag more frames. If you compete in a quake 3 engine game, which require strafe jumping, you lose even more frames.

If you ever played in a LAN setting you would know how big an impact this 40ms or even a 20ms delay has on registering. For online matches where 40ms ping is considered normal or good, a 40ms response time would effectively double your ping. Even worse, LCD response times are almost never compensated server side, which is a nightware for serious gamers who already struggle with snaps, timenudge and maxfps to keep their game under control.

 

[wpeng]

Whoa, whoa. Where is all this hostility coming from?

While statistics is statistics, the real world is the real world. You don't need a sample for everything to prove its merit. Just like you don't have to be a pro gamer to know they don't use LCDs.

On the contrary. Statistics is used to interpret the real world. Things like pharmaceuticals, electronics, and yes, even gaming, are multifactorial. You can't possibly take into account all the factors that go into being a "bleeding edge gamer." You can't control all the variables and hold the one you want constant all the time. Using statistical analysis is one method of "leveling the playing field," by factoring the overall behavior of certain variables as a certain distribution, or not even needing a distribution. In regard to gaming, a pro-gamer has very instinctual and honed methods of dealing with inherent disadvantages (like computer lag when playing against computer bots, which do not have lag). You will never be able to factor that into a rigid test.

This is the reason why there will always be statistical analysis going into drug studies and the minimal standards in producing, say, CRTs on an assembly line. Saying that Stat 101 uses only normal distributions to disprove my argument has a couple holes:

1) You don't know whether or not frags/match follows a normal distribution. For all you know, it could, and then Stat 101 would be perfect for this.

2) Having taken more Stat classes than I have, you know perfectly well that there are methods of dealing with non-normal distributions.

In your argument, you say that "Just like you don't have to be a pro gamer to know they don't use LCDs" proves the existence of a detrimental effect. This is also a faulty argument since you admitted yourself that pro-gamers probably have little or no experience with LCDs.

LCD companies are unlikely to conduct such a test because it would do them a disservice to show the gamers their solutions are inferior to an ancient technology. It is also why few LCD companies choose to sponsor gaming events or specifically market product towards the gaming community.

There are several other reasons why LCD companies wouldn't conduct such a test.

1) There would be little advertising power, as most consumers wouldn't know left from right in a statistical study. Regular consumers need a quick and dirty way to judge performance, like Mhz on a processor, or a response time on an LCD.

2) LCDs have other problems besides this so-called response time lag, including motion blur, which is always there. I know a non-pro, non-hardcore gamer who can pick off people with a sniper rifle as soon as he sees 2 or 3 pixels change in the distance. Motion blur (more popularly called "ghosting") would affect this ability greatly. And yet, that doesn't have anything to do with response lag.

3) LCD companies do indeed market to the gaming community, although they don't market to the pro gamer community. Why else do you think there are so many lies and re-measurements of response times in Samsung and Viewsonic LCD monitors? A good reason not to market to pro-gamers in this regard is because they already know pro-gamers are set in their ways. Would they listen to reason or even science? Probably not.

Maybe it's time to put down your "scientific" books and get a dose of common sense?

According to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

I am a normal person with average FPS gaming abilities. I can't even comprehend being able to aim accurately in 3 frames. I think I'm pretty common, so this kind of gaming ability is neither "common" nor "common sense."

Oh, and your hypo test won't work. Why? Because there's no such thing as a "no-lag" LCD in this world. In the lab maybe, but not in the mass production consumer market. And why did you suggest such a test anyways if you knew well pro gamers don't like LCDs? Do you think they are simply addicted to CRTs for their style, weight and bulkiness?

As I said previously, there is most likely another fallacy in there somewhere. You can't base your argument off people who have little or no experience otherwise. The better way to conduct a response lag test is to wire one CRT in the testing group to have a 40 ms lag and then tell everyone that all of them are using CRTs that have a 40 ms response lag. That way you don't have other problems of LCDs interfering with the test (like ghosting), and you'll less likely have an "anti-placebo" effect..

I also think it can be safely assumed that an increased delay in displaying the signal would cause a decrease in performance at the highest levels of gaming competition, but for the vast, vast majority of us (read: most likely everyone who has posted in this thread) the added delay at the monitor does not likely provide a significant disadvantage. For most our aim is not refined enough nor our reflexes tuned enough for this proposed "3 frame delay" to make much of an impact on our gaming performance.

And I'm saying you can't safely assume this. I think everyone has admitted to not being anywhere close to a pro-gamer. If none of us are pro-gamers, how are any of us qualified to say what will or will not affect them? I doubt you even know the effect of 40 ms on your own gaming ability. All you can say is that "it doesn't feel right." These observations, of course, are inherently biased.

 

[diapickle]

Please use paragraphs and line breaks. I think your post just killed my eyes. I don't have a LCD remember?

And please do not mix people's quotes. I am already getting a lot of mixed messages.

Again, I am not advocating that pro gamers can aim within 3 frames or 40 ms. Some probably can but it's pushing the limit of human reflex. All I am saying that with 3 frames lag your bullet falls 3 frames ahead or behind where the enemy is, and that directly impacts your register rate in intense competition.

 

[wpeng]

Please use paragraphs and line breaks. I think your post just killed my eyes. I don't have a LCD remember?

And please do not mix people's quotes. I am already getting a lot of mixed messages.

Again, I am not advocating that pro gamers can aim within 3 frames or 40 ms. Some probably can but it's pushing the limit of human reflex. All I am saying that with 3 frames lag your bullet falls 3 frames ahead or behind where the enemy is, and that directly impacts your register rate in intense competition.

Er... sorry about that. In any case, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm actually in the CRT camp, being forced into the LCD camp due to logistical reasons (aka, not wanting to lift a big monitor around).

My point was never to say that there is no difference between LCDs and CRTs in gaming. My original train of thought was:

no statistical/scientific tests --> no proof --> no point agonizing over it. If it makes you that uncomfortable, just do what makes you comfortable.

 

[Pyrolistical]

...

I am a hardcore gamer, and although I know there is a difference between my LCD and my CRT, it hasn't affected my gaming. Although I am not a pro gamer, I am far above the average player.

So I honestly do not know if a LCD would affect a pro gamer or not.

The videos do show a 40 ms difference, but how do you know it is not the anti-placbo affect? Since you know there's a 40 ms difference, you might be psychologically placed at a disadvantage while playing games. (You expect do to worst, and thus you do. A self fullfilling proposition.)

What we need a group pro gamers that don't know of this LCD lag issue and do some double blinded tests. Unfortunately, but definition of a pro gamer, he/she would already know of this LCD issue...

Alternatively we can get a group of pro gamers and tell them these new prototype LCDs have no lag issues and then do a test. But these types of test are always controversial and can fail if the user "figures out" the test.

Since you are so "hardcore" and so "far above the average gamer," care to list some CPL/CAL-i achievements with your LCD?

If you don't consider 40ms lag an issue I don't know what to say to you, good luck in your pursuit of "hardcore" gaming or whatever it is. If you don't see the difference between 10,000 ns and 10,000,000 ns, an argument with you is obviously not going anywhere.

Oh, and your hypo test won't work. Why? Because there's no such thing as a "no-lag" LCD in this world. In the lab maybe, but not in the mass production consumer market. And why did you suggest such a test anyways if you knew well pro gamers don't like LCDs? Do you think they are simply addicted to CRTs for their style, weight and bulkiness?

Maybe it's time to put down your "scientific" books and get a dose of common sense?

Read my post again...I know there doesn't exists a no-lag LCD. The test is intended to tricking the subjects into thinking the LCDs had no lag, and see if they suffered or not. Hence why I said, "But these types of test are always controversial and can fail if the user "figures out" the test."

...
If you don't consider 40ms lag an issue I don't know what to say to you, good luck in your pursuit of "hardcore" gaming or whatever it is. If you don't see the difference between 10,000 ns and 10,000,000 ns, an argument with you is obviously not going anywhere.
...

If you can see the difference between 0.01 ms and 10 ms, then you've out done me. I will burn my gaming membership and live a life in the mountains studying whatever they study in moutains...

If you meant to say 40,000,000 ns, then sure I can see the difference. But has it affected my gaming? Nope. You need to prove it will affect pro gamers. Not just that you can see the difference.

This has nothing to do with science. This is just logic. And sound logic always trumps common sense.

 

[Pyrolistical]

..
no statistical/scientific tests --> no proof --> no point agonizing over it. If it makes you that uncomfortable, just do what makes you comfortable.

That is my point as well, however I am just using myself as a possible counter example. I guess I should really just get to the point and say it illrelevent how I perform on a LCD and just quote wpeng

 

[diapickle]

All I am saying is that LCD creates additional lag and lag is detrimental to gaming. Simple as that. If you boys want to be technical and say that lag or no lag makes no difference because there's no "scientific" study on this, then we will have to disagree.

 

[rhouck]

I'm saying, until you prove otherwise, none of you are good enough for it to matter lol

 

[diapickle]

I'm saying, until you prove otherwise, none of you are good enough for it to matter lol

It obviously mattered for me, and quite a few other people in this thread I believe. Maybe it's just that we are too good for you? lol

 

[rhouck]

Must be! You are too l33t for me for sure. Or maybe that you are not good enough to adapt?

*shrug* I used to play CS on a highly competitive level, although I don't anymore. I don't see it as that much of a disadvantage, certainly not enough to lessen enjoyment of the game. Now if I went to a LAN tournament to play for money, then yeah I'd probably drag my CRT to grab that extra edge. But for home gaming, nope not worth it. The advantages I enjoy from my 2405FPW well outweigh my miniscule reduction in online skill (who the fuck cares about online anyway? )

Drag your noobie butt back to the CPL, I'll cheer you on from the sidelines as I enjoy my 24" WS

 

[Davediego]

Your tests can show whatever they want to, but I watch lots of action/fast paced movies and extensively fly helicopters and jets in BF2 and I have yet to notice any 'tearing' or 'ghosting' or 'lag'.

movies run at 24fps, and dont have any input, so im not sure how you would notice any lag with them, and id sure hope a $800 lcd can display movies without any ghosting

whoever ran the crt vs 2405fpw test, could you switch the clone and primary display around and make sure the results are the same? also did you run both at the same refresh rate? if the crt is running at a higher refresh rate then the timer values appearing on each screen would very rarely be the same value.

 

[diapickle]

Must be! You are too l33t for me for sure. Or maybe that you are not good enough to adapt?

*shrug* I used to play CS on a highly competitive level, although I don't anymore. I don't see it as that much of a disadvantage, certainly not enough to lessen enjoyment of the game. Now if I went to a LAN tournament to play for money, then yeah I'd probably drag my CRT to grab that extra edge. But for home gaming, nope not worth it. The advantages I enjoy from my 2405FPW well outweigh my miniscule reduction in online skill (who the fuck cares about online anyway? )

Drag your noobie butt back to the CPL, I'll cheer you on from the sidelines as I enjoy my 24" WS

Adapt to what? Lag? You might as well suggest everyone go back to dial-up too.

highly competitve level = ???

If you don't give a F about "online" why did you post, or even better, why play a game online? Please go back to your cave where "home gaming" belong

 

[rhouck]

movies run at 24fps, and dont have any input, so im not sure how you would notice any lag with them, and id sure hope a $800 lcd can display movies without any ghosting

whoever ran the crt vs 2405fpw test, could you switch the clone and primary display around and make sure the results are the same? also did you run both at the same refresh rate? if the crt is running at a higher refresh rate then the timer values appearing on each screen would very rarely be the same value.

I set the refresh rates to 60 for both and the results are the same. I also switched clone and primary.

 

[rhouck]

Adapt to what? Lag? You might as well suggest everyone go back to dial-up too.

highly competitve level = ???

If you don't give a F about "online" why did you post, or even better, why play a game online? Please go back to your cave where "home gaming" belong

Umm, there's a huge difference between an LCD and dialup

Upper levels of CAL as well as lan tournaments, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Umm... by online I meant non-lan, not home gaming GJ, clever you are. I don't know any respectable gamer who really gets that worked up over being competitive online; between all the random variables, cheating, etc... LAN is the only place where performance really matters

I believe this thread has run its course. I did what was asked and ran the test, supporting the OP position, that is no longer in question. Whether it truly will matter to 99.999% of people... meh. My suggestion is that if anyone is thinking of seriously buying one, do it.. because it's better to decide for yourself if it is a problem then listen to a bunch of random people on the internet debate about it. Dell has a great return policy on their LCDs so it's a win-win situation. If you truly hate it after 3 weeks, send it back and buy the CRT of your choice

 

[perplex]

Oh my.. look at the CRT you have, G200 right? That's what I have at time, it has been a pleasure to use for 5 years now.

 

[NavyH16]

anyone run this lag test on the component inputs? I'm assuming it'll hold true due to the overdrive processing, but I continue to grasp at straws.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

3. native res exhibited the worst input lag. i currently play CS @ 13xx*768(?)

Are you certain you aren't measuring your system (cpu + vid card) not being able to keep up and display the native res?

Otherwise this hints at some sort of bandwidth limitation going to the monitor. Maybe a problem with DVI?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

There is no doubt that serious gamers can tell this difference. 40ms is enormous.

I used to play Counter Strike a lot (havn't really touched it much in the last 3 or so years though), and used to admin the offical Umass CS pub (Yodas Barn).

At the time I had a 22" crt capable of displaying 1280x960 at 100hz. I would vsync this, and I got hardware fast enough that I would rarely drop below a framerate of 100.

Even if you cant "see" the difference on the screen, whenever I didn't play at 100hz CS felt hopelessly lagged, and indescribably "wrong". For the record, the difference between 60hz and 100hz corresponds to an average "lag" of 3.33ms.

So yes, 40ms should be VERY VERY noticable to the hardcore gamer.

Then there is a question of how much of this difference is psychosomatic. Its difficult to do a proper double blind test, as the monitors are - physically - very different...

This should - however - not be an issue for me anymore as I haven't played a game - even casually - in more than a year. I just completely lost interest in gaming (don't know why I wasted my money on that brand new Geforce 6800GT when they first came out )

I will likely get a 2405FPW after christmas, when they will likely have gone down in price

 

[RegisteredToPost]

this should have been stickied a long time ago. I learned, from reading this thread, that alot of you are anal, crt eletist faggots who spend hours upon hours in servers, requiring they get the top score at each and every round.

For the rest of us, LCDs are fine for gaming. I dont want to get carpel tunnel playing a stupid game, so i'll just take it easy with my LCD

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

For the rest of us, LCDs are fine for gaming. I dont want to get carpel tunnel playing a stupid game, so i'll just take it easy with my LCD

I'm trying to figure out how a CRT would give you carpal tunnel syndrome, but coming up short

That beoing said, although I feel that CRT's are better for gaming, there is no need for this "my ePenis is bigger than your ePenis" attitude that goes on here. LCD's seem to work for some, and not for others. This doesn't mean that people who choose LCD's are somehow lesser than those who like CRT's...

This is one of the reasons I stopped playing CS. I just couldn't stand the people who game anymore. It used to be people who enjoyed taking some time off from work/studying but once all the idiots in clans and leagues started playing, it was just no fun anymore, because of all of the smack-talk and retarded arguments, and unfortunately that has spilled over here...

 

[wpeng]

I know someone who used to play in a UT2004 clan. He said he quit when his own clan members started complaining that he was stealing their kills.

 

[RegisteredToPost]

I'm trying to figure out how a CRT would give you carpal tunnel syndrome, but coming up short
That beoing said, although I feel that CRT's are better for gaming, there is no need for this "my ePenis is bigger than your ePenis" attitude that goes on here. LCD's seem to work for some, and not for others. This doesn't mean that people who choose LCD's are somehow lesser than those who like CRT's...
This is one of the reasons I stopped playing CS. I just couldn't stand the people who game anymore. It used to be people who enjoyed taking some time off from work/studying but once all the idiots in clans and leagues started playing, it was just no fun anymore, because of all of the smack-talk and retarded arguments, and unfortunately that has spilled over here...

Wow, you're not an asshole lol (no offense harforum)

One of the reasons i want to start playing CS again is to piss off other players by being a complete and total fuckwad. You know, the guy that's always in the way, spamming radio, irritating color decal, popping flashbangs and firing off rounds at his fellow teamates, while they're starting to engage into a firefight! Yes folks, i am that asshole. I am a team killing, nade spamming, porno tagging CS moron. Hate me but, i grow big with your irritations. Sometimes i'll join a local server and get my frag on. Too bad walmart didnt have any copies of HL2. So i left with my batterybackup, dogbones and cherry coke

MY CRT WILL EAT YOUR LCD ANYDAY HURRRR! The term 'professional gamer' kind of puts a really bad picture in my head. Complete loser, no friends, no job, no education, living in some family members' basement, playing a stupid game all day long. I'm glad i picked up an LCD. Whew, dodged a bullet there

Oh, carpel tunnel and crt's. I was making a crack at people who need to BE the game. Feel the kill. BE THE COMPUTER. If your display has no delay(as some claim LCDs do), you're basicaly the bottleneck. The quicker you jerk your arm around, the more kills you could potentially get eh? Well, right arm! I've realized the most enjoyment in online gaming, is annoying the other online gamers....Unless it's TFC, then its all game baby lo;

 

[anasazi]

MY CRT WILL EAT YOUR LCD ANYDAY HURRRR! The term 'professional gamer' kind of puts a really bad picture in my head. Complete loser, no friends, no job, no education, living in some family members' basement, playing a stupid game all day long. I'm glad i picked up an LCD. Whew, dodged a bullet there

i'm glad i'm not the only one that thought like this.

don't forget the pok-e-mon shirt with holes and pizza stains.


as for LCD delay ... i didn't think it was a big deal, but people in other industries have known about this issue since LCD's started comming onto the market and so they won't use LCD's for a primary display. this is a known issue, and has been a known issue for years.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

as for LCD delay ... i didn't think it was a big deal, but people in other industries have known about this issue since LCD's started comming onto the market and so they won't use LCD's for a primary display. this is a known issue, and has been a known issue for years.

I'm curious which industries have a problem with LCD's having a 40ms delay... For most purposes that should work fine. The only one I can think of where it wouldn't would be gaming...

Even the military uses LCD's in weapons technology...

 

[dee-vee]

Now I dont know if I really want a lcd

 

[kleox64]

Just went back to a DELL 17" CRT and it feels much more responsive and definetly much smoother when it comes to mouse movement. It looks like Iam going back to CRT's as I can pick up a DELL FD Trinitron 21" for £50-£100, the utimate goal would be the FW900 but the DELL 21" will be fine until I eventually find an FW900 on ebay IN THE UK.

My opinion LCD's are great for web/text etc... but I'am just too addicted to the damn black level and response time of CRT's. Yes they are big and heavy however I can't justify £600+ on decent LCD, I will still be bothered with the black level. I'am going to skip LCD's and I'am firmly sticking to CRT's until SED comes along when it does, I'am saving the cash I got for my 2405 and putting it towards SED.

 

[anasazi]

I'm curious which industries have a problem with LCD's having a 40ms delay... For most purposes that should work fine. The only one I can think of where it wouldn't would be gaming...

Even the military uses LCD's in weapons technology...

not aviation training

 

[diapickle]

Just went back to a DELL 17" CRT and it feels much more responsive and definetly much smoother when it comes to mouse movement. It looks like Iam going back to CRT's as I can pick up a DELL FD Trinitron 21" for £50-£100, the utimate goal would be the FW900 but the DELL 21" will be fine until I eventually find an FW900 on ebay IN THE UK.

My opinion LCD's are great for web/text etc... but I'am just too addicted to the damn black level and response time of CRT's. Yes they are big and heavy however I can't justify £600+ on decent LCD, I will still be bothered with the black level. I'am going to skip LCD's and I'am firmly sticking to CRT's until SED comes along when it does, I'am saving the cash I got for my 2405 and putting it towards SED.

Or spend the cash on a US trip and haul a FW900 back

 

[Tasc]

Just wanted to let any prospective buyers know that the Samsung 244t has the lag as well, very noticeable just on the desktop.

 

[larkin]

Just wanted to let any prospective buyers know that the Samsung 244t has the lag as well, very noticeable just on the desktop.

How are you testing this?

 

[Tasc]

testing was done like most of the others.

Nvidia 7800gt dualhead in clone mode connected to Samsung 244t (DVI) and Sony 21" CRT (same resolution and refresh). Primary/Clone monitor was switched so each had a chance to be primary display.

I didn't know about the digital clock method at the time, but just looking at both displays simultaneously, the lag was very apparent on the LCD side in real time while moving windows around on the desktop, etc. I called my wife in and asked if she noticed any difference in the displays, her response "What do you mean? the delay?". So it's big enough for the very casual user to notice when compared to crt.

 

[larkin]

I just purchased a 244T and think it's great so naturally I don't want to believe this. There's no difference between the 244t and 2405 lag? 244t is 6ms vs 12ms for the 2405, so there are definetly some hareware differences.

 

[VendettaUF]

Are you guys certain this "lag" that appears in the tests isn't just an artifact of the cloning?

You could test it by rigging up 2 CRTS or swapping the ports on the LCD/CRT

 

[NavyH16]

Are you guys certain this "lag" that appears in the tests isn't just an artifact of the cloning?

You could test it by rigging up 2 CRTS or swapping the ports on the LCD/CRT

Definitely seen the test done with the LCD and CRT swapped ports (same results). I haven't seen two CRTs in the clone test.. but I'd be willing to wager they'll be in sync.

 

[VendettaUF]

I just purchased a 244T and think it's great so naturally I don't want to believe this. There's no difference between the 244t and 2405 lag? 244t is 6ms vs 12ms for the 2405, so there are definetly some hareware differences.

And as just an aside...if you own this monitor and think its great...what do you care what some artificial test says?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I just purchased a 244T and think it's great so naturally I don't want to believe this. There's no difference between the 244t and 2405 lag? 244t is 6ms vs 12ms for the 2405, so there are definetly some hareware differences.

Firstly, those latencies are measuring two different things. The one we are talking about is the delay of displayed images from the computer to the monitor.

The one you are talking about is the time it takes for a pixel to go from completely white, to completely black (or something like that.) ...and Samsung cheats on these numbers.

They define them differently than everyone else and try to sell them as 6ms, by measuring some shade of grey to white instead of the full cycle. A samsung 6ms monitor is more realistcly comparable to a 20-30ms monitor if measured accurately.

Samsung has filthy disgusting marketing people.

Anyway... I bought my 24" widescreen Dell flatpanel after reading this article. I decided to check it out and it turns out that they delay barely impacts me at all.

 

[larkin]

And as just an aside...if you own this monitor and think its great...what do you care what some artificial test says?

It's not going to effect me enjoying the screen. The main puchasing point was the 6ms delay and size and contast and it's asthetically nice as well but a small bounous was that it was a samsung and not a dell. I dont know if i'm making a point here, but i'd like to know the 244t vs 2405 lag. I suspect it should be at least a little different.

 

[larkin]

Firstly, those latencies are measuring two different things. The one we are talking about is the delay of displayed images from the computer to the monitor.

The one you are talking about is the time it takes for a pixel to go from completely white, to completely black (or something like that.) ...and Samsung cheats on these numbers.

I know this. My point was that the samsung is different than the dell spec wise and therefore the lag is likey to be different or at least it's a reason to suppose it might be.

They define them differently than everyone else and try to sell them as 6ms, by measuring some shade of grey to white instead of the full cycle. A samsung 6ms monitor is more realistcly comparable to a 20-30ms monitor if measured accurately.

That's just false. My monitor and case were the last items i purchased because it took the longest to research (about 4 months). I read the internal specs documents for monitors and learned how the measurements are taken. The old way of measuring is white to black to white, otherwise knows as "rise and fall time" or Tr+Tf. Your dell monitor, just like samsung and about everyone else in the industry measures their responce time as the average grey-to-grey. The dell is rated at 16ms, from dell's website "Pixel Response Time (Gray to Gray): 16 milliseconds". I spent about 2 hours on the phone with samsung to find the actuall rise and fall responce time and the actuall grey-to-grey responce. I had to get transfered to senior 3rd teir tech staff who talked with the korean manufacturers and then called me back with the info the next day. The rise and fall number is 12ms, which is better than the dell's 'filthy and disgusting grey-to-grey marketing' number of 16ms. Your dell rise and fall is probabbly around 30ms if you want to play uber speculator game.

 

[kleox64]

its 25ms actually that the average response time of the display, I find it hard to believe that samsung is quoting 12ms...