![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Hello,
My questions are as follows:
What are the <3 ms of input lag lcd models?
What is their max "refresh" rate?
Would I be able to lower the lcd's native resolution to overcome the dvi bandwidth limitation?
How problematic is it to go lower than the lcd's native resolution?
With an lcd can I specify a hz rate with the kind of precision that I can on a crt w/powerstrip?
Background information and motivation for these questions:
I have an iiyama visionmaster 450 (non pro) and I run 800x600 at 154 hz as the game I used to play (quakeworld) had a server frame update of 77 fps (allowing a lowest possible ping of 13 ms, well ~12.98701 ms but the server rounds it, I tried to keep this in mind when setting those decimal hz values in powerstrip though).
At 154 hz I would run maxfps at 154 to get two frames per server update which reduced visual latency (by being a multiple of the server fps) while still allowing a nice framerate. I would do the same for other games like for example quake3 depending on what the server frames/sec where set to, ie. if it was set to 30 I would set it to 120 for 4 frames per server update. This is a bit misleading because in only one of those 4 frames is the server actually updating but I chose to do it this way because I could not tolerate lower framerates, and by the way i'm not interested in hearing "oh u can only see xx fps as a human u r lying to urself" comments; I personally notice a huge difference between for example 90 fps and 120. Of course I run all this with vsync off because vsync causes latency, and some (minor) tearing is a small price to pay.
Now that i'm upgrading my system I have to seriously consider a modern LCD because CRT's are hard to find, and imo have inflated prices. First of all though, any input lag is unacceptable (unless it is very very low and very consistent), so that narrows it down to the handful of models that are out that test this way (but ToastyX has led me to believe that the tests made be flawed).
I've never understood how gamers can put up with 20-90 ms of input lag and yet wine bitch moan and complain if their ping went up by this much. It all adds up. Say for instance the server updates at 25 fps, that's already 40 ms of latency from the server itself. Then say you have a 40 ms ping time, now you have 80. Add to that up to maybe 20 ms (a conservative estimate imo) for less than optimum game settings, and then tack on another say 30 ms (also a conservative number) for many lcds. That's 130 ms of latency before the images can even get to your brain to process, and this is not to mention that A. these numbers could be fluctuating and B. the time it takes for your computer to do the processing... which could be unnecessarily high due to various reasons such as poorly written device drivers.
Most folks with broadband would consider a 130 ms ping time to be quite high and even unplayable depending on the netcode and the game.
So, I would like to at least increase the hz rate on an lcd monitor to 154 or beyond.It would seem that say if a screen has 5 ms response time that it could change its pixels up to 200 times a second for 200 hz. However i've learned from this forum that the dvi bandwidth is not sufficient for this refresh rate at high (for me) resolutions. The problem is that a lot of these resolutions are the screen's native resolution!
My questions are as follows:
What are the <3 ms of input lag lcd models?
What is their max "refresh" rate?
Would I be able to lower the lcd's native resolution to overcome the dvi bandwidth limitation?
How problematic is it to go lower than the lcd's native resolution?
With an lcd can I specify a hz rate with the kind of precision that I can on a crt w/powerstrip?
Background information and motivation for these questions:
I have an iiyama visionmaster 450 (non pro) and I run 800x600 at 154 hz as the game I used to play (quakeworld) had a server frame update of 77 fps (allowing a lowest possible ping of 13 ms, well ~12.98701 ms but the server rounds it, I tried to keep this in mind when setting those decimal hz values in powerstrip though).
At 154 hz I would run maxfps at 154 to get two frames per server update which reduced visual latency (by being a multiple of the server fps) while still allowing a nice framerate. I would do the same for other games like for example quake3 depending on what the server frames/sec where set to, ie. if it was set to 30 I would set it to 120 for 4 frames per server update. This is a bit misleading because in only one of those 4 frames is the server actually updating but I chose to do it this way because I could not tolerate lower framerates, and by the way i'm not interested in hearing "oh u can only see xx fps as a human u r lying to urself" comments; I personally notice a huge difference between for example 90 fps and 120. Of course I run all this with vsync off because vsync causes latency, and some (minor) tearing is a small price to pay.
Now that i'm upgrading my system I have to seriously consider a modern LCD because CRT's are hard to find, and imo have inflated prices. First of all though, any input lag is unacceptable (unless it is very very low and very consistent), so that narrows it down to the handful of models that are out that test this way (but ToastyX has led me to believe that the tests made be flawed).
I've never understood how gamers can put up with 20-90 ms of input lag and yet wine bitch moan and complain if their ping went up by this much. It all adds up. Say for instance the server updates at 25 fps, that's already 40 ms of latency from the server itself. Then say you have a 40 ms ping time, now you have 80. Add to that up to maybe 20 ms (a conservative estimate imo) for less than optimum game settings, and then tack on another say 30 ms (also a conservative number) for many lcds. That's 130 ms of latency before the images can even get to your brain to process, and this is not to mention that A. these numbers could be fluctuating and B. the time it takes for your computer to do the processing... which could be unnecessarily high due to various reasons such as poorly written device drivers.
Most folks with broadband would consider a 130 ms ping time to be quite high and even unplayable depending on the netcode and the game.
So, I would like to at least increase the hz rate on an lcd monitor to 154 or beyond.It would seem that say if a screen has 5 ms response time that it could change its pixels up to 200 times a second for 200 hz. However i've learned from this forum that the dvi bandwidth is not sufficient for this refresh rate at high (for me) resolutions. The problem is that a lot of these resolutions are the screen's native resolution!
