Input lag and responsiveness in other resolutions?

[hywdx80]

This thread is mostly for 120hz lcds. I posted on 3d vision with hardly and responses.

Yes I know 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 looks very pretty but for first person shooters. I prefer playing fps at 1024x768 in a boxed 4:3 mode on a 120hz. In my opinion the image is still sharp and crisp and is essentially the same image that my old 22" NEC CRT produces. I prefer the black bars and centering the image on the monitor and it looks a lot sharper then stretching out full pixel of the high resolution monitor in a lower resolution such as 1024x768.

The reason I prefer gaming like this is because over the years I've become custom to competitive gaming on my CRT and prefer 4:3 over 16:10. Plus I'm able to push more frames at the lower resolution.

My question is if I run at 1024x768 in a 'nvidia scaling with fixed-aspect ratio' or 'do not scale' (I forget which option I checked when had had tried the viewsonic and samsung 120hz lcds back in December), will this introduce more input lag and responsiveness then playing at the native resolution of 1680x1050 or 1920x1080?

Are there any tests confirming more or less input lag / responsiveness?

Don't hate me for wanting to play in 4:3 mode! I enjoy the extra wide screen space for desktop and playing rts

 

[Solstice]

If there's no hardware scaling and the pixels are being mapped onto the display in a 1:1 manner I can't fathom how this could incur any added latency.
In fact, in my mind I think it'd be more likely that latency would be reduced by a tiny fraction since there's less pixels and thus data coming through the pipeline.

 

[cybz]

The option you speak of is it a driver option? Because if the scaling is done by your nvidia driver then it will change nothing to the input lag of your monitor if it outputs in the native resolution. If you would get lag then it would be in the frame rate of your game not input lag of the monitor.

 

[hywdx80]

The option you speak of is it a driver option? Because if the scaling is done by your nvidia driver then it will change nothing to the input lag of your monitor if it outputs in the native resolution. If you would get lag then it would be in the frame rate of your game not input lag of the monitor.

I don't currently own any 120hz lcds and my current machine is still using a CRT. I sold them back in December when I got word that the new 1080p 120hz would come out. However it seems from all the reviews that the 22" 120hz are still faster then the new 1080p.

When I did use the monitor I would select one of these options to change the scaling on the monitor to put the 1024x768 image into a 4:3 boxed mode. (I forgot which option I selected)

http://www.tridef.com/support/images/nvidia-scaling.png

 

[cybz]

I play UT2K4 in 800x600 I might consider doing the same when I get a 120hz that doesn't suck (last time I got one there was such horrible backlight bleeding I returned it) though I currently don't have that option with my ATI driver

 

[Soneji]

rub your nipples on it

 

[lawless2142]

Almost all LCD scaling methods introduce a small amount of scaler lag. Even if you have a dedicated chip, you still get on the order of 8-16ms (approx 1 frame or less) of image delay. Usually this is so little it's not even worth measuring. The biggest contributors to input lag are almost always the video card itself, pre-rendered frames or thread lag, and your monitor's response time.

Some panels do better over VGA; and in this case that might worth a try as you can force feed a 120hz panel some funky refresh rates over VGA that you can't under DVI/HDMI.

 

[RandomDude77]

Input lag and responsiveness in other resolutions?

I'm wondering about this as well...

I've looked into the Eizo EV2333WH, which seems to be pretty amazing... except for one catch: the input lag and responsiveness.

I don't need the 1920x1080 resolution, and I'm wondering if I ran, lets say, 1280x1024 the input lag would be
reduced and if it would result in higher responsiveness... and how much difference it would make, if any.

The IQ seems to be good on the EV2333WH, but I'm very sensitive to input lag (always used CRT, so almost any lag at all feels unacceptable).

So annoying... why can't they just combine it all; very high quality and near-zero lag.

 

[dowant120hz]

I'm wondering about this as well...

I've looked into the Eizo EV2333WH, which seems to be pretty amazing... except for one catch: the input lag and responsiveness.

I don't need the 1920x1080 resolution, and I'm wondering if I ran, lets say, 1280x1024 the input lag would be
reduced and if it would result in higher responsiveness... and how much difference it would make, if any.

The IQ seems to be good on the EV2333WH, but I'm very sensitive to input lag (always used CRT, so almost any lag at all feels unacceptable).

So annoying... why can't they just combine it all; very high quality and near-zero lag.

no
smaller resolutions change nothing about the responsiveness
and non-native resolutions always add-input lag on tfts

what i would do is play in window mode and automatically position the windows with autohotkey or so
that doesn't give you black borders but you can center the image and have the titlebar off-screen

 

[RandomDude77]

non-native resolutions always add-input lag on tfts

Even when the monitor supports 1:1 pixel mapping and you run it in boxed mode with empty black space around the sides?

A smaller amount of pixels are being used and there's no stretching/scaling involved.

How would that add any sort of lag?

It should either become faster... or have zero impact...

Don't see how it would slow it down.

 

[dowant120hz]

Even when the monitor supports 1:1 pixel mapping and you run it in boxed mode with empty black space around the sides?

A smaller amount of pixels are being used and there's no stretching/scaling involved.

How would that add any sort of lag?

It should either become faster... or have zero impact...

Don't see how it would slow it down.

ah haven't thought about that
but any kind of scaling adds lag

and about the responsiveness:
less pixels used doesn't mean they get controlled differently
response is exactly the same
lower res just makes it easier for your gpu to provide higher fps

 

[RandomDude77]

ah haven't thought about that
but any kind of scaling adds lag

Yes, of course... I should've been a bit more clear to begin with when I wrote about the Eizo because my whole
point (which I thought about when writing the post but failed to mention) is that it supports 1:1 mapping.


(I'm looking for an LCD with better blacks and uniformity than found on IPS-based monitors and the EV2333WH seems
to be one of those (based on the PRAD review), but it's slow... and coincidentally I don't want 1920x1080 and would
prefer to always run it in 1280x1024, boxed... which also might make it faster compared to its full native res mode.)

 

[dowant120hz]

a lot of people looking for a gaming display that also has a good picture (me included)
but the market unfortunately is completely empty

you may wanna consider 1440x1080 as a resolution btw
its real 3:4 ratio and you wouldn't have borders at the top/bottom

 

[Jonte]

I'm wondering about this as well...

I've looked into the Eizo EV2333WH, which seems to be pretty amazing... except for one catch: the input lag and responsiveness.

I don't need the 1920x1080 resolution, and I'm wondering if I ran, lets say, 1280x1024 the input lag would be
reduced and if it would result in higher responsiveness... and how much difference it would make, if any.

The IQ seems to be good on the EV2333WH, but I'm very sensitive to input lag (always used CRT, so almost any lag at all feels unacceptable).

I believe you have a to high opinion of your senses. How many LCDs have you tried in the recent years?
What kind of latency does your internet connection add normally?

So annoying... why can't they just combine it all; very high quality and near-zero lag.

Breaking news!!!

2/100ths of a second is near-zero lag!


Just buy the screen, if you actually notice the input lag or find the ghosting to be to much, return it. No one here knows how sensitive you are.

 

[RandomDude77]

a lot of people looking for a gaming display that also has a good picture (me included)
but the market unfortunately is completely empty

you may wanna consider 1440x1080 as a resolution btw
its real 3:4 ratio and you wouldn't have borders at the top/bottom

Of course... but it's more that I dislike very high resolutions, rather than the widescreen itself. I'm most used to 1280x960 (4:3)
on a CRT so that space is enough for me. Horizontally, 1280x1024 is the same but just gives me more vertical space (which is fine).
1440x1080 is indeed a good custom res if one wants 4:3, but for me that would be a bit much.


----

I believe you have a to high opinion of your senses.

I know myself, and I got very fast (or what I would call normal and not slow) senses.

How many LCDs have you tried in the recent years?

Several, including the Dell 2209WA... which is a very fast monitor, but horrible picture quality.

What kind of latency does your internet connection add normally?

What does internet connection speed have to do with anything? If you watch movies and
the monitor is laggy, you will instantly notice the frames getting blurred and ghosting.

I don't play FPS at all (anymore), but the connection speed argument is completely dumb.
When you move, or do anything, in an online game, especially an FPS,
everything happens FIRST on your end; then information is sent to the other players.
If you have a mouse that takes 5 seconds for the signal to register on the computer,
it will take 5 seconds before you see that on your screen. Likewise, if your monitor
has 5 seconds of lag, it will take 5 seconds before it shows you the picture.

It's the most stupid argument ever. I tested an HP TN two years back, which was touted
as being very fast, and people were loving it for it's low response times, but when I tried
playing some CoD4, it just didn't work at all... so... darn... sluggish... and blurry.

Besides, even if that argument would have any validity (which of course it doesn't); it's the same as saying:

Think about all the nuclear bomb tests. Think about all the depleted uranium that's
been released into the atmosphere with a half-life of 4.6 billion years. Think of all the
excitotoxins and neurotoxins like monosodium glutamate and other additives to food.
Think of the radiation from cellphones and of their towers. So stop caring; it doesn't
matter that you smoke. Smoke all you want, you won't notice the negative health effects.

... in other words, dumb.

Breaking news!!!

2/100ths of a second is near-zero lag!

And 1 million years (2/xxxx...ths of the universe) is nothing either...