Monitor with lowest input lag

P

pstNN

n00b
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
3
Hi,

Which LCD monitor has the lowest amount of input lag ? Doesn't matter if it's 144hz or not. I just want it as close to CRTs as possible. Looking at tftcentral quickly, it seems to be the XL2720z but I'm unsure. Doesn't have to be over 1080p as I play low resolutions anyways.

thanks
 
What video card are you using? Will you be upgrading said video card soon? Monitor price range?
 
p3sty said:
What video card are you using? Will you be upgrading said video card soon? Monitor price range?
Click to expand...


980 ti, but I play in 4:3 and image quality doesn't matter. No I don't plan on upgrading it. Price range would be <700$ if possible.
 
I'm guessing you're one of those guys who plays CS:GO at 800x600 at the lowest graphical settings. That's a waste, in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.

According to TFT Central the Acer XB270HU has the lowest signal processing time and lowest overall lag using SMTT at about 3ms, and it can be had for under $400. The ASUS PG279Q is a very close second in overall lag at 3.25ms, but it still costs $800. I would pay attention closely to the signal processing time as this is the number that represents how soon the monitor updates from receiving new frame information from the graphics card, while the rest of the number is how long the pixels take to change color.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
I'm guessing you're one of those guys who plays CS:GO at 800x600 at the lowest graphical settings. That's a waste, in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Never in a million years will I understand people like that.
 
criccio said:
Never in a million years will I understand people like that.
Click to expand...

They come from the school of thought that the lower resolution settings will produce more consistent and faster frame rates. This is coupled with an ultra-competitive mindset perpetuated by the Quake and CS players of the era. Like a lot of ancient advice, it manges to propogate the internet today no matter how dated the thinking might be. I understood guys doing it in competition but quite frankly I used to beat guys who played like this all the time while maxing out my graphics settings in the same games. Dropping your graphics settings won't turn a bad player into a great one. It might give the slightest advantage among equal players but that's the equivalent of splitting hairs. Lastly, I don't think this behavior is as prevalent these days when it doesn't take much graphics horsepower to max out nearly every game you can find at 1080P and achieve a consistent 60FPS or better.
 
Dan_D said:
They come from the school of thought that the lower resolution settings will produce more consistent and faster frame rates. This is coupled with an ultra-competitive mindset perpetuated by the Quake and CS players of the era. Like a lot of ancient advice, it manges to propogate the internet today no matter how dated the thinking might be. I understood guys doing it in competition but quite frankly I used to beat guys who played like this all the time while maxing out my graphics settings in the same games. Dropping your graphics settings won't turn a bad player into a great one. It might give the slightest advantage among equal players but that's the equivalent of splitting hairs. Lastly, I don't think this behavior is as prevalent these days when it doesn't take much graphics horsepower to max out nearly every game you can find at 1080P and achieve a consistent 60FPS or better.
Click to expand...
And unlike those games, the physics are not tied to framerate. Modern online games are limited to the server's tic rate, anyway. If the server tic rate is only 101 then having the game run at 200+ FPS isn't going to give you any real advantage in the end.
 
Armenius said:
I'm guessing you're one of those guys who plays CS:GO at 800x600 at the lowest graphical settings. That's a waste, in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

I have an FW900 (crt) which is capable of 2304x1440, and can fully resolve 1920x1080. Yet I play quakelive at 960x600, and this is for two reasons:

1) I can get 160hz refresh rate at that resolution
2) I can maintain a solid 250 fps in almost all situations.

and in a game like quake, a solid 250 fps is a good advantage. Also, it still looks great, since CRTs render low resolutions pretty wonderfully.
 
spacediver said:
I have an FW900 (crt) which is capable of 2304x1440, and can fully resolve 1920x1080. Yet I play quakelive at 960x600, and this is for two reasons:

1) I can get 160hz refresh rate at that resolution
2) I can maintain a solid 250 fps in almost all situations.

and in a game like quake, a solid 250 fps is a good advantage. Also, it still looks great, since CRTs render low resolutions pretty wonderfully.
Click to expand...

Or you could get a 175hz LCD and not have to make your desk almost exclusively out of cinder blocks.
 
i think its acer xb270hu and pg279q - you can see it on tft central - both have an input lag of <1ms. response time is around 5ms
 
Dan_D said:
They come from the school of thought that the lower resolution settings will produce more consistent and faster frame rates. This is coupled with an ultra-competitive mindset perpetuated by the Quake and CS players of the era. Like a lot of ancient advice, it manges to propogate the internet today no matter how dated the thinking might be. I understood guys doing it in competition but quite frankly I used to beat guys who played like this all the time while maxing out my graphics settings in the same games. Dropping your graphics settings won't turn a bad player into a great one. It might give the slightest advantage among equal players but that's the equivalent of splitting hairs. Lastly, I don't think this behavior is as prevalent these days when it doesn't take much graphics horsepower to max out nearly every game you can find at 1080P and achieve a consistent 60FPS or better.
Click to expand...
no, that's not why people that play csgo play on 4:3. they play on 4:3 because it makes models appear larger and therefore it feels easier to hit them. it has absolutely nothing to do with framerate.
 
Odellus said:
no, that's not why people that play csgo play on 4:3. they play on 4:3 because it makes models appear larger and therefore it feels easier to hit them. it has absolutely nothing to do with framerate.
Click to expand...

I didn't address playing at 4:3 at all.
 
Dan_D said:
I didn't address playing at 4:3 at all.
Click to expand...
either way you are confused. they don't intentionally play on low resolution, they intentionally play on 4:3/5:4. the fact that those 4:3/5:4 resolutions are low in pixel count is beside the point.
 
Odellus said:
either way you are confused. they don't intentionally play on low resolution, they intentionally play on 4:3/5:4. the fact that those 4:3/5:4 resolutions are low in pixel count is beside the point.
Click to expand...

While the OP isn't the one who claimed to be running an ultra-low resolution, it was brought up by someone else. Some people in this thread have responses where they even stated that they do game at lower resolutions. People who play at 4:3 and ultra low resolution are generally cut from the same cloth.
 
Dan_D said:
They come from the school of thought that the lower resolution settings will produce more consistent and faster frame rates. This is coupled with an ultra-competitive mindset perpetuated by the Quake and CS players of the era. Like a lot of ancient advice, it manges to propogate the internet today no matter how dated the thinking might be. I understood guys doing it in competition but quite frankly I used to beat guys who played like this all the time while maxing out my graphics settings in the same games. Dropping your graphics settings won't turn a bad player into a great one. It might give the slightest advantage among equal players but that's the equivalent of splitting hairs. Lastly, I don't think this behavior is as prevalent these days when it doesn't take much graphics horsepower to max out nearly every game you can find at 1080P and achieve a consistent 60FPS or better.
Click to expand...

The main advantange of turning settings down is to make everything clearer. Remove all that foliage and shadows etc, and your competitors appear clear as day.

Low resolution is just dumb.
 
I don't disagree. I can't stand playing games on low resolution, detail settings, or at non-widescreen ratios.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'd never do it for any games I play, but I can see why some people would do it in a competition. Turning down the resolution, however, is obviously gunna hurt your ability to see, so totally pointless. Maybe made sense back in the 3dfx days...
 
spine said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd never do it for any games I play, but I can see why some people would do it in a competition. Turning down the resolution, however, is obviously gunna hurt your ability to see, so totally pointless. Maybe made sense back in the 3dfx days...
Click to expand...

There was a time where it did make some sense to turn down the resolution. Those days are long past.
 
He might actually play fighting games, he never said specifically :)

Some choices for you would be. Lg 24gm77-b, Viewsonic XG2401, AOC G2460PQU...

If you look at these variants i would say the amount of input lag - i believe is neglidgable, i am just going by memory though, so you'll have to do your homework..Also some of those Benq's were not as good supposedly with input lag iirc so again, you'll have to do your homework.

However IF you are playing fps games and this is what that is about, then i would say to the point of input lag vs refresh rate, a higher refresh rate on any decent gaming monitor is going to benefit you more than just paying attention to pure input lag anyway.

I do understand the desire for that 1:1 feel since i used nothing but Fw900's for the last 13 years and nothing but crts all my life until this last year. But today, as of 2017 i would say that if you are in fact playing fps games competitively, the new Standard is the new 25" 240Hz monitors. It is a 25" monitor, so even at 1080p you also get the bigger pixels to go with it instead if using scaling and playing at low resolutions.

WHICH btw, actually, in general using scaling on lcds is not recommended anyways as it can introduce input lag, so you could be defeating your purpose anyway. Again do your homework. You'll probably have to ask around because no one really reviews lcds at 800x600 and then measures input lag. But generally for Lcds you almost always would want to use it's native resolution.

I would say check out the new 25" 240hz monitors. They are pretty much made exclusively for Fps gaming ( if that's what this is about ) and should be very low input lag at least as low as the best lcds before them and i would say the 1080p 144Hz tn panels that came before them are basically obsolete now.
 
Last edited:
Dell S27DG should be on your list; 2.70ms input lag, 1440p, G-Sync, and regularly on sale for <$500.
 
spine said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd never do it for any games I play, but I can see why some people would do it in a competition. Turning down the resolution, however, is obviously gunna hurt your ability to see, so totally pointless. Maybe made sense back in the 3dfx days...
Click to expand...
it's not pointless if the lower resolution is a squarer aspect ratio, and lower resolution isn't going to hurt your ability to see in pretty much any competitive game because you're either going to know where your enemies are going to be or they're so big that it doesn't matter. games with really long range combat yeah, turning down the resolution is stupid.

2jWgkGt.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top