TV level input lag for computer use

W

wyem

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
100
I understand most monitors have a input lag of less than 10 ms. And some TVs can be as high as 50 to 100 ms.

But even in the latter case it seems rather fast for general desktop use. I mean, 100 ms is a 10th of a second.

So are the complaints about input lag mostly directed towards gaming? Or does it cause genuine problems elsewhere?
 
Gamers well trained with specific games or whole game genres (fighting, shooters, rhythm, etc) can't even stand 1/2 a frame (8ms).

But yeah about 2 frames (33ms) is okay for mooooooost people.
Personally I'm okay up until 1,5 frames (25ms) and I've been playing timing-critical games for decades.

Anything around 3 frames (50ms) gets on my nerves, even in role playing games.
 
100ms is pretty bad, most people playing games for a while should feel the lag. Especially if you also add 20-100ms for online multiplayer games.

If you want to really see the difference use 1-5ms screens on a local LAN multiplayer game. Difference is quite huge! Best way to see it is do the comparison yourself.

WARNING: you can't "un-see/un-feel" the difference after.
 
There are some TVs now that are gaining popularity as monitors. The JU6500/JU6700 and JU9000/9500 monitors from Samsung are all good examples of TV's with UHD (4:4:4: Chroma) support and low enough input lag for gaming. These "monitors" have a "game" mode which cuts out all the post processing which reduces the lag to a reasonable 22ms or less (depending on who's tests you believe) which puts them on par with IPS monitors from a few years ago. The general consensus is that these are good enough for most people even in shooters. While I can feel a minor difference between these and higher refresh rate monitors I've gotten used to it. The input lag is consistent and hard to detect but because of the consistency you can get used to it. I wouldn't use it for hardcore competition necessarily but for all other uses I think they are sufficient.

The benefit is the huge size. You get incredibly immersive gameplay and desktop real estate equivalent to multi-monitor displays without all the configuration bullshit.
 
I currently use a rather basic 39" Toshiba TV @ 1080p and as far as input lag goes between the game mode vs normal or non game mode, it is hardly noticeable. I can't give exact specifications but it has your basic options/connections and I run it through HDMI. I also can be somewhat picky and be bothered easily by things like having to use a TV as a monitor because my girlfriend takes all the rest of my money... That! and things like user input lag. :)
 
Does anyone know how input lag in TV reviews captured with Leo Bondar test translates into TFT central or prad.de measurments ?
 
Dan_D said:
There are some TVs now that are gaining popularity as monitors. The JU6500/JU6700 and JU9000/9500 monitors from Samsung are all good examples of TV's with UHD (4:4:4: Chroma) support and low enough input lag for gaming. These "monitors" have a "game" mode which cuts out all the post processing which reduces the lag to a reasonable 22ms or less (depending on who's tests you believe) which puts them on par with IPS monitors from a few years ago. The general consensus is that these are good enough for most people even in shooters. While I can feel a minor difference between these and higher refresh rate monitors I've gotten used to it. The input lag is consistent and hard to detect but because of the consistency you can get used to it. I wouldn't use it for hardcore competition necessarily but for all other uses I think they are sufficient.

The benefit is the huge size. You get incredibly immersive gameplay and desktop real estate equivalent to multi-monitor displays without all the configuration bullshit.
Click to expand...

Dan_D nailed it.
 
I used a 47" TV for everything on my desk for quite a few years but couldn't figure out why I felt like I was "getting old" for some of the gaming. I didn't feel slow.

Finally discovered input lag and did some tests on the TV. Somewhere around 75ms give or take 25.

Made the decision to switch to a BenQ XL2720Z and see if I was missing anything.

To call it amazing would be an understatement. Between the low latency, blur reduction and 120hz support I am now sold on gaming on that screen exclusively. I keep the 47 as my second monitor on the side for info, multimedia and whatever.

Yes. It made me give up gaming on a 47" screen to go back to a 27". Which when I did the grand experiment and shelled out for that BenQ I was seriously skeptical. Not expecting that result at all.

In short, it was like being on a CRT again after all these years. Which is a good thing.

So choose carefully. If you are a single player game kind of person you can get away with most TVs no problem. You'll adapt to the input lag unless it's really horrible.

However, if you play online... I'm sold on these new monitors and like I was sold on SSD hard drives when they came down in price. It's that much better.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to describe until you sit down and use one that is configured properly. Then you are just, "Wow why didn't anyone tell me this was available?"
 
Advil said:
....So choose carefully. If you are a single player game kind of person you can get away with most TVs no problem. You'll adapt to the input lag unless it's really horrible.....
Click to expand...

I guess this would describe my situation pretty well then. I just bought up a new 2015 55" 4k Sammy, and with all the "lag options" set on (not using game or pc mode and using auto motion plus) and don't notice any delay in on-screen reaction in any game. Of course as one member pointed out, I've probably just gotten use to "shitty" lcd screens over the years as opposed to CRT monitors lol.
 
Everyone is different when it comes to input lag. I can feel a 20-25ms delay but any lower and I start to have a really hard time telling. My cousin on the other hand couldn't tell the difference even when the input lag was set to as high as 40ms!

kpzMJkA.jpg
 
Michaelius said:
Does anyone know how input lag in TV reviews captured with Leo Bondar test translates into TFT central or prad.de measurments ?
Click to expand...

Depends on who / what website did the review as to begin since they don't all use the LB tester the same way.
Then comparing with other methods means taking several variables into account: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=641

So from what I've read and observed over the years I believe most LB tester we are given are a bit higher than tftcentral's because it's not used and interpreted well by the reviewers/websites.
Also it's kind of outdated now since it's limited to HDMI 1080p60. If you go to rtings for instance it's only the middle figure they give you, without a care for brightness point, type of panel and response, signal type w/ or without scaling, etc.
hdtvtest seem to be better at it, plus when they can they also give their camera test measurement, with this you can guess the actual total lag is somewhere in between the two figures.
Can't say for prad as sometimes their lag measurements are completely different when compared to several other reasonably trusted reviews websites such as tft, playwares, overclockers.ru, etc. Different and sometimes possibly wrong...
 
I just tried that test and couldn't really tell a difference at 50 MS. At 100 MS I could tell because the mouse felt like it was moving through molasses. In the thread the programmer said this was actually an error of his coding, not actual input lag.

Fortunately I'm not a gamer, I just use computers for productivity purposes. So I think a TV with even 100 MS input lag will suit me just fine.

So now the only thing I have to look out for is 444 chroma subsampling!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top