What is the fastest gaming monitor available?

[schmutz06]

regarding input lag / latency. The time it takes for any actions on the controller/mouse to take place on screen

I use a Dell Ultrasharp U2711 and mostly do multimedia design work. It isn't the best for competitive gaming. I am trying to find the fastest monitor on the market for games like:

Street Fighter
Guitar Hero
FPS games (Halo Reach)

My budget is anything up to £500 (~$1000).

as a starting point:

Dell U2312HM. 0.6ms response which seems to be the lowest. Vertical orientation adjustment too and well under budget

I am looking for:

Size: 22-24" - 1080p (nothing larger)
Latency: Lowest available, doesn't matter how much it butchers the image quality I just want something uber-fast like my CRT!
Adjustments: vertical orientation would be ideal when using it as a second monitor for multimedia work
inputs: I plan on hooking up an xbox to it so HDMI is important. For reference I do my serious gaming on a 10 year old CRT and I own an expensive samsung D7000 55" TV!
3D Not necessary
120Hz: Not necessary

If 3D and 120Hz monitors are the way to go for low input lag then I'm happy to go that route though.

Worth noting: The dell 2312HM has no hdmi socket. Now if using an adapter cable is going to induce any latency then I'll rule out this monitor!

I am looking for the FASTEST monitor. I want to avoid buying the 2312HM only to find 120hz displays would have been the better option.

Can someone confirm this? That the 2312HM has the least latency out of any full HD display out there? Any perceivable difference over my trusty CRT won't cut it

 

[bunnyfubbles]

some of the fastest monitors in terms of input lag that I know of are the 120Hz BenQ monitors (which have been tested to be virtually as good as a CRT), but I don't know if those were tested across all their input ports (both the XL2410T and the new XL2420T have HDMI input, but as a PC gamer I never even paid attention to anything but their DVI-DL ports)

also keep in mind that you can't get 120Hz from your XBox

 

[Charlie98]

I have sort of the same topic running right now... I'm debating if the cost of 120hz is worth the money for a gaming monitor, or if there are better choices.

 

[Karstein]

Latency: Lowest available, doesn't matter how much it butchers the image quality I just want something uber-fast like my CRT!
...
120Hz: Not necessary

When it comes to monitors, 120Hz is optimal for fast-paced games.

 

[schmutz06]

@bunnyfubbles

Thanks for the suggestion on the BenQ XL2420T. I believe this might be the one. I've read good things about it. Input latency indistiguishable compared with the 2312HM, but it's 120Hz will beef up motion performance for fast paced games. Seems like the best choice. What about the Samsung S23A750D/S23A700D? These get a lot of love too if anyone has experience with both I'd love to hear some thoughts.

I have sort of the same topic running right now... I'm debating if the cost of 120hz is worth the money for a gaming monitor, or if there are better choices.

I am willing to throw anything and everything at a display that will allow me HD goodness with CRT-like motion and input lag. For 120Hz as I said in response to bunnyfubbles, if you are interested in having clear motion with little blur it looks like the way to go as long as you don't mind spending extra. If blur doesn't bother you then I think I'd go with the dell 2312HM (I notice motion blur on football games like fifa when doing goal kicks which cause the camera to quickly pan horizontal)

When it comes to monitors, 120Hz is optimal for fast-paced games.

I don't think this statement is based on their LATENCY performance though which is my priority. It is more because 120Hz monitors update the image faster resulting in less blurring. Turning 360 degrees quickly in an FPS game on a 60hz monitor is not going to look as clear as it would on a 120hz.

This said, would the actual LATENCY (time between button press/response) be affected? I don't think this is the case... I think the 2312HM is still technically ahead of any 120hz display with it's 0.6ms response.

 

[Ben90]

When it comes to monitors, 120Hz is optimal for fast-paced games.

I don't think this statement is based on their LATENCY performance though which is my priority. It is more because 120Hz monitors update the image faster resulting in less blurring. Turning 360 degrees quickly in an FPS game on a 60hz monitor is not going to look as clear as it would on a 120hz.

This said, would the actual LATENCY (time between button press/response) be affected? I don't think this is the case... I think the 2312HM is still technically ahead of any 120hz display with it's 0.6ms response.

You basically drop 8.3ms of input delay when running 120FPS @ 120Hz. So yes, on average a 120Hz monitor with 5ms of input delay would still be 3ms ahead of the 2312HM. There can be some technicalities, but to address them all would be pointless. For 120FPS content, you need a 120Hz monitor for the lowest possible input delay.

To be bluntly honest, if you are using an Xbox, the best way to reduce latency is to run all the settings on lowest. I don't know how much you can change settings, but processing/rendering time takes up an embarrassingly long time on consoles.

 

[schmutz06]

You basically drop 8.3ms of input delay when running 120FPS @ 120Hz. So yes, on average a 120Hz monitor with 5ms of input delay would still be 3ms ahead of the 2312HM. There can be some technicalities, but to address them all would be pointless. For 120FPS content, you need a 120Hz monitor for the lowest possible input delay.

A CRT screen in the UK runs at 60Hz correct? And that has no perceivable latency. What I believe is that 120Hz displays update faster, resulting in less blurring. Which of course is ideal for fast games. I can't see how it would affect the actual latency. But, going into more detail I guess that you could assume the following:

action -> response in "x" milliseconds -> 60hz display can only update this information 60 times a second

action -> response in "x" milliseconds -> 120hz display can update this information 120 times a second (meaning it can display the information 1/60th a second faster in some instances)

Is that, (give or take my crappy math/calculations) more or less what it is a case of?

To be bluntly honest, if you are using an Xbox, the best way to reduce latency is to run all the settings on lowest. I don't know how much you can change settings, but processing/rendering time takes up an embarrassingly long time on consoles.

I don't think that would be necessary. Xbox games on the CRT are as fast and responsive as I'll ever need them to be. Meaning, all perceivable latency is caused by the display, not the console. The only factor I can't take into consideration is whether running the games in HD (1080p) will induce any latency. Obviously I run them at 480p on my CRT screen. If HD does produce input latency then it is very unlikely it would be significant because I have never heard such a thing.

 

[Ben90]

I'm not sure how an Xbox and European CRT determine a refresh rate to use. Its either going to be a multiple of 50Hz/60Hz for PAL/NTSC derivatives.

In any case, your are correct with regards to 120Hz vs 60Hz. Unfortunately most of it gets thrown out the window since an Xbox isn't going to render Halo Reach at 120FPS. Something to research is if an Xbox can support 120Hz in the first place. If so, you would still get some theoretical gains because a frame will be delivered and displayed faster when they do update.

If I may assume for a moment, you are comparing a CRT to your Samsung D7000 correct? A quick Google shows that TV suffers from an embarrassing amount of input delay. Even the cheapest of the cheap computer monitors is going to blow the D7000 away in terms of latency.

The second whammy comes from rendering the game above 480p. I don't have any benchmarks of Halo Reach, but I'm guessing its a 30FPS target game in which takes a minimum of 33ms to process/render frames. Cutting the time to render will help a substantial amount even if the framerate doesn't go up.

 

[corkyg]

What is more important, latency or response time in a gaming monitor?

http://javidjamae.com/2005/04/07/response-time-vs-latency/

 

[Ben90]

In the context of the conversation and modern monitors, I would argue that latency is more important.

 

[tynopik]

I just want something uber-fast like my CRT!

another CRT

 

[schmutz06]

I'm not sure how an Xbox and European CRT determine a refresh rate to use. Its either going to be a multiple of 50Hz/60Hz for PAL/NTSC derivatives.

In any case, your are correct with regards to 120Hz vs 60Hz. Unfortunately most of it gets thrown out the window since an Xbox isn't going to render Halo Reach at 120FPS. Something to research is if an Xbox can support 120Hz in the first place. If so, you would still get some theoretical gains because a frame will be delivered and displayed faster when they do update.

If I may assume for a moment, you are comparing a CRT to your Samsung D7000 correct? A quick Google shows that TV suffers from an embarrassing amount of input delay. Even the cheapest of the cheap computer monitors is going to blow the D7000 away in terms of latency.

The second whammy comes from rendering the game above 480p. I don't have any benchmarks of Halo Reach, but I'm guessing its a 30FPS target game in which takes a minimum of 33ms to process/render frames. Cutting the time to render will help a substantial amount even if the framerate doesn't go up.

Well, both the U2711 monitor and the UE55D7000 I use appear to have around 33ms input lag. I don't own the fastest displays, more known for their "other" features, definitely!

Regarding Xbox as I said all of the lag/latency (which actually means anything) is caused by the display, not the console for example:

Xbox + CRT = unperceivable input latency/completely playable

I am not concerned about the Xbox's lack of horsepower. If there is any latency caused by this, it is completely insignificant! The only thing, as you mentioned, is will 720/1080p create more latency? It does not seem feasible that it would to me. (Probably a bad example...) if you crank a PC games display settings all the way and get 5-10fps, the screen still works as fast as it would either way. If you have 10fps the screen is going to hit you with 6 frames each second at it's specified input latency. You'll see the usual "stuttering"/bad performance but it won't be lagging behind in the same way as a high latency screen would. Yes, there will be instances where you are "waiting" x milliseconds for the next frame to appear, but because they will be drawn quickly/with low latency, you are not going to feel input lag. The frame will be up to date with your most recent actions unlike on a high latency display.

^^ All that crap (haha), plus, the fact that I've invested countless hours researching everything regarding video latency and I have never saw anything along the lines of "xbox running resolutions greater than 480p creates additional input latency". I am confident this will not be something I have to deal with. Worst case scenario my 2600K 4.4Ghz SLI GTX 560ti runs anything I throw at it at a respectable framerate. Yes, I am a PC gamer with all the hardware who also appeciates console gaming.

another CRT

and here I was thinking the Benq XL2420T might be the solution to a problem I've had for way too long! another CRT is going right back into the glorious world of standard definition

 

[Ben90]

^^ All that crap (haha), plus, the fact that I've invested countless hours researching everything regarding video latency and I have never saw anything along the lines of "xbox running resolutions greater than 480p creates additional input latency". I am confident this will not be something I have to deal with. Worst case scenario my 2600K 4.4Ghz SLI GTX 560ti runs anything I throw at it at a respectable framerate. Yes, I am a PC gamer with all the hardware who also appeciates console gaming.

I'm just talking theoreticals. My official stance is that pretty much any 120Hz monitor will fit your needs perfectly. If you have the money and don't need the best color reproduction in the world the XL2420T is a solid choice. At the very least it will give you peace of mind that you bought the best.

another CRT

Everyone is different. Maybe my eyes are slow, but I just don't see a major difference between my Trinitron/XL2420T/2233RZ with regards to input delay at 120Hz. The Trinitron is definitely faster at 170Hz though. Maybe you can help me with my own latency problem. Every single Windows 7 computer I've ever ran my monitors on has this problem.

 

[schmutz06]

I ordered the XL2420T earlier this evening and I'm looking forward to trying it out. Thank you for all of the help, I'll be right back to report my opinions when it arrives.

Ben90 your problem is slightly intimidating it seems like something that might drive me crazy. Perhaps it is related to running multiple monitors at different refresh rates? Have you ever tried operating the 120Hz display solo for an extended period of time to see if you still get the problem? I apologise if I have overlooked something as I only skimmed the thread. I am just offering a few thoughts off the top of my head

 

[smackababy]

ASUS VH236H is the monitors they use at EVO, which is the largest American fighting game tournament. It claims 2ms response time.

 

[Ben90]

ASUS VH236H is the monitors they use at EVO, which is the largest American fighting game tournament. It claims 2ms response time.

http://gaming.benq.com/media/news/e...is-the-official-gaming-monitor-sponsor-of-iem

Definitely share your thoughts of the XL2420T when it arrives =D
I bet you will be quite pleased.

If you don't want any of that black equalizer or crazy colors stuff, set the picture mode to standard (very top). Yes, you have to wait for it to change EVERY single time. You will know what I mean when you have to do it lol.

 

[smackababy]

http://gaming.benq.com/media/news/e...is-the-official-gaming-monitor-sponsor-of-iem

I am sure all the major events have sponsors. However, I find it is notable professional fighting game players prefer the monitor mentioned. In the SF series, you have 1 frame to make a link and it requires precision timing. That is 1/60th of a second.

 

[Ben90]

ASUS VH236H is the monitors they use at EVO, which is the largest American fighting game tournament. It claims 2ms response time.

I am sure all the major events have sponsors. However, I find it is notable professional fighting game players prefer the monitor mentioned. In the SF series, you have 1 frame to make a link and it requires precision timing. That is 1/60th of a second.

I scavenged the net and couldn't find any benchmarks for the monitor you are talking about. Real benchmarks, not just CNET saying there is no input delay.

For reference, here is the 2420T benchmarked using scientific methods. It comes in at 4.9ms. That is by far the fastest LCD monitor I have ever seen.

Interestingly enough, using the 4.9ms delay as a base: The BenQ XL2420T has less input delay when fed a 120Hz source then a CRT running at 75Hz

You read it here first on AT Peripherals. I'll reveal the intense pre-highschool math tomorrow when I don't need to go to sleep. It gets a little more in depth than what I just posted, but I think we will all be able to agree on tomorrows conclusion. Definitely an eye opener for me.

 

[Ben90]

The DVI interface sends the image in much the same way as the legacy VGA interface. Line by line, except digitally instead of analog. The amount of lines it sends per second is called the "Horizontal Scan Rate". Dividing the scan rate by vertical lines it needs to draw a full screen yields the "Vertical Refresh Rate". Due to the way that CRT's operate, there are offscreen lines known as "Front Porch, Back Porch, and Sync Width". Adding these to the number of active lines gives us the total amount of lines sent over the DVI interface.

The BenQ XL2420T, and I'm guessing most 1920x1080 monitors, has by default on Windows 7: 1080 active lines, 3 Front Porch, 5 Sync, and 56 Back Porch lines for a total of 1144 Vertical lines. In order to display 1144 lines 120 times a second (120Hz) we need to have a Horizontal scan rate of 137280Hz or 137.28kHz.

Since the front/back buffer in the video card can flip at any time (Vsync is dumb), I'm averaging half of the blanking time to the top half, and half to the bottom half of the screen. I feel this is the most fair since on average its whats going to happen when the buffers swap.

Below is a picture that shows the blanking space as red and gives us an example of what our competing monitors are drawing. Lets scan this in slow motion through the perspective of an XL2420T using 3.4ms latency as per This translated review. I am going to use 1.55ms for pixel response time since it is half of the measured round trip response time.

0:		First bit sent.

7.284µs:	First line recieved, No image shown. (1/137280)

240.384µs:	First active line recieved, No image shown. (33/137280)

3.640ms:	First active line processed, Pixels starting to transition. No image shown yet. 499 lines recieved. Marked this with the white line. ((33/137280)+0.0034)

5.190ms:	First active line shining bright. 745 lines recieved. Marked with yellow line. Input delay is 713 lines (745-32)

9.116ms:	Exactly half of the screen is displayed. (((1144/2)/137280)+0.00495)

13.050ms:	Entire active screen displayed. (((1144-32)/137280)+0.00495)

Well I'd say that wraps up part one. Possibly tomorrow I'll continue with a CRT comparison to start get some compairing and contrasting going on.

 

[schmutz06]

Ben90, a little over my head because I am not familiar with the science behind the technology, but very interesting.

Having now used it for a few days, I have just posted a lengthy XL2420T review on tomshardware if anyone is interested. Click Here

 

[Ben90]

Glad you like it. I'm currently scoring 190 on a good run on that reaction time test, but probably averaging just so slightly under 200. Just need more practice I guess, haven't played anything heavily in at least a year.

I'll wrap up the comparison to a CRT maybe in a long while. I work 48 hours a week and I'm not exactly the most productive person in the world when I'm not getting paid. Today I was very productive for my standards, I bought some wire and wire cutters to fix my motorcycle lights that have been out for two weeks. Haven't done any cutting...maybe tomorrow lol.

 

[Karstein]

Good job on going for 120hz, it really does make a world of difference.

 

[schmutz06]

Good job on going for 120hz, it really does make a world of difference.

tell me about it. After more gaming fun, I am very happy I went with 120Hz. In a way wish I jumped on the bandwagon earlier... the XL2420T wasn't available back then though I wonder how it performs compared to cheaper/older 120Hz displays

 

[thelastjuju]

60hz -> 120hz is one of those jumps that actually DOES amount to something significant.

Unlike many other jumps in technology which double the spec but are useless in gains.. (ie: a 32mb cache HDD to a 64mb HDD)

another CRT is going right back into the glorious world of standard definition

Not sure I understand what this is supposed to mean..

You do realize that CRTs were not only capable of displaying resolutions HIGHER than what we now consider HD (1080p) .. even capable of 120hz (although at lower resolutions) as well.

I've never seen any modern LCD that matched what a higher end Sony Trinitron looks like in motion.. nothing even close..

 

[tynopik]

The DVI interface sends the image in much the same way as the legacy VGA interface. Line by line, except digitally instead of analog. The amount of lines it sends per second is called the "Horizontal Scan Rate". Dividing the scan rate by vertical lines it needs to draw a full screen yields the "Vertical Refresh Rate". Due to the way that CRT's operate, there are offscreen lines known as "Front Porch, Back Porch, and Sync Width". Adding these to the number of active lines gives us the total amount of lines sent over the DVI interface.

Nice math, but you're measuring the wrong thing