Sub 1 frame HDTV/Monitor Input Lag Database

12930313234

Comments

  • DEZALBDEZALB "Yamazaki Nigari" Joined: Posts: 610
    Yeah, it is between the ASUS VS238H-P 23" and BenQ GL2460HM. Its between those two really. Unless a sale happens for valentines day. So i might wait just to see whats up. Maybe i find out what im looking for on the benq. More than likely these two monitors are very similar in lag input.
  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    BenQ GL2460 is on displaylag.com, HM version has built in speakers.
  • DEZALBDEZALB "Yamazaki Nigari" Joined: Posts: 610
    edited February 2016
    I only see the GL2450, maybe those two are similar enough though


    Untitled_zps10u9o3jz.png
    Post edited by DEZALB on
  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    BenQ GL2460 has no hdmi or speakers, BenQ GL2460HM has hdmi and speakers, that's the difference.
  • DEZALBDEZALB "Yamazaki Nigari" Joined: Posts: 610
    i still dont see GL2460 anywhere on the lagtest site, only GL2450.

    but i found this in a product description on one of the test sites


    "The BenQ GL2460HM is a solid gaming monitor as well, thanks to the quick 2ms (gray-to-gray) pixel response and 10,5ms input lag (measured using Leo Bodnar Video Signal Lag Tester), users will get to enjoy smooth gaming experience with this display and fire commands in the keyboard with faster monitor response....."

  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    Oh sorry yeah thought it said GL2460.
  • mookie3threemookie3three Joined: Posts: 6
    Anyone know if the Benq GW2760hm has decent input lag? Seems the 2750hm is very good.
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Anyone know if the Benq GW2760hm has decent input lag? Seems the 2750hm is very good.

    Look up displaylag.com
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • mookie3threemookie3three Joined: Posts: 6
    Darksakul wrote: »
    Anyone know if the Benq GW2760hm has decent input lag? Seems the 2750hm is very good.

    Look up displaylag.com

    It's not listed on there
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Could be too new, its not even widely available globally yet
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • DEZALBDEZALB "Yamazaki Nigari" Joined: Posts: 610
    Mookie- if your looking for a 27" benq go with the BenQ GL2760H same as the GL246h 10ms input lag

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IZBIMLK/ref=twister_B00XUFL6NM?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
  • mookie3threemookie3three Joined: Posts: 6
    DEZALB wrote: »
    Mookie- if your looking for a 27" benq go with the BenQ GL2760H same as the GL246h 10ms input lag

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IZBIMLK/ref=twister_B00XUFL6NM?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

    Ok thanks. The Gl2760h is about $50 more in Australia but I guess if there is no data on the GW2760hm then it's worth it to know it's sub 1 frame lag. Cheers
  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    This small portable gaming monitor reported under a frame of lag with the Leo Bodnar.
    https://gaemspge.com/m155-personal-gaming-monitor.html
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    edited April 2016
    That's 19 ms at the bottom of the screen?? If that's on top of the original 16.7 ms it takes to draw a screen then that's an entire extra frame of lag. If that includes the 16.7 ms then it's only an additional 2 ms on top of the 17 it takes for a screen to render from to to bottom.
    Post edited by Moonchilde on
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    Ok I just checked. Bare minimum the device will report is 16.7 ms at the bottom of the screen. This display only has an additional 2 ms of lag. That's really good! That's way under a frame. Someone really needs to update the definition of lag, because people will assume 19 ms as being over a frame, when a reading of 19 ms is really 2 ms of lag. Need to always subtract the original frame being drawn from what's read at the bottom of the screen.
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    Ok I just checked. Bare minimum the device will report is 16.7 ms at the bottom of the screen. This display only has an additional 2 ms of lag. That's really good! That's way under a frame. Someone really needs to update the definition of lag, because people will assume 19 ms as being over a frame, when a reading of 19 ms is really 2 ms of lag. Need to always subtract the original frame being drawn from what's read at the bottom of the screen.

    That is why you always take 3 readings, Top, Middle and Bottom. As you go from top to bottom the readings get longer.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • JannodudeJannodude Joined: Posts: 241
    edited April 2016
    For a 27" Monitor, I use the ASUS MX279H, I see it sometimes as low as $230.. On the displaylag.com, it's rated at 09ms. The BenQ noted by @DEZALB is a better deal though!
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    I been telling people go for the Ben Q for months now.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    Darksakul wrote: »
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    Ok I just checked. Bare minimum the device will report is 16.7 ms at the bottom of the screen. This display only has an additional 2 ms of lag. That's really good! That's way under a frame. Someone really needs to update the definition of lag, because people will assume 19 ms as being over a frame, when a reading of 19 ms is really 2 ms of lag. Need to always subtract the original frame being drawn from what's read at the bottom of the screen.

    That is why you always take 3 readings, Top, Middle and Bottom. As you go from top to bottom the readings get longer.

    A lot of people read the middle and simply tell people that number is the input lag. Reading that, I would assume that's on top of the original 16.7 ms. If the middle of the screen is 12 ms then the input lag should be somewhere around 2 to 4 ms. Right now, Sabin is tweeting to people it's 12 ms of input lag, when the reality is it's much better than that. The bottom is probably the more accurate of the 3 since that's the entire screen being drawn, then just subtract 16.7 from that number and you have your lag.
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Display lag dot com states they take the average the readings of all three bars. http://www.displaylag.com/testing-method/
    The tester presents 3 flashing bars on the top, middle, and bottom of the screen. Displays marked with “AVG” are calculated using the average of all 3 bars.

    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    OK, but the average of 16.7 would still need to be subtracted from the readings.
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    OK, but the average of 16.7 would still need to be subtracted from the readings.
    Oh I agree, I wasn't trying to contest that.

    I was just saying Display lag dot com takes 3 readings, top middle and bottom and get the average
    What ever number they get left you take away 16.7 for the final reading.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    Going by DL's method they'd want to subtract 8.35 from their average readings. Still, the easiest and still accurate way would be to simply take a reading at the bottom and subtract 16.7 from it.

    For plasma I don't know what method they'd want to use. Plasma pulses the frame all at once according to what I've read, but I suppose if you want a like for like comparison to CRT you'd still subtract 16.7 ms from the display. According to what I've read at least, a plasma should have the same reading on all 3 regions. I wonder if it's the same for OLED, considering OLED is most similar to plasma, in many ways, even when it comes to image retention...
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    Going by DL's method they'd want to subtract 8.35 from their average readings. Still, the easiest and still accurate way would be to simply take a reading at the bottom and subtract 16.7 from it.

    For plasma I don't know what method they'd want to use. Plasma pulses the frame all at once according to what I've read, but I suppose if you want a like for like comparison to CRT you'd still subtract 16.7 ms from the display. According to what I've read at least, a plasma should have the same reading on all 3 regions. I wonder if it's the same for OLED, considering OLED is most similar to plasma, in many ways, even when it comes to image retention...

    Can you show me where you got that 8.35 from as I am not seeing it.

    As for Plasmas, plasma screens pulse several times in a single frame while the light source from a LCD is constant and the image changes with a wipe from top to bottom, almost like a scan.
    I don't know if OLED screens changes with a LCD like scan or is the whole screen drawn at once?

    http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag

    I belie you also have to take account for response time and subtract that also from your reading.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,838
    8.35 ms is the centre of a screen refresh and also the average of 0+8.35+16.7/3. Yours need the base average of a single frame subtracted from the agave of the readings.
    Disclaimer: I work for Paradise Arcade Shop. My posts are probably biased. Take that into consideration. Bye!
  • gigabytegigabyte Joined: Posts: 631
    Is BenQ RL2460HT the current standard monitor choice for tournaments?
  • LLLLLFiVEL5LLLLLLFiVEL5L ¡!¿?¡!PSN:LLLLLFiVEL5L¡!¿?¡! ¡!¿?¡!CFN: FiVEL_FiGHTER_5L¡!¿?¡! Joined: Posts: 167
    I can't find any info on lag with my DLP television, can anyone help ? It has a game mode I set it to.

    TV model is:
    Samsung HL56A650 56-inch 1080p DLP TV
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    edited June 2016
    gigabyte wrote: »
    Is BenQ RL2460HT the current standard monitor choice for tournaments?
    Sort of, the BenQ RL2460HT is the current monitor that was licensed by Evo as the Evo Monitor of choice.

    But I recommend the BenQ RL2455HM over the RL2460HT as its cheaper model with the exact same performance.
    It lacks the HDMI out (just get a splitter) and the Fight Mode which is more of a gimmick than a needed feature.


    I can't find any info on lag with my DLP television, can anyone help ? It has a game mode I set it to.

    TV model is:
    Samsung HL56A650 56-inch 1080p DLP TV
    Try Displaylag.com
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • LLLLLFiVEL5LLLLLLFiVEL5L ¡!¿?¡!PSN:LLLLLFiVEL5L¡!¿?¡! ¡!¿?¡!CFN: FiVEL_FiGHTER_5L¡!¿?¡! Joined: Posts: 167
    @darksakul, thats what I mean, displaylag.com has no research or information .
  • karduskardus Joined: Posts: 100
    What are the go-to benq displays that also do 120/144hz (24")?

    It seems like the display lag site is missing quite a few models, some of which I know for a fact perform similarly to the 60hz RL2455HM etc.
  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    Only way to find out is to buy your own testing equipment(Leo Bodnar) or search your model in google hoping good review sites show input lag, like Displaylag.com, tftcentral.co.uk etc.
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    kardus wrote: »
    What are the go-to benq displays that also do 120/144hz (24")?

    It seems like the display lag site is missing quite a few models, some of which I know for a fact perform similarly to the 60hz RL2455HM etc.

    Displaylag dot com is mostly volunteer ran and donation driven
    You can see trends in various brands and make an estimate on the performance on missing brands.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • Angry AbelAngry Abel Joined: Posts: 387
    Hi, sorry to resurrect this.

    There's a website here in Korea that regularly reviews monitors and measures lag by comparing it a CRT. I don't anything about what method is good or bad or whatever, just putting it here as an extra resource for people.

    http://playwares.com/dpreview

    Here's an example of the page that measures lag for the LG38UC99 (click no.10) --> http://playwares.com/dpreview/53094565#

    Using google translate on Chrome should be enough for you to navigate through the site.
  • TheDarkPhoenixTheDarkPhoenix BEHOLD! Joined: Posts: 12,590 mod
    B)
    "this game is about winning, If you had the option of a 1) Big dick or 2) a small dick, would you choose 2 because it took more skill? Thought not"
    -Bokkin
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,823
    Supposedly the OSSC is supposed to have a firmware upgrade in the works that comes with a lag test feature.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • ShinjiGohanShinjiGohan Joined: Posts: 5,156 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited November 9
    So hori came out with some portable HD monitors again. I know the first one that I had didn't have HDMI inputs but a lot of people claimed that it "felt" lagless.

    So I tried the leobodnar testers at both 720p and 1080p.

    Both came out spectacular. About 3ms of lag on the 720 and 4ms of lag on the 1080p. Not bad for a portable 15inch monitor with speakers that you can take anywhere with you.

    edit
    720p


    1080p


    actually guess it might be less than that. 1.5ms for 720p and 2-2.5ms for the 1080p.

    Post edited by ShinjiGohan on
  • TenshoTensho Joined: Posts: 2,873
    Don't you take the average of the 3 numbers with the Leo Bodnar, so the from the 1080p video it should be around 10 ms
  • ShinjiGohanShinjiGohan Joined: Posts: 5,156 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    No, that is incorrect. We literally went over this several posts above.
  • jopamojopamo Stuck in Silly-con Valley Joined: Posts: 1,252
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    Darksakul wrote: »
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    Ok I just checked. Bare minimum the device will report is 16.7 ms at the bottom of the screen. This display only has an additional 2 ms of lag. That's really good! That's way under a frame. Someone really needs to update the definition of lag, because people will assume 19 ms as being over a frame, when a reading of 19 ms is really 2 ms of lag. Need to always subtract the original frame being drawn from what's read at the bottom of the screen.

    That is why you always take 3 readings, Top, Middle and Bottom. As you go from top to bottom the readings get longer.

    A lot of people read the middle and simply tell people that number is the input lag. Reading that, I would assume that's on top of the original 16.7 ms. If the middle of the screen is 12 ms then the input lag should be somewhere around 2 to 4 ms. Right now, Sabin is tweeting to people it's 12 ms of input lag, when the reality is it's much better than that. The bottom is probably the more accurate of the 3 since that's the entire screen being drawn, then just subtract 16.7 from that number and you have your lag.

    16 posts is NOT “several” posts, @ShinjiGohan
  • macinnsotmacinnsot Joined: Posts: 37
    So hori came out with some portable HD monitors again. I know the first one that I had didn't have HDMI inputs but a lot of people claimed that it "felt" lagless.

    So I tried the leobodnar testers at both 720p and 1080p.

    Both came out spectacular. About 3ms of lag on the 720 and 4ms of lag on the 1080p. Not bad for a portable 15inch monitor with speakers that you can take anywhere with you.

    edit
    720p


    1080p


    actually guess it might be less than that. 1.5ms for 720p and 2-2.5ms for the 1080p.

    Nice, I need to order one of these for myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.