Lowest input lag monitor out?

Eizo FS2333 afaik. >0.8ms. Never seen any lower. Plus it still has great scaling and 10bit LUT. Usually you have to rip out components to get those values.
Prad.de:
"The lag is an important value for gamers and we measure it as the sum of the signal delay time and half of the average switching time. With a signal delay of just 0.8 milliseconds, the Eizo FS2333 is one of those monitors with practically no lag, as promised in the advertisements, with such minimal values rarely to be found even in the earlier cathode ray tube models. The time until the target luminance is achieved is very short at 3.8 milliseconds (Overdrive Fastest); with a total average lag of just 4.6 milliseconds, the Eizo FS2333 can be recommended for the fastest games."
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of monitors in the 1-4ms range which are all the same and considered "no input lag".
 
Vega said:
There are plenty of monitors in the 1-4ms range which are all the same and considered "no input lag".
Click to expand...

Yes. OP wanted "lowest". Not generally considered low-ish. What is the lowest you are aware of? 1-4ms is a 4x difference. Whether you can realistically notice it or not.
 
I want the absolute lowest there is. Is there any data sheets that I can look over to figure out my choices?
 
Not a single concise one that I know of. TFT Central and Prad.de have reviews that contain their results and short lists. I have read a ton of those reviews and is why I vote for the Eizo FS2333 as it demonstratively showed the lowest number aside from tying a Samsung PLS 27" that had a host of other issues. But there are other sites too.
I think Dell U2412 (can;t remember if it was h or hm variant) had real low input lag but it was not lower than the Eizo and had thick AG coating or glass (as I can't remember). The rest of the tested displays all got into whole numbers of lag. Which isn't to say too bad but not the "lowest".
 
An accurate list does not exist. Most of TFT Centrals numbers are way off since they were obtained using a flash based timer and many of the SMT Tool 2.0 values are too. Shoryuken has a list in the forums but pretty much all of the values are inaccurate since they were obtained using the flash based stop watch timer method.

Only prad.de measures the signal delay+input lag with an oscilloscope. Playerwares (Korean Review site) started using the SMT Tool 2.0 recently and has a pretty accurate, but small list, as does ananadtech with some of their recent reviews. The best thing one can do is go through PRAD's reviews.

Input lag needs to be taken into consideration with the pixel response times. A display can have super low input lag and pixel response times, but, if the over drive is not properly implemented the display will overshoot.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
Input lag needs to be taken into consideration with the pixel response times. A display can have super low input lag and pixel response times, but if the over drive is not properly implemented the display will overshoot.
Click to expand...

Most people don't realize this. A simple input lag measurement isn't the end all. For instance, I feel a monitor in 2D Lightboost mode with ~4ms input lag and extremely fast pixels/clear motion is miles ahead of a 60 Hz IPS panel with slower pixels and .8 ms input lag. The motion blur on that comparatively is going to be on another planet and effect your gaming comparably.
 
The best LCD you can get for input lag is an ASUS VG248QE or BenQ x2411T.

Other than that, go CRT.
 
The best LCD you can get for input lag is an ASUS VG248QE or BenQ x2411T. I've been through a Catleap 2B Extreme, Asus VG278H, and Acer GD235. I ended up sticking with the VG248E because it is so smooth/responsive even without the lightboost trick.

Other than that, go CRT.
 
Can they be proven the "best"? No doubt they are fast matrix's. Asus VG27xxx are super fast but they have at least 4-15ms input lag depending on trace free setting. I have not seen 1 Asus or Benq faster than that with regard to input lag. Maybe with 120Hz and 1-3ms TN input lag does not matter? I agree there is much more to curing ghosting and blur than input lag measurements but I assume the OP knows what they are looking for.
 
Last edited:
input_lag_1.jpg


prad.de also tested 1.1 ms for input lag

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2011/review-dell-u2312hm-part13.html#Lag

Keep in mind, this isn't total lag.

Lag time

The lag is measured as the total of the signal delay time and half of the average frame change time. We measured the signal lag, which is important for gamers, at am extremely short 1.1 milliseconds on the U2312MH. When half of the average frame change time of 8.2 milliseconds is added, the average overall lag amounts to 9.3 milliseconds, which is still very short for an IPS panel.
Click to expand...
 
So would the benq 2411t be the fastest running at under 60hz? I'll be using this for the console so the extra hz won't benefit me. Colors/looks are not important to me at all so if my purpose was just for the least amount of lag, is the benq the best? Also for the eizo fs2333 http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/351...itor-test-results-response-time-and-input-lag this review says otherwise about that lag so not too sure
 
Last edited:
Trust the prad.de. Response times are not input lag. That review is taking white to black matrix switching times into consideration but even then:
"None of the monitors, including the Eizo Foris FS2333, have any measurable input lag. Eizo claims 'almost zero input lag' but our testing configuration can't confirm this. Without overdrive the FS2333 scores a reasonable 14.1 ms in the black-white-black test, and with overdrive that's 11.8 ms. That's the fastest you'll get with an IPS panel."
No one is saying the Foris is the fastest display on the market. It has the least input lag (which is why it is mentioned in this thread) and is the fastest response time IPS/ PLS variant which in itself has a host of other benefits.
They apparently can't verify "no input lag". Prad.de can.
 
TheDawn said:
So would the benq 2411t be the fastest running at under 60hz?
Click to expand...

Most 1080p monitors have negligible input lag, so it would be best to pick the one with the best colors, least amount of ghosting (measure ms isn't everything) and least grainy matte coating. The BenQ is a waste of $ for console gaming and the matte coating is pretty grainy (as is the U2312 mentioned above).

Hardwareinfo's input lag testing process is very questionable. It seems they either get 0 or 16ms for every display which is impossible. They also never mention which response time settings they use. Best to refer to prad

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-foris-fs2333-bk-part9.html#Responsiveness

If you can afford the Eizo it's the best 60hz 1080p monitor for gaming.
 
Last edited:
I own a Eizo FS2333 monitor. Using a leo bodnar lag tester, I measured at the top, middle, and bottom. I was told that the monitor is refreshing the pixels at the same rate as the input signal.

http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=89&products_id=212

*The first picture looks different because I went back and raised the brightness and contrast of the monitor. I got a better reading on the top bar that way.

I really really like this monitor except for the really stupid speakers Eizo put on this thing. Wish they put a digital audio breakout instead.

edit. I took down my results because people are misinterpreting the readings I got.

Prad.de uses SMTT 2.0 which is a better method to test for lag, and input lag is 0.8ms.
 
Last edited:
What does this mean? It varies from 1 to 16 ms? Also the only place I could find that is shipping in the US without paying $100 for it was bhphotovideo. I wouldn't say prad.de has the most reliable source either considering that they've done some of their tests with a stopwatch in comparison with a crt and supposedly I have a monitor with 0 input lag (lg w227wtg) from their review with it but according to tft and tomshardware it varies from 9 to 23ms.
 
There haven't been any thorough scientfic tests to verify if the Leobodnar device is accurate so I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone used to use the stopwatch timer back in the day, it basically gives out random values which is why there are such large variances between reviewers. PRAD quit using it in favor of an oscilloscope years ago.
 
Sometimes input lag can be faster than pixel response.
It depends on the pixel response curve and how you measure input lag.
This is often a big reason why input lag measurements vary -- do they wait till 50% pixel transition? 90% pixel transition?

On some models, input lag can sometimes be shorter than pixel response because a pixel can be 50%-75% finished traniting long before the final pixel response time measurement; and human reaction time can be based on when the pixel is *noticeably* transitioning. You can see a pixel that's only half visible.

Motion blur, altogether, is a wholly different story. For that, nothing beats LightBoost 120 Hz displays, if you can display at 120 Hz (not applicable to consoles at this time).
 
TheDawn said:
What does this mean? It varies from 1 to 16 ms? Also the only place I could find that is shipping in the US without paying $100 for it was bhphotovideo. I wouldn't say prad.de has the most reliable source either considering that they've done some of their tests with a stopwatch in comparison with a crt and supposedly I have a monitor with 0 input lag (lg w227wtg) from their review with it but according to tft and tomshardware it varies from 9 to 23ms.
Click to expand...

If you don't like prad or trust the results then just go read the manufacturers claims and be happy. Use your sources and buy what you want. This whole "prove it" attitude is wearing a little thin. It sounds like you just can't believe the Eizo is any good so cross it off your list (regardless of the assertions that it is). I walked down the street and picked one up from a photo dealer. No shipping required.
 
der_bothaus said:
If you don't like prad or trust the results then just go read the manufacturers claims and be happy. Use your sources and buy what you want. This whole "prove it" attitude is wearing a little thin. It sounds like you just can't believe the Eizo is any good so cross it off your list (regardless of the assertions that it is). I walked down the street and picked one up from a photo dealer. No shipping required.
Click to expand...

I didn't know eizo company reps come on this site... Now we know why you are defending a monitor so heavily : ).. 16MS < FS2333. NEXT
 
It isn't 16ms of lag. It completes a frame every 16ms. It's refreshing more like a CRT. Prad.de measurements are mentioned quite a bit because they really take time to do their reviews. They use the SMTT 2.0 to measure lag, and it is one of the best ways to test for lag. It is a much better method than a handheld lag tester meant for HDTV's.
 
Last edited:
TheDawn said:
I didn't know eizo company reps come on this site... Now we know why you are defending a monitor so heavily : ).. 16MS < FS2333. NEXT
Click to expand...

No rep just a gamer who is never happy with the display options. I am now happy with the Forris. I thought it nice to share my experience. That I was finally able to upgrade from my NEC 20wmgx with a smile. The Eizo was never under attack nor does it need defending. Why you appear to want to attack or disbelieve the proper results of a piece of plastic tech is concerning. It is what it is. You asked for the lowest and it has lowest input lag of any LCD on the market currently. It is, however, not the fastest display you can buy. It has other benefits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top