2405fpw LCD vs. CRT - 40ms signal delay / latency for LCD users ?!?

BillR said:
If in fact your ping as a “fixed” 100ms you could indeed compensate, my point is the ping never ever remains the same because of varying net loads.

All in all the variables never stop, yet the consistent game winners make no excuse for losses inability to compensate.

The idea that everything moves through your machine at the speed of light just isn’t so. ;)
Click to expand...
But you want to try to minimize as many variables as possible, like the other guy said about 100 + 40 ms , it's just adding to the lag. Since people seem to be getting various results with these monitor tests, that adds more variation to it. If net lag is varying like you said, and the lcd monitor varies, it makes it harder to compensate. Now, I understand a lot of these are minute details, but I'm picky (plus the fw900 is cheaper :p )
 
saber07 said:
But you want to try to minimize as many variables as possible, like the other guy said about 100 + 40 ms , it's just adding to the lag. Since people seem to be getting various results with these monitor tests, that adds more variation to it. If net lag is varying like you said, and the lcd monitor varies, it makes it harder to compensate. Now, I understand a lot of these are minute details, but I'm picky (plus the fw900 is cheaper :p )
Click to expand...


Essentially you are right, the fewer the variables the better, I can’t argue that. What I am saying is that the info posted by the original poster is anything but new and “eye opening”, it’s always been that way.

The 40ms so called Monitor “Lag” as measured is at a fixed data rate. As you pass different amounts and types of data through the system that “Lag” varies just as net lag varies.

None of this is new information and the guys who win the tournaments already know this yet the top of the pile players remain the same. When they lose a match they don’t blame the monitor or net.
 
MrkXCeL said:
DVI ... I know nothing of the inner working of DVI signaling, I'm gonna guess it works as a serial bus. Compare it to SPDIF Optical TOSLINK bus or COAX as an example. SPDIF and COAX are prone to jitter, which causes distortion of signal spikes and if severe anough the CRC wont match at the end of the frame, the signal must be resent or ignored. On a HomeTheater receiver or a DAC this causes a pop or a mute for a second. Jitter by itself causes faint high frequency distortions. Hard for me to understand that , but whatever... audiophiles swear by it.

DVI must have similar problems. What we see on the screen depends on the error correction of DVI signaling, etc. This is why you may see inconsistent lag times in your comparisons.

SO we should demand a new INTERCONNECT format!
Click to expand...

Jitter is only an issue when converting from digital to analog, hence the impact on audio. With audio, each digital sample is mapped to a precise time. Jitter is a measure of how much the timing of these digital samples is off, which leads to some samples being longer than others, etc. DVI to an LCD/Plasma/DLP/other digital display is unaffected by jitter because each digital sample is mapped to a certain pixel on the screen.

DVI is fine, it's either perfect or obviously wrong. With really long runs of poor quality DVI cables, you may start to see 'sparklies' or random pixels with errors, but these are obvious. In short runs such as between your computer and your monitor, DVI will deliver the exact image your video card produces.
 
Wow, those are some serious lag issues in that video. Recently I switched to LCD and my main concern was the lag that some Dell LCDs owners complained about. Connecting both CRT and LCD and putting them in clone mode was one of the first things I did when I got my Samsung 193P+ LCD and luckily, there was no lag compared to CRT. For some reason it only seems to affect big LCDs 'cause I've never seen anyone complain about lag issues on 17" and 19" screens.
 
mathesar said:
You guys see this video? http://media.putfile.com/Movie_0001914
Click to expand...

Wow mathesar, that video is instructive. I assume, though, that the video is played in slow motion (maybe 0.5x or 0.25x) to show the differences more clearly?

Anyways, I think that supports my point that if you're up against a really twitch-fast firefight, you have a disadvantage here.

Did you use component inputs on both monitors? Depending on which inputs you use you may get less lag in the 2405fpw, but my opinion is that the effect you captured is always present to some extent.

The lag should help me not to get sucked into competitive gaming. :)
 
gustep12 said:
Wow mathesar, that video is instructive. I assume, though, that the video is played in slow motion (maybe 0.5x or 0.25x) to show the differences more clearly?

Anyways, I think that supports my point that if you're up against a really twitch-fast firefight, you have a disadvantage here.

Did you use component inputs on both monitors? Depending on which inputs you use you may get less lag in the 2405fpw, but my opinion is that the effect you captured is always present to some extent.

The lag should help me not to get sucked into competitive gaming. :)
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I will say it again.

The top CPL players all use LCD screens. Regardless of delay or lag, you can still beat people who dont use LCDs.
 
Colin12 said:
I've said it before and I will say it again.

The top CPL players all use LCD screens. Regardless of delay or lag, you can still beat people who dont use LCDs.
Click to expand...

No offense but you obviously know nothing about professional/competitive gaming or the CPL.

Get on team3d.net and find me a single 3D member that uses LCD. Or even better, google Fatal1ty, the world's most recognized gamer, and see if he uses LCD.

If you ever been to the CPL you would know that all tournaments/matches use CRTs, no exceptions. Even for BYOC events most people bring CRTs. That's because in a LAN environment where pings are normally in the 10s 40ms response time means a world of difference. Sorry to break this to you but no professional gamer would take you serioulsy if you show up with a LCD.

While LCD has tons of advantages over CRT, it is simply not cut out for serious FPS gamers, at least not for now. You can baby your LCD all you want but we gamers like our CRTs better, way better.

Sure you can own random noobs or score top 5 in the pubs with your LCD all day long, but that says nothing other than you are just a casual gamer. CPL/Upper CAL gamers hardly even play on pubs.
 
diapickle said:
No offense but you obviously know nothing about professional/competitive gaming or the CPL.

Get on team3d.net and find me a single 3D member that uses LCD. Or even better, google Fatal1ty, the world's most recognized gamer, and see if he uses LCD.

If you ever been to the CPL you would know that all tournaments/matches use CRTs, no exceptions. Even for BYOC events most people bring CRTs. That's because in a LAN environment where pings are normally in the 10s 40ms response time means a world of difference. Sorry to break this to you but no professional gamer would take you serioulsy if you show up with a LCD.

While LCD has tons of advantages over CRT, it is simply not cut out for serious FPS gamers, at least not for now. You can baby your LCD all you want but we gamers like our CRTs better, way better.

Sure you can own random noobs or score top 5 in the pubs with your LCD all day long, but that says nothing other than you are just a casual gamer. CPL/Upper CAL gamers hardly even play on pubs.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a political statement :rolleyes:
 
Pyrolistical said:
I made a better timer in Java that's better than 0.1 ms (1/10000th of a second).

My digi-cam isn't around yet, but if anybody wants to try it now here's the code:

Code: 
public class ConsoleTimer {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        long start = System.nanoTime();
        
        while(true) {
            System.out.println(System.nanoTime() - start);
            System.out.flush();
        }
    }
}

To run it use:
Code: 
javac ConsoleTimer.java
java ConsoleTimer

You'll have to have the Java 1.5 SDK installed of course.



And if your gonna do the test make sure you:
Set 2405FPW to 1600x1200, non-scaling 1:1
Set CRT to 1600x1200 @ 60Hz
Set your camera to less than 1/60
Click to expand...
yea i totally can't get that to work, even with Java 1.5 SDK installed
 
Roceh said:
No, less than 1/20th of a second which is tiny. But tell a gamer their super amazing LCD is showing stuff from 3 frames ago and they'll be lighting their torches, grabbing thier pitchforks and marching on *INSERT LCD MANUFACTURER HERE* offices :D
Click to expand...

Damn, right. I think I'll being getting a 24" CRT this christmas....
 
diapickle said:
No offense but you obviously know nothing about professional/competitive gaming or the CPL.

Get on team3d.net and find me a single 3D member that uses LCD. Or even better, google Fatal1ty, the world's most recognized gamer, and see if he uses LCD.

If you ever been to the CPL you would know that all tournaments/matches use CRTs, no exceptions. Even for BYOC events most people bring CRTs. That's because in a LAN environment where pings are normally in the 10s 40ms response time means a world of difference. Sorry to break this to you but no professional gamer would take you serioulsy if you show up with a LCD.

While LCD has tons of advantages over CRT, it is simply not cut out for serious FPS gamers, at least not for now. You can baby your LCD all you want but we gamers like our CRTs better, way better.

Sure you can own random noobs or score top 5 in the pubs with your LCD all day long, but that says nothing other than you are just a casual gamer. CPL/Upper CAL gamers hardly even play on pubs.
Click to expand...

I agree with CRT > LCD's in FPS gaming, but I don't like ya elitism...
 
not exactly scientific, but i used that clock program as a comparison between my inspiron 8500 WUXGA screen and my brand new 2005FPW screen

for reference the inspiron is just over 2 years old with a very dim (in comparison to the 2005fpw) backlight. the laptop internally uses DVI while providing analog D-SUB connectivity to the 2005FPW. both screens are displaying the same screen in their native resolutions i do believe (1680x1050).



^^^ click for big version ^^^


i know its not a 2405FPW, but maybe this helps show that other dell LCD's don't have the same lag? the laptop LCD and the 2005FPW LCD internals cannot be similar in any way i would think :confused: -- which would mean they would show a different number?

oh well, just something i did for myself and thought i'd share it :)
 
anasazi said:
yea i totally can't get that to work, even with Java 1.5 SDK installed
Click to expand...
get a java IDE and compile + run his program. you still shouldn't use java for real-time stuff. The results would be horrendously inaccurate at best.
 
well, i didn't believe my LCD's had a delay until i tried it for myself

below is inspiron 8500 WUXGA vs s-video on my TV



^^^ click for bigger version ^^^

the two variables i can think of in this test is that it is DVI vs s-video and that the LCD isn't in native resolution, rather its in 800x600 for TV compatibility for the desktop mirroring.
 
diapickle said:
No offense but you obviously know nothing about professional/competitive gaming or the CPL.

Get on team3d.net and find me a single 3D member that uses LCD. Or even better, google Fatal1ty, the world's most recognized gamer, and see if he uses LCD.

If you ever been to the CPL you would know that all tournaments/matches use CRTs, no exceptions. Even for BYOC events most people bring CRTs. That's because in a LAN environment where pings are normally in the 10s 40ms response time means a world of difference. Sorry to break this to you but no professional gamer would take you serioulsy if you show up with a LCD.

While LCD has tons of advantages over CRT, it is simply not cut out for serious FPS gamers, at least not for now. You can baby your LCD all you want but we gamers like our CRTs better, way better.

Sure you can own random noobs or score top 5 in the pubs with your LCD all day long, but that says nothing other than you are just a casual gamer. CPL/Upper CAL gamers hardly even play on pubs.
Click to expand...

Ya I just saw a show on MTV called Im a Professional Gamer , it talked about 3 different clans who play at tournaments (Halo 2 ,Smash Brothers and an all girl team that played Counter Strike) you didn't see a single LCD during the show.

There's also this video showing the lag in action:
http://s88012115.onlinehome.us/TFTDelayBeweis.avi
 
here's my cmv ct-529 analog lcd on the left and my syncmaster 955df on the right, clone mode on my 9800pro at the lcd's native resolution of 1024x768, camera set to 1/400 second
(last digit on the clock is 1/100)

as you can see, the difference is somewhere around 10ms
considering the lcd is rated at 16ms response time, there seems to be no input lag at all...
10mslag.jpg

somebody should test their 2405 against a 24" crt
 
diapickle said:
No offense but you obviously know nothing about professional/competitive gaming or the CPL.

Get on team3d.net and find me a single 3D member that uses LCD. Or even better, google Fatal1ty, the world's most recognized gamer, and see if he uses LCD.

If you ever been to the CPL you would know that all tournaments/matches use CRTs, no exceptions. Even for BYOC events most people bring CRTs. That's because in a LAN environment where pings are normally in the 10s 40ms response time means a world of difference. Sorry to break this to you but no professional gamer would take you serioulsy if you show up with a LCD.

While LCD has tons of advantages over CRT, it is simply not cut out for serious FPS gamers, at least not for now. You can baby your LCD all you want but we gamers like our CRTs better, way better.

Sure you can own random noobs or score top 5 in the pubs with your LCD all day long, but that says nothing other than you are just a casual gamer. CPL/Upper CAL gamers hardly even play on pubs.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been tests on whether LCDs decrease performance in competitive gaming? I mean, a statistically significant decrease? It seems to me that everyone just automatically assumes LCDs will screw you over so don't even try them. Or else they just say "that doesn't feel right to me" and switch back to CRTs almost immediately.
 
ummm who would fund such a test? and how exactly do you plan on proving it?

the best gamers in the world find LCDs to be a disadvantage because of the slight input lag.

HOWEVER, 99.999999% of you are NOT one of these gamers ;) The difference is not enough to cause you to suddenly be horrible at whatever game you are playing. I have known plenty of really good people who play just fine on LCDs...

If you are on that bleeding edge of excellence, then sure, do everything you can to make yourself the best. But for the rest of you, it's really rather silly to discount LCDs simply for this fact.
 
BigRigDriver said:
This sounds like a political statement :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Sounds more like the truth. People in this very thread have said 40ms is nothing in gaming. Are they absolutely insane?
 
rhouck said:
ummm who would fund such a test? and how exactly do you plan on proving it?

the best gamers in the world find LCDs to be a disadvantage because of the slight input lag.

HOWEVER, 99.999999% of you are NOT one of these gamers ;) The difference is not enough to cause you to suddenly be horrible at whatever game you are playing. I have known plenty of really good people who play just fine on LCDs...

If you are on that bleeding edge of excellence, then sure, do everything you can to make yourself the best. But for the rest of you, it's really rather silly to discount LCDs simply for this fact.
Click to expand...

Well, a good, reliable test would be difficult to set up for sure. But really, without such a test, there's no way anyone can say that LCDs will definitely impact even the "bleeding edge" competitive gamers. All of this is educated speculation. Educated, but speculation nonetheless.
 
wpeng said:
Just out of curiosity, have there ever been tests on whether LCDs decrease performance in competitive gaming? I mean, a statistically significant decrease? It seems to me that everyone just automatically assumes LCDs will screw you over so don't even try them. Or else they just say "that doesn't feel right to me" and switch back to CRTs almost immediately.
Click to expand...

Is 40ms response time not "statistically significant" enough for you?

It is for competitve gamers.
 
Nomikal said:
I agree with CRT > LCD's in FPS gaming, but I don't like ya elitism...
Click to expand...

I just can't stand those who think they can speak for professional gamers because they "score top 5 in every pub..."
 
diapickle said:
Is 40ms response time not "statistically significant" enough for you?

It is for competitve gamers.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but do you know what I'm even talking about? Have you taken a statistics class? I'm talking about gaming performance of competitive players, not whether or not I believe there's latency. I believe in the superior technology of CRTs, but I don't necessarily believe that it matters to competitive gamers.

A statistical test would be taking, say, Fatality, and making him play 50 matches or so with a CRT against the top 10 gamers (with CRTs). Then switching him to an LCD and having him play 50 matches against those same top 10 gamers (with CRTs) and comparing his average score with a CRT to his average score with an LCD. Then you use something called a T-test (or something like that...) to find out the probability that it really affected his performance.

Since no one's ever done a test like this, no one can say with absolute confidence that there's a difference between CRTs and LCDs in competitive gaming. Though, technically, you can't ever prove or disprove the null hypothesis.
 
wpeng said:
I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but do you know what I'm even talking about? Have you taken a statistics class? I'm talking about gaming performance of competitive players, not whether or not I believe there's latency. I believe in the superior technology of CRTs, but I don't necessarily believe that it matters to competitive gamers.

A statistical test would be taking, say, Fatality, and making him play 50 matches or so with a CRT against the top 10 gamers (with CRTs). Then switching him to an LCD and having him play 50 matches against those same top 10 gamers (with CRTs) and comparing his average score with a CRT to his average score with an LCD. Then you use something called a T-test (or something like that...) to find out the probability that it really affected his performance.

Since no one's ever done a test like this, no one can say with absolute confidence that there's a difference between CRTs and LCDs in competitive gaming. Though, technically, you can't ever prove or disprove the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous post I have read in this thread. (Yes I know, people say crazy things in other threads/forums/boards too.)

When professional gamers lose matches they lose money/sponsorship/other incentives. How are you EVER gonna get any sane competitive gamer agree to test LCD in matches when they know 100% sure that the 40ms response will throw their aims completely off? It's like suggesting that playing in 100 ping is no different from 60 ping (in reality the discrepancy is even larger because games do compensate for pings but not LCD response times), because no "scientific" statistic says otherwise. How are you ever gonna get a sample when everyone clearly knows it doesn't work? Is the fact that no top professional gamer uses LCD NOT statitic sufficient for you? I don't know, maybe you can try becoming world's best player yourself with your LCD and prove everybody wrong. Hmm...

Use what's left of your brain and think about this, or close your eyes and go back to your world of STAT 101 where everything is a normal distribution, your choice.
 
diapickle said:
How are you EVER gonna get any sane competitive gamer agree to test LCD in matches when they know 100% sure that the 40ms response will throw their aims completely off?

How are you ever gonna get a sample when everyone clearly knows it doesn't work?

Is the fact that no top professional gamer uses LCD NOT statitic sufficient for you?
Click to expand...

Look at those sentences very closely. Are you implying that none of them have ever tried it before? I think so. So then how do you know? How do they know?

Judging from the way you write, I'm assuming you're an educated person. But I still have to ask you straight up: have you ever taken Stat 101?

I'll be honest with you. I've never taken anything beyond Stat 101. But I can tell you right now that the fact that no professional gamer uses an LCD is not relevant to this discussion. All that tells us is there is a difference between what they prefer, not how they perform.

diapickle said:
When professional gamers lose matches they lose money/sponsorship/other incentives. How are you EVER gonna get any sane competitive gamer agree to test LCD in matches when they know 100% sure that the 40ms response will throw their aims completely off?
Click to expand...

This is also my point. You can never know unless you do a real scientific test. And since no one is willing, we will never know. The only feasible way for this to work out is if a major LCD company decides to market its LCD by sponsoring such a test.

Oh, and if you really want to start an insult war, just PM me. I don't think "Use what's left of your brain and think about this" is particularly useful to this thread.
 
Can a pro game feel 1 nano-second of lag? No? What about 2? 3? 4? 1000?

At what point do you say yes? You don't know because you havn't done any tests. wpeng is right.
 
wpeng said:
Look at those sentences very closely. Are you implying that none of them have ever tried it before? I think so. So then how do you know? How do they know?

Judging from the way you write, I'm assuming you're an educated person. But I still have to ask you straight up: have you ever taken Stat 101?

I'll be honest with you. I've never taken anything beyond Stat 101. But I can tell you right now that the fact that no professional gamer uses an LCD is not relevant to this discussion. All that tells us is there is a difference between what they prefer, not how they perform.



This is also my point. You can never know unless you do a real scientific test. And since no one is willing, we will never know. The only feasible way for this to work out is if a major LCD company decides to market its LCD by sponsoring such a test.

Oh, and if you really want to start an insult war, just PM me. I don't think "Use what's left of your brain and think about this" is particularly useful to this thread.
Click to expand...

I apologize for that part, I was not particularly happy about your questioning my statistics credentials because I too have taken a few STAT classes.

While statistics is statistics, the real world is the real world. You don't need a sample for everything to prove its merit. Just like you don't have to be a pro gamer to know they don't use LCDs.

LCD companies are unlikely to conduct such a test because it would do them a disservice to show the gamers their solutions are inferior to an ancient technology. It is also why few LCD companies choose to sponsor gaming events or specifically market product towards the gaming community.
 
Pyrolistical said:
Can a pro game feel 1 nano-second of lag? No? What about 2? 3? 4? 1000?

At what point do you say yes? You don't know because you havn't done any tests. wpeng is right.
Click to expand...

we are not talking about things at the nanosecond level, rather they are on the millisecond level. 1ms = 1 million ns. It doesn't take a pro gamer to see a 40ms discrepancy, as demonstrated by all the pics/videos in this thread. Had you read the thread you would've known that already.

For internet FPS games, far more important things happens behind the scene, which you cannot see but will notice. I don't want to get into netcode details but let's say in an ideal setting where your game is running at 75 frames per second and you have a 40ms LCD. In this situation you are essentially reacting to things happened 3 frames ago and shoot accordingly, what you thought should "register" could become a miss because the enemy has moved in these 3 frames.

Therefore LCD response time does make a difference and hence is noticable at 40 or even 20 ms level because your register rate would drop and you would have to readjust. For a pro gamer it is definitely an issue because a single miss could cost you a clutch or even an entire match.
 
40ms is a lot for most games

however, the elietism shown in this thread is laughable.
 
I'd guess that the majority of the top tier players have very fine tuned reflexes. Against other players of similar or better skill, the difference between winning and losing can be counted in milliseconds. Equally skilled, a person with higher latency loses. Really no way around that. How do you compensate for 40ms? Read 40ms into the future?

If the delay doesn't bother you, then be happy. It really annoys me personally.
 
diapickle said:
Pyrolistical said:
Can a pro game feel 1 nano-second of lag? No? What about 2? 3? 4? 1000?

At what point do you say yes? You don't know because you havn't done any tests. wpeng is right.
Click to expand...

we are not talking about things at the nanosecond level, rather they are on the millisecond level. 1ms = 1 million ns. It doesn't take a pro gamer to see a 40ms discrepancy, as demonstrated by all the pics/videos in this thread. Had you read the thread you would've known that already.
Click to expand...

Must I string out the logic for you? If not 1000, then what about 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 40,000,000?

How do you know at what point will it start to affect your gaming? I am a hardcore gamer, and although I know there is a difference between my LCD and my CRT, it hasn't affected my gaming. Although I am not a pro gamer, I am far above the average player.

So I honestly do not know if a LCD would affect a pro gamer or not.

The videos do show a 40 ms difference, but how do you know it is not the anti-placbo affect? Since you know there's a 40 ms difference, you might be psychologically placed at a disadvantage while playing games. (You expect do to worst, and thus you do. A self fullfilling proposition.)

What we need a group pro gamers that don't know of this LCD lag issue and do some double blinded tests. Unfortunately, but definition of a pro gamer, he/she would already know of this LCD issue...

Alternatively we can get a group of pro gamers and tell them these new prototype LCDs have no lag issues and then do a test. But these types of test are always controversial and can fail if the user "figures out" the test.
 
Pyrolistical said:
Must I string out the logic for you? If not 1000, then what about 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 40,000,000?

How do you know at what point will it start to affect your gaming? I am a hardcore gamer, and although I know there is a difference between my LCD and my CRT, it hasn't affected my gaming. Although I am not a pro gamer, I am far above the average player.
Click to expand...
That is a formal fallacy. In particular, what you have stated is a false dilemma and is commonly called the "line drawing fallacy". It is not good to base an argument on this.
 
You mistaken the similarity of that fallacy with my argument.

Using that argument, it would be a fallacy to say therefore pro gamers can never tell the difference

However, the conclusion to my argument is you do not know the point where pro gamers would be affected by this lag

Its, "therefore you don't know", not "therefore it is never true"


You don't know because you don't know at what point you can say, "oh, at x, xxx, xxx, xxx pro gamers can tell the difference, because of this proof".
 
Pyrolistical said:
Must I string out the logic for you? If not 1000, then what about 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 40,000,000?

How do you know at what point will it start to affect your gaming? I am a hardcore gamer, and although I know there is a difference between my LCD and my CRT, it hasn't affected my gaming. Although I am not a pro gamer, I am far above the average player.

So I honestly do not know if a LCD would affect a pro gamer or not.

The videos do show a 40 ms difference, but how do you know it is not the anti-placbo affect? Since you know there's a 40 ms difference, you might be psychologically placed at a disadvantage while playing games. (You expect do to worst, and thus you do. A self fullfilling proposition.)

What we need a group pro gamers that don't know of this LCD lag issue and do some double blinded tests. Unfortunately, but definition of a pro gamer, he/she would already know of this LCD issue...

Alternatively we can get a group of pro gamers and tell them these new prototype LCDs have no lag issues and then do a test. But these types of test are always controversial and can fail if the user "figures out" the test.
Click to expand...

Since you are so "hardcore" and so "far above the average gamer," care to list some CPL/CAL-i achievements with your LCD?

If you don't consider 40ms lag an issue I don't know what to say to you, good luck in your pursuit of "hardcore" gaming or whatever it is. If you don't see the difference between 10,000 ns and 10,000,000 ns, an argument with you is obviously not going anywhere.

Oh, and your hypo test won't work. Why? Because there's no such thing as a "no-lag" LCD in this world. In the lab maybe, but not in the mass production consumer market. And why did you suggest such a test anyways if you knew well pro gamers don't like LCDs? Do you think they are simply addicted to CRTs for their style, weight and bulkiness?

Maybe it's time to put down your "scientific" books and get a dose of common sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top