Blur Busters Forums

Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™ Skip to content

Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, motion tests & TestUFO, monitor decisions, and more. Questions? Just ask!

Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby StupidBlur » 06 Apr 2017, 11:19

I play QW and QL. Im looking for a 144hz, 1080p, 24inch monitor.

I will not be enabling anything that adds input lag (such as Freesync, G-Sync or Motion 240 for the LG)

I've narrowed my options down to these ones:

Viewsonic XG2401
LG 24GM77
LG 24GM79G (to be released)

That's pretty much it.

I've discarded all the BenQ ones. I've heard those 2 monitors beat them in every department and got better colors.
The ROG SWIFT PG248Q is also discarded, i've heard the colors are bad, and the input lag is pretty much the same im practice (not noticeable). The 240hz monitors i've heard have terrible colors, also im not able to get stable fps higher than 125fps in QL in other modes that aren't duel (maps too big and too many models and my computer is from 10 years ago)
C24FG70 also discarded because I dont like the curved monitors.

So the Viewsonic vs the LGs:

The Viewsonic apparently beats the LGs on every department including color, when set to "user mode" according to this:
http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monit ... ost1357728

Also, note how apparently LG somehow managed to fuck it up and release a new monitor that's worse than the old 24GM77:

http://playwares.com/dpreview/53354905

Someone told me this and im confused tho:
The XG2401 has FreeSync and the 24GM77 has Blur Reduction - the 24GM79G has both

Does this mean that the XG2401 will be more blurry? what is "Blur Reduction" exactly? is it one of those things that add input lag? (which I hate)

Anyway I hop you can help me decide. My head hurts from starting at my 60hz laptop. The monitor I was using (2233rz) broke. The 2233rz was the first 120hz flat panel ever I think, so I hope whatever I end up buying is an improvement. The colors were bad specially coming from a CRT. I don't expect good colors in a TN but I hope things have gotten better with the year. I also don't expect a lot more smoothness from going from 120hz from 140hz but hope that it's less blurry etc.

Thanks
StupidBlur
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 Apr 2017, 10:58

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 06 Apr 2017, 11:48

StupidBlur wrote:I play QW and QL. Im looking for a 144hz, 1080p, 24inch monitor.

I will not be enabling anything that adds input lag (such as Freesync, G-Sync or Motion 240 for the LG)

I've narrowed my options down to these ones:

Viewsonic XG2401
LG 24GM77
LG 24GM79G (to be released)

FYI -- the 24GM79G is now available on Amazon.

Although not a buying consideration for you, LG Motion 240 currently has heavy amounts of strobe crosstalk to the other brands (see Motion Blur Reduction FAQ) but since you aren't planning to use it, then it doesn't need to be a buying consideration unless you plan to use CRT motion clarity for other purposes.

For certain kinds of gaming where blur reduction is important -- it works really fantastically well on some displays but does add half a frame input lag (albiet 120Hz strobed still has less lag than 60Hz non-strobed). Generally, Blur Reduction does provide an advantage to certain gameplay tactics (e.g. high-speed low-altitude helicoptor flybys) where you're forced to track eyes along the screen's surface to aim, rather than staring at crosshairs, but it doesn't always help all kinds of gameplay tactics (fixed gaze at fixed point on screen crosshairs) -- which many FPS players do. The display-induced motion blur difference of fixed gaze versus eye-tracking situations are demonstrated at TestUFO Eye Tracking Animation.

Blur Reduction allows a LCD to gain CRT-clarity motion (if done well) via simulating the impulse-driving behaviour (strobe backlight, which also attempts to hide the LCD GtG response limitations in the dark periods). With Blur Reduction, you can even read the map label text at TestUFO Moving Map Animation, bypassing the regular LCD motion blur. These are optional features that can be toggled ON/OFF as needed.

All three monitors you mentioned provide similiar 144Hz TN gameplay (extras turned off) -- the blur is similar on all 144Hz TN monitors when you don't enable blur reduction. Which means none of them are more blurry than others if you're ignoring blur reduction features.

Also, if poor colors are making you hesistant -- there are now 144Hz IPS monitors such as the Acer XF270HU (though that's 2560x1440). IPS has much better colors but the slower 4ms response is considered a form of input lag compared to the 1ms response of a TN. That said, 120+Hz IPS has less lag than 60Hz+ IPS (if that's what you are currently gaming on).

If what you're saying is correct about colors being the highest priority, then it is quite possible that the Viewsonic XG2401 is the monitor you are looking for.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby StupidBlur » 06 Apr 2017, 20:02

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
StupidBlur wrote:I play QW and QL. Im looking for a 144hz, 1080p, 24inch monitor.

I will not be enabling anything that adds input lag (such as Freesync, G-Sync or Motion 240 for the LG)

I've narrowed my options down to these ones:

Viewsonic XG2401
LG 24GM77
LG 24GM79G (to be released)

FYI -- the 24GM79G is now available on Amazon.

Although not a buying consideration for you, LG Motion 240 currently has heavy amounts of strobe crosstalk to the other brands (see Motion Blur Reduction FAQ) but since you aren't planning to use it, then it doesn't need to be a buying consideration unless you plan to use CRT motion clarity for other purposes.

For certain kinds of gaming where blur reduction is important -- it works really fantastically well on some displays but does add half a frame input lag (albiet 120Hz strobed still has less lag than 60Hz non-strobed). Generally, Blur Reduction does provide an advantage to certain gameplay tactics (e.g. high-speed low-altitude helicoptor flybys) where you're forced to track eyes along the screen's surface to aim, rather than staring at crosshairs, but it doesn't always help all kinds of gameplay tactics (fixed gaze at fixed point on screen crosshairs) -- which many FPS players do. The display-induced motion blur difference of fixed gaze versus eye-tracking situations are demonstrated at TestUFO Eye Tracking Animation.

Blur Reduction allows a LCD to gain CRT-clarity motion (if done well) via simulating the impulse-driving behaviour (strobe backlight, which also attempts to hide the LCD GtG response limitations in the dark periods). With Blur Reduction, you can even read the map label text at TestUFO Moving Map Animation, bypassing the regular LCD motion blur. These are optional features that can be toggled ON/OFF as needed.

All three monitors you mentioned provide similiar 144Hz TN gameplay (extras turned off) -- the blur is similar on all 144Hz TN monitors when you don't enable blur reduction. Which means none of them are more blurry than others if you're ignoring blur reduction features.

Also, if poor colors are making you hesistant -- there are now 144Hz IPS monitors such as the Acer XF270HU (though that's 2560x1440). IPS has much better colors but the slower 4ms response is considered a form of input lag compared to the 1ms response of a TN. That said, 120+Hz IPS has less lag than 60Hz+ IPS (if that's what you are currently gaming on).

If what you're saying is correct about colors being the highest priority, then it is quite possible that the Viewsonic XG2401 is the monitor you are looking for.


Thanks. The guy I spoke to, owns a 24GM77, and told me to play Quake Motion 240 is undesired due the added input lag, so he uses 144hz, no Motion 240 but uses DAS on (Dynamic Action Sync). I was wondering, does the Viewsonic have something similar to DAS? Im not sure what that is but if he uses it it means it doesn't add any input delay (quake players are the most sensitive to input delay on any game)

Motion blur features that add input delay are certainly not welcome in a game like Quake, because you aren't tracking a target in slow motion, we do quick flicks with the mouse to aim or at least that's my style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQlaTr53EU

Notice how the mouse movements are rather snappy and not smooth tracking.

About the IPS, 4ms is too high unfortunately. Not sure if I would actually notice it, but id rather have 1
StupidBlur
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 Apr 2017, 10:58

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby RealNC » 06 Apr 2017, 21:33

StupidBlur wrote:About the IPS, 4ms is too high unfortunately. Not sure if I would actually notice it, but id rather have 1

Some 4ms IPS monitors have less input lag than 1ms TN monitors.

The 24GM77 has a pixel response time of 7ms (the "1ms" you see in official monitor specs is just marketing and doesn't represent pixel response in real-world use.) The total input lag of that monitor (pixel response + signal processing) is 32ms without DAS, and 18ms with DAS.

18ms is VERY fast. So if input lag is very important to you, the 24GM77 is one of the fastest monitors. (If 18ms still seems too much for you, then you would need to stick with CRT monitors.)

These stats were measured in the Tom's Hardware review

The 165Hz IPS displays have comparable stats, but better colors. On the downside, you get IPS glow, which can be better or worse than the color and gamma shift you get with TN panels, depending on your taste. I prefer IPS glow. Anyway, these displays are much more expensive than the 24GM77. So that one looks like a nice monitor, with very low input lag in DAS mode. So looks like a good choice to me.

The lack or Freesync (for AMD cards) or G-Sync (for NVidia cards) means other games won't run as nice as they could, but since you said you don't play any games other than Quake, the lack of these features is a non-issue.
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
User avatar
RealNC
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: 24 Dec 2013, 18:32

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 07 Apr 2017, 00:12

RealNC wrote:
StupidBlur wrote:About the IPS, 4ms is too high unfortunately. Not sure if I would actually notice it, but id rather have 1

Some 4ms IPS monitors have less input lag than 1ms TN monitors.

True, there is sometimes the processing lag in the TN monitor.

However, on the topic of GtG:
RealNC wrote:The 24GM77 has a pixel response time of 7ms (the "1ms" you see in official monitor specs is just marketing and doesn't represent pixel response in real-world use.) The total input lag of that monitor (pixel response + signal processing) is 32ms without DAS, and 18ms with DAS.

Keep in mind that humans will generally respond before the end of pixel response time. e.g. GtG only needs to move partially before it gets human-noticed. Even back in the 33ms monitor days, pixels were somewhat visibily half-transitioned by roughly 8 or 16ms for example. Yes, it smeared like hell, but humans begins the reaction-time clock well before the end of pixel transition completion (GtG fully complete).

With high speed camera tests, enough transition occurs to become human-noticeable after approximately ~0.5ms from the beginning of voltage being injected into the pixel of the transition on most modern TN LCDs, even if there's still some ghosts that persists for much longer such as 7ms. That said, the monitors with almost zero strobe crosstalk (Say, the ASUS VG248QE with LightBoost) manages to do over 95% of GtG transitions within the first 1-2ms.

Industry standard GtG benchmark is timed from 10% transition to 90% transition.

For a fullblack to fullwhite transition (color level 0 to color level 255) --
that means a black pixel is already now a visible dark grey (~RGB(25,25,25)) when GtG begins to be benchmarked, and becomes nearly completely white (~RGB(230,230,230)) when GtG finishes being benchmarking, long before it's at color level 255.

It can also be horrendously nonlinear depending on panel tech, and depending on color pair. There are times where GtG(1%-99%) can be 24ms, while GtG(10%-90%) can be 1ms. The better the overdrive in cleaning up GtG overshoot/undershoot as quickly as possible, the more accurate it is. A display can even have a narrow spread -- e.g. GtG(1%-99%) 10ms and GtG(10%-90%) 4ms.

Photodiode input lag tests is sometimes measured into the early part of GtG (when it becomes visible), or at worst, approximately 50% --
roughly halfway into GtG. Even that is not a bad compromise, given human will react well before GtG has practically fully (>99%) completed.

After whatever processing -- once the voltage finally hits the pixels, most "1ms TN" panels have almost identical human reacting-to-it times (after voltage hit) regardless of GtG measurements, due to various nonlinearities. Almost all of them show visible response (enough GtG partial completion to become visible) within 1ms of the pixel actually being voltaged, even if the end-momentum of GtG90% or GtG99% varies a lot (2ms, 7ms, 20ms, whatever). You actually have to switch panel technology (e.g. IPS) to see a much more noticeable difference in human-noticeability-at-beginning-of-GtG.

A basic GtG measurement such as GtG10%-90% doesn't explain how fast GtG10%-20% or GtG30%-70% or GtG80%-90% is -- it can be a quite nonlinear curve that's faster at the beginning or faster at the end, heavily depending on the overdrive algorithm and what color pair is being done. So simpler is to measure via photodiode or high speed camera, to more represent beginnings-of-human-visibility.

Indeed, you're right -- a hugely overriding lag determinator will be processing overhead -- e.g. how the monitor processes the signal or does real-time ("instant") scan-out like a proper gaming monitor does. Factors like that can definitely make an IPS monitor have lag than TN, despite having slower responding (GtG) pixels
___

Regardless, this is a good consideration about input lag. The 24GM77 does realtime scanout AFAIK. So does ViewSonic (At least according to Leo Bodnar lag tester -- a photodiode type test). Less than 1ms difference between the LG and ViewSonic according to DisplayLag(.com).
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby StupidBlur » 07 Apr 2017, 06:07

Thanks for input. I still can't decide between the LG and the Viewsonic. What would you choose? Looks like it all comes down to these 2. I can buy the Viewsonic easily in a local shop while the LG cannot be found easily, and the new one takes too much to ship and still not enough info and judging by that review apparently it's worse than the old LG and the Viewsonic.

Also the guy that made that thread says that the Viewsonic beats the LG in color and everything else..

http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monit ... ost1357728

Read his posts here:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comme ... d/dfstzlt/
StupidBlur
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 Apr 2017, 10:58

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 07 Apr 2017, 12:39

It certainly can be a tough decision especially when you've saved up many weeks (or months) of income for a brand new monitor -- if you're still using (and fairly happy with) a 10 year old system, it's possible that your budget might be limited, and I can totally understand the need to choose very carefully.

All the appropriate photodiode tests such as Leo Bodnar Lag Tester (which I trust more for actual human-eye response show less than 1ms difference between the ViewSonic and the LG when running in their respective fastest modes (least-signal-processing -- ala near-lagless realtime scanout).

For that Viewsonic and LG, the Leo Bodnar photodiode sensor measurement are nearly identical (e.g. 2-3ms for 60Hz top-edge, the beginning of LCD scan-out). Probably half that for 120Hz top-edge. (NOTE: If you're playing VSYNC OFF, Leo Bodnar centre and bottom-edge lag doesn't really matter). DisplayLag(.com) rates them both in "EXCELLENT" category (top notch competition quality gaming).
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby StupidBlur » 07 Apr 2017, 19:32

I think i will just buy the Viewsonic. I dont see any point in buying any other monitor.
StupidBlur
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 Apr 2017, 10:58

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby StupidBlur » 08 Apr 2017, 14:36

Chief Blur Buster wrote:It certainly can be a tough decision especially when you've saved up many weeks (or months) of income for a brand new monitor -- if you're still using (and fairly happy with) a 10 year old system, it's possible that your budget might be limited, and I can totally understand the need to choose very carefully.

All the appropriate photodiode tests such as Leo Bodnar Lag Tester (which I trust more for actual human-eye response show less than 1ms difference between the ViewSonic and the LG when running in their respective fastest modes (least-signal-processing -- ala near-lagless realtime scanout).

For that Viewsonic and LG, the Leo Bodnar photodiode sensor measurement are nearly identical (e.g. 2-3ms for 60Hz top-edge, the beginning of LCD scan-out). Probably half that for 120Hz top-edge. (NOTE: If you're playing VSYNC OFF, Leo Bodnar centre and bottom-edge lag doesn't really matter). DisplayLag(.com) rates them both in "EXCELLENT" category (top notch competition quality gaming).


Hi, what would you say are the best configuration in here to play Quake?

Image

From Tom's Hardware:




There are six view modes that correspond to various tasks. One of them is called Game and that contains seven further presets. All provide various combinations of brightness, overdrive and input lag settings. The best video and gaming performance we found was in Standard mode.

SmartSync is something we haven't seen before. ViewSonic says it "automatically selects the best refresh rate and response time, and lowest input lag needed in FPS games." We're not sure why you wouldn't simply choose settings that give you the best possible performance. And FreeSync should eliminate any need to mess with refresh rate settings. When we turned it on, it engaged the dynamic contrast and reduced overall image quality.

AMD FreeSync is off by default so you'll have to check this box during the XG2401's initial setup. First however, you need to visit the Setup menu and enable DisplayPort 1.2 (shown below).

Response Time is the same as overdrive and has three levels of operation. Ultra Fast results in the least motion blur but adds a bit of ghosting. It was easy to see in test patterns and extremely detailed games. After playing a while, we returned it to the Standard setting.

Low Input Lag also has three settings that reduce processing overhead. On the Ultra Fast setting, we recorded results comparable to other 144Hz monitors and it had no ill effects on video quality. See our tests on page seven for more information.

Black Stabilization is a low-end gamma control. If you're having trouble seeing detail in dark areas of the screen, turn this up.

Advanced DCR will vary brightness based on content in four steps. We think this enhancement is best left off.


From what I can gather, the recommended settings there are the best? Im a bit confused about the "Low Input Lag" and "Response Time" ones.


Also I spoke to a guy that plays quake at high level and he owns a zowie xl2411 and he claims the following:

i traded vg248qe for this one after 2 days, don't really care about DP at this point, the colors may be a bit worse but the visibility in game is 5x better than on asus and that's what matters way more to me. i'm not into singleplayer games that much right now and if i was, i'd get a bigger screen or some IPS stuff instead of this.

also, the built in blur reduction on the benq (which actually works) vs lightboost is not even a contest.


So apparently he has a motion blur feature that adds no (noticeable) input lag of any sort. Since he is a skilled quake player I trust him in it not being noticeable, so it sounds great to reduce blur and have good response time.

My question is, is XG2401 superior to zowie xl2411 in terms of blur and input lag at the same time given the correct configuration??

An additional quesiton regarding hz/fps. Should your max_fps value in games be the same as the hz you are using?

I asked in a quake forum and apparently it shouldn't, for Q3 at least the classic 125fps max value is preferred. Exact quote:

If you're running the game at the same frame rate as your monitor's refresh rate, your tear lines will likely be quite visible without a form of vsync, which adds input lag.

125fps or 250fps is normal for QL. 250 will be a bit more responsive (4ms worst case), but I've heard 250fps can cause sounds to be dropped sometimes.


Unless your frame rate is increased too, I wouldn't expect any significant benefit from 240Hz---unless your monitor is configured to do some kind of processing or buffering tied to its refresh rate.

The main thing is just that if you're not using a form of vsync, you have the frame rate and refresh rate a bit different. So 250fps on 240Hz would be fine, I'd imagine.

If you're on 125fps, I can't imagine why there'd be an improvement going from 144Hz to 240Hz unless the monitor was improved in other ways as well.
StupidBlur
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 Apr 2017, 10:58

Re: Best monitor for Quake playing with decent colors?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 09 Apr 2017, 21:50

Ideal framerate varies a lot between games. For CS:GO many swear by uncapped or very high caps. But some game engines work better with framerates matching tick rate / mouse poll rate. Basically, a framerate driven by a multiple of mouse poll rate (125Hz). I would not be surprised some older games like Quake (Q3, Live, etc) functions better with this.

For Viewsonic, the Low Lag mode is best. That is the realtime scanout mode AFAIK.

For many competitions, framerate-refreshrate matching is not always a desired/essential priority, given many engines behave better when uncoupled from refresh rate. Some games, do, however, benefit.

For some games, it is better to change refresh rate rather than cap framerate. What reduces lag in one game won't always do the same thing in another -- CS:GO behaves very different from Quake. I have heard some users enable FreeSync/GSYNC then lock it to 125fps, as a way of locking the framerate to refreshrate to mouse poll rate - getting a perfect 125Hz automatically with 125fps. But this may still have lag depending on monitor (untested) -- even if much less than VSYNC ON.

Blur is darn near identical given same framerate & refreshrate on the 1ms TN panels (ghosting artifacts nonwithstanding) when Blur Reduction is off. Any monitor with strobe-based Blur Reduction ON will have less blur than any other with feature OFF (or missing).

Strobe even on best monitor, still adds a very slight lag penalty but it can be less lag than the lag difference of 125fps versus 250fps. It is a personal choice whether to use it or not.

For many, lag of blur reduction (in a proper config) can be negligible -- not always enough for paid competitions -- but beneficial for some competitions depending on gameplay tactics you are trained on, such as tracking eyes while fast-turning, etc. Everybody plays differently.

Now, forest for the trees. The lag difference between a 10year old computer and a newer computer will usually be bigger than the lag difference between Blur Reduction ON/OFF on the lowest-lag strobed monitors. It is a personal choice wheter strobe-induced lag is too big or or not, some people love it, some people hate it.

It is a decision you will have to carefully make, but regardless,
125fps looks similiar on 144 & 240, while 250fps looks smoother at 240Hz.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Next

Return to General - Displays, Graphics & More

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests