Input lag question

[davidoo]

Is it possible to notice a difference between a monitor having an input lag of 2.5ms and 4.5ms?

Would there be a noticeable improvement in gaming playing with the lowest input lag monitor?

Given that setup (PC, Mouse, internet connection and all that also adds to the increase in input lag) - I'm really wondering if such a small decrease would be noticeable in online gaming.

According to sources like rtings; noticable difference starts around 5 ms.

I would just like to hear your opinion on this matter.

[emhelmark]

I can say yes for those professional players that spends most of the time competing, practicing, bootcamp, scrims and so on.

Even shroud says "there's not much difference, but it is there" on a 144hz vs 240hz panel. Although some players can really see the difference. It is always up to your preference but try aiming for a stable 144fps 144hz first.

See linus with shroud video.

[Chief Blur Buster]

In addition to lag, there's other effects

-- Motion blur reduction. Double Hz equals half motion blur (assuming GtG tiny fraction of Hz). Future 1000fps at 1000Hz dipslays will provide blurless sample-and-hold -- the ability to get CRT clarity without needing strobing.

-- Stroboscopic effets. You know, the famous mousedropping effect. It's still visible at 480Hz. It's also visible in video games too, see Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rates

60Hz jump to 144Hz = 2.4x more Hz
144Hz jump to 240Hz = 1.6x more Hz
144Hz jump to 360Hz = 2.5x more Hz

Normally, doubling Hz halves motion blur (twice as clear motion). While the 360Hz display showed definite improved clarity, it was closer to 1.3x to 1.4x clearer instead of 1.5x clearer because the 1ms GtG is a whopping big huge percentage of a 2.7ms refresh cycle (1/360sec).

Even if input lag benefits stop, other benefits are still there for the long term refresh rate race to retina refresh rates. ASUS now has long-term roadmap to 1000Hz displays (probably 2030s), in part thanks to Blur Busters advocacy -- they confirmed to me at CES -- and also PC Magazine ("...road to 1000Hz...") and DigitalTrends ("...The company wants to build a 1,000Hz display...")

There's a need to go geometrically up the diminishing curve of returns to see tangible differences. The incrementalism (240->280->300->360) -- and the GtG response being a big percentage of short refresh cycles -- both bottleneck motion clarity progress of increased refresh rates.

So the increased refresh rate progress is still worthwhile even if input lag benefits discontinue -- other benefits are still visible in the long continuation of the diminishing-curve-of-returns that doesn't stop till well beyond the quad-digit milestone. Things like being able to see players better during mid-turn (Getting CRT motion clarity without the need for a strobe backlight mode), and less stepping effects.

[Boop]

In addition to lag, there's other effects

-- Motion blur reduction. Double Hz equals half motion blur (assuming GtG tiny fraction of Hz). Future 1000fps at 1000Hz dipslays will provide blurless sample-and-hold -- the ability to get CRT clarity without needing strobing.

-- Stroboscopic effets. You know, the famous mousedropping effect. It's still visible at 480Hz. It's also visible in video games too, see Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rates

60Hz jump to 144Hz = 2.4x more Hz
144Hz jump to 240Hz = 1.6x more Hz
144Hz jump to 360Hz = 2.5x more Hz

Normally, doubling Hz halves motion blur (twice as clear motion). While the 360Hz display showed definite improved clarity, it was closer to 1.3x to 1.4x clearer instead of 1.5x clearer because the 1ms GtG is a whopping big huge percentage of a 2.7ms refresh cycle (1/360sec).

Even if input lag benefits stop, other benefits are still there for the long term refresh rate race to retina refresh rates. ASUS now has long-term roadmap to 1000Hz displays (probably 2030s), in part thanks to Blur Busters advocacy -- they confirmed to me at CES -- and also PC Magazine ("...road to 1000Hz...") and DigitalTrends ("...The company wants to build a 1,000Hz display...")

There's a need to go geometrically up the diminishing curve of returns to see tangible differences. The incrementalism (240->280->300->360) -- and the GtG response being a big percentage of short refresh cycles -- both bottleneck motion clarity progress of increased refresh rates.

So the increased refresh rate progress is still worthwhile even if input lag benefits discontinue -- other benefits are still visible in the long continuation of the diminishing-curve-of-returns that doesn't stop till well beyond the quad-digit milestone. Things like being able to see players better during mid-turn (Getting CRT motion clarity without the need for a strobe backlight mode), and less stepping effects.

Since you saw the 360hz displays in person, how much of a motion improvement is it over a 240hz Zowie display with Dyac turned on?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Since you saw the 360hz displays in person, how much of a motion improvement is it over a 240hz Zowie display with Dyac turned on?

Non-strobed: I already said that in my previous post (the 1.5x becoming 1.3x-1.4x due to GtG), in a same-monitor versus test.
Strobed: Information not available yet without NDA

Also, as a "keep friendly relations to all manufacturers" policy, I try to stick to generalities rather than describing a head-to-head between two competitors. We let other reviewers handle that sort of comparing, even if they use Blur Busters inventions (TestUFO, pursuit camera, etc) to do the comparing

That said, I can say the following generality due to simple LCD law of physics (even though I have NOT seen it in action in any ASUS product or BenQ product): 240Hz strobed on a 360Hz panel will have less crosstalk than 240Hz strobed on 240Hz for the same GtG pixel response curves. However, 360Hz strobed at 360Hz will probably have more crosstalk than 240Hz strobed at 240Hz, on the same panel of any manufacturer. Also at this time of writing, it is unknown which strobed Hz range will be offered[ as that information is not yet publicly announced