Blur Busters Forums

What are the lowest input lag monitors?

On the gaming monitors page it doesn't include input lag https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/

It also doesn't list some monitors that other sites say are the best 1080p 144hz budget monitors right now, such as the AOC G2590FX, ViewSonic XG2402, and Acer XFA240. Why aren't these monitors listed?

Is there anywhere I can see a comparison of these monitors and numbers for input lag, etc.? I want to know how these monitors compare with the BenQ XL2411p, which is in the same price range of $200.

I found this https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag but it doesn't have any of the above monitors either.

I'm looking at https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/viewsonic/xg2402 monitor comparisons/reviews, and it seems most monitors are listed at ~4ms input lag. So I guess it isn't a major factor then? Would most people agree that the XG2402 is the best ~$200 gaming monitor right now? I'm currently on a XL2411z and was looking to replace it with an XL2411p for the displayport. But if the XG2402 is better for the same price I'll just get that.

Though other sites say the Acer XFA240 is the best for this price range, but neither site compares the Acer XFA240 with the ViewSonic XG2402.

And now I see there's an XG240R (vs 2402)... But the R isn't mentioned anywhere on rtings. And now I see a review saying the Acer XF240H is better than the XG2402. Man this is complicated.


----

240hz vs 144hz update for the benefit of anyone reading this thread:

I bought the #1 ranked 240hz monitor that was listed here http://bestmonitorsbyncx.createaforum.c ... -monitors/ and to me there was not a significant difference between 240 and 144hz, even when running at 300FPS.

The one I tested was the $500 Acer Nitro XV273 X.

What was noticeable was the horrible IPS glow that ruins 1/3rd of the monitor.

My conclusion from testing a bunch of different monitors recently is that whatever TN or VA monitor has the least defects is the best. The differences in response times are trivial, even for competitive FPS. They only matter when it manifests as obvious phenomena such as the smearing/flickering of high contrast areas during movement on the VA monitor (AOC C27G1) I tried.

Well, I got the XG2402 and I'm pretty disappointed in it. It doesn't seem better than my xl2411z at all.

Viewing angles seem worse than the xl2411z. The colors don't seem any better, and the motion blur/ghosting seems much worse. And it's not just motion blur that's bad but the colors change during movement too. Maybe turning off ECO Mode + turning up brightness helped.

I don't notice it in games much, but it's extremely obvious when scrolling webpages or when dragging a window. And I also notice it when playing some videos/gifs.

So what would be an affordable 1080p monitor without this problem?

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

16 May 2020, 13:15

So what would be an affordable 1080p monitor without this problem?

If you want an XL2411Z with DisplayPort, the decision is really easy: XL2411P. You get the same monitor essentially, that works with your newer GPUs, and it still works with all the same Blur Busters tricks. Familarity, but with DisplayPort.

Few 1080p 144Hz monitors seem to get close to the XL2411P in flexibility, especially if you use the motion blur reduction feature.

If you need better colors while having great 120Hz blur reduction, you might want to be aware that 120Hz strobing on a 240Hz can look much better than 120Hz strobing on a 144Hz panel. The PureXP+ looks great at 120Hz on the 240Hz ViewSonic XG270, for example.

Yeah, the XL2411P is what I was planning on upgrading to, but multiple sites said the ViewSonic XG2402 and Acer XFA240 were better than the BenQ monitor.

There are so many monitors listed here https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors and no way of comparing/knowing which to choose.

Is the XL2411p really the best 1080p 24" 144hz monitor for response times, input lag, motion blur/ghosting?

I don't want to pay more for 240hz because I've seen people say "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps" as well as there being little to no practical benefit to the higher hz.

Update:

It appears that the XG2402 I got is simply defective. I tried another one that does not have the same extreme motion blur and color changes when scrolling a web page.

I would like to reduce the motion blur even further though, and I'm wondering if the XL2536 DyAc would be the solution.

Panel lottery is HELL these days

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

16 May 2020, 13:53

there being little to no practical benefit to the higher hz.

That is a myth perpetuated by the mainstream that does not understand.
It's like back in the 1975 VHS days saying 4K & 8K televisions are trash.

But today, you can buy a 4K HDTV from Walmart for only $299 -- far cheaper than the price of the first RCA color TV in year 1954 which cost over $10,000 in 2020 dollars (inflation-adjusted).

If I recall right, you were a fan of BenQ motion blur reduction on your older BenQ monitor, correct? You could see the difference, correct?

Today, motion blur reduction (ULMB, ELMB, DyAc, etc) is still done by flashing a backlight (strobing) only because of lowness of refresh rates. To eliminate motion blur WITHOUT flashing a backlight (since real life doesn't strobe, and strobing is a humankind band-aid), requires eliminating those black periods. Eliminating motion blur strobelessly as well as today's strobe backlights (reduce motion blur to 1ms) -- will require 1000 unique 1ms frames contiguously, without black periods in between. How? That's a thousand 1ms to fill a second -- 1000fps at 1000Hz. This has already been tested in the laboratory, and it looks like strobeless ULMB.

Today, that's silly. But tomorrow (year 2040), when 1000Hz costs only $50 more (just like 4K cost premium versus RCA 1954 color TV)

Motion blur is directly proportional to pixel visibility time.
Strobed = blur is equal to strobe flash length
Nonstrobed = blur is equal to refresh cycle length

Do you know why Blur Busters exist? We bust the "Hz is useless" myths.



Even NVIDIA is already working on frame rate amplification technologies (1000fps for cheap), and ASUS has already roadmapped 1000Hz thanks partially to Blur Busters. Today, the world has retina'd out spatially (retina resolutions) so the unturned stone is retina-ing out the refresh rates to the humankind vanishing point.

For refresh cycle progress to remain human-visible, requires upgrading refresh rates geometrically. The 60Hz to 144Hz upgrade (2.4x) is approximately as visible as 144Hz to 360Hz (2.5x), for framerate=Hz situations. Both are much more visible than the small incremental 144Hz-to-240Hz upgrade (1.6x).

High-Hz even benefits scrolling in Windows too. Browser scrolling on the 360Hz ASUS monitor is 1/6th as much as browser scrolling on the 60Hz monitors. It correctly follows the Blur Busters Law (1ms of pixel visibility time translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec).

Apple is releasing 120Hz. Tomorrow, 240Hz will be mainstream in 2030s, and the refresh rates will climb as long as it's cheap to do so, and GPUs can do it, and if it's battery efficient. Eliminating motion blur strobelessly is superior to using a flashing strobe abcklight to eliminate motion blur. The problem is to match ULMB/DyAc/ELMB/etc without strobing, will unfortunately require between 500fps@500Hz (for 2ms MPRT) all the way to 2000fps@2000Hz (for 0.5ms MPRT) -- but technology progress is lining up.

And oh, if you keep hearing Internet plebes citing a "fighter pilot study", that's a non-lumen-compensated momentary vibility test, for object-identifiation. But it's only relevant to certain things (like much harder to see VSYNC OFF tearlines at 360Hz than at 60Hz, because tearlines are visible more briefly). That famous study neglects to test for other artifacts such as persistence blur or stroboscopic effects.

Maybe you won't get better esports scores beyond a certain Hz. But many people DO want to say goodbye to using the flicker-bandaid (strobe backlight trick), and the only way to eliminate motion blur strobelessly is to use ultrahigh refresh rates to emulate analog real-life motion. Also there's no light loss, and no lag, in a strobeless-based motion blur reduction. Also, latency of VSYNC ON, VSYNC OFF and VRR, all simultaneously converge to identical stutterlessness, blurlessness, and laglessness -- different looks between sync technologies only exist because of lowness of refresh rates these days.

We were the world's first website to test a experimental 480Hz monitor



It's hard for GPUs to do such high frame rates though. But rest assured, vendors are currently working on high-ratio frame rate amplification technologies, including future 5:1 ratios and 10:1 ratios (multiplying frame rates by 10x laglessly). Today, vendors are successfully doing 2:1 ratios (e.g. Oculus VR ASW 2.0, and NVIDIA DLSS 2.0). But tomorrow's GPUs will eventually convert 100fps to 1,000fps, to drive tomorrow's ultra-Hz strobeless blur-reducing displays.

We are the site that encourages the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates.

Now compare these two images:

Motion Blur Of Non-Strobed



Motion Blur Of Strobed (ULMB, ELMB, DyAc, PureXP, etc)



How To Upgrade Refresh Rates

Refresh rates (and GPU power) needs be upgraded geometrically to jump the diminishing curve of returns -- to remain human visible. 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz->960Hz.

The biggest problem is now GPU-side, admittedly, so there's a big incentive to fix that (Frame Rate Amplification Technologies).

Nontheless, other benefits exists (e.g. browser smooth scrolling etc), even before game frame rates catch up to strobeless motion blur elimination (retina refresh rates).

240Hz browser scrolling is about one-quarter the motion blur of 60Hz browser scrolling, and 360 Hz browser scrolling is about one-sixth the motion blur of 60Hz browser scrolling (albiet the GtG limitations, make it more like one-fifth -- since GtG is a significant percentage of a 360Hz refresh cycle).

120Hz is already a free feature in some screens now (most 4K TVs have a free 120Hz mode hiding in it), and 120Hz is going to become a mainstream inclusion in upcoming phones -- both the next iPhone and Galaxy have 120Hz.

Even 240Hz will eventually (too) become mainstream years down the road -- while the pros/high end will have moved on to 480Hz, 720Hz or 1000Hz (etc). It might take a couple decades to borne itself out, but the geometric increases in refresh rates are needed to reach retina refresh rates (much like resolution doubling towards retina resolutions).

We stuck to 60Hz because of the AC power and that CRTs were strobed (impulsed displays) but:
- Technology limits preventing going above 60Hz are disappearing
- Cost of going above 60Hz are disappearing
- GPU limitations will slowly be uncapped
- Benefits are now scientifically proven to exist
- Eliminating motion blur without needing strobing
- Displays now emulate analog real life (infinite frame rate), thanks to virutal reality and early "Holodecks"
- We've now maxed-out resolution (retina)

So we've got a pressure to increase refresh rates to getting closer to emulating real life.
Even when latency benefits disappear, there's STILL motion-blur-eliminating benefits, and stroboscopics-eliminating benefits.

Hmm, for some reason I missed the new post email notification for this thread.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 00:32

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

16 May 2020, 13:53

there being little to no practical benefit to the higher hz.

That is a myth perpetuated by the mainstream that does not understand.

Yes, thank you for confirming. That is also what I have been deducing.

The closest thing I got to a real explanation was a youtube video where the guy was saying that at 240hz if you weren't getting 240FPS then the game was not updating fast enough to put out enough "information" to make the 240hz worth it.

However, based on my recent reading it seems that 240 hz paired with lower FPS would still benefit from less blur, less input lag, feel more responsive, and possibly be smoother.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 00:32

If I recall right, you were a fan of BenQ motion blur reduction on your older BenQ monitor, correct? You could see the difference, correct?

I think I messed with it when I originally got the monitor many years ago, but then never used it. If I recall correctly I made that decision due to being told there was increased delay from the blur reduction. And I think that's what BenQ's DyAc has supposedly remedied - MBR without increased delays. Not sure if DyAc is unique in that respect?

With my ViewSonic XG2402 I am definitely bothered by the motion blur (in large part while scrolling web browser) and thus looking for a monitor that will reduce that.

I made this thread Best motion blur reduction technology in 2020? Is it BenQ’s DyAc?. Based on that plus this one where I tested vsync, adaptive sync, and frame locking, I've decided to go with a 240hz monitor in order to reduce blur.

Also, I'm now skeptical about the benefits of adaptive sync and g-sync.

I've only ever used vsync in casual, single player games, and don't recall noticeable input lag. For competitive games I can simply cap the FPS at some stable value without any sync tech on. And doing so in both CS 1.6 (120/144hz with 100 FPS) and CSGO (144hz with no FPS cap) I've never had issues with screen tearing.

Based on my linked experiments. I think I prefer to simply use vsync in casual games. Adaptive sync lowers the monitor refresh rate, which then reduces benefits from the higher refresh rates. And adaptive sync doesn't seem to work well dynamically - IE: without the frame rate capped at a stable value. Thus, it only seems beneficial for reducing input lag, and only in cases where you get FPS close to your max Hz.

Perhaps this is another reason people are spreading the notion that you need 240+ FPS to benefit from 240hz - they're assuming you're going to always use adaptive sync or g-sync.


I'm now looking at the Acer Nitro XF252Q:
24" 1080p 240hz, TN https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/ac ... xf252q.htm

"The Acer XF252Q was an impressive gaming screen for sure. It's the fastest panel we've tested to date in fact, with the lowest, most consistent response times, no noticeable overshoot"

Which seems to be better than the BenQ monitors for $100-200 less. At $260: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07V7GJR9S

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

30 May 2020, 15:31

Also, I'm now skeptical about the benefits of adaptive sync and g-sync.

You mean FreeSync or VESA Adaptive-Sync (VRR), not "Adaptive VSync" (which is not VRR).

Games need to correctly be configured and work properly in order for VRR to be superior to VSYNC ON.

Old games are sometimes VRR-uncooperative. Some games likes to switch to lower Hz when launching. For example, to get VRR working correctly in certain older balky games that were invented before VRR was invented, I had to sometimes do unorthodox tricks like:

1. Create a 1920x1078 or 2560x1438 custom resolution that only had max-Hz. That prevents game using lower Hz, since 60Hz does not exist
2. Configure NVIDIA Control Panel to "G-SYNC" + "VSYNC ON"
3. Configure game to "VSYNC OFF" (it's still VSYNC ON, but game logic switches to its own unsynchronized Hz processing, that works better with VRR)

Also, some VRR implementations have bad overdrive. Good VRR implementations look identical to VSYNC ON at all framerates. Basically it looks like permanent VSYNC ON, with all framedrops completely erased, and no stutters during the framerate-change seams. Smooth ramps like www.testufo.com/vrr ... So when a game drops 200fps @ 200Hz VSYNC ON goes 197fps @ 197Hz VSYNC ON, there's no stutter seams between the frame rate changes. And well overdrive-tuned VRR is identical to non-VRR.

The frame rate is the refresh rate, and the refresh rate is the frame rate, when a properly-configured game runs on a properly-tuned variable refresh rate monitor.

The real world is that there are some issues, especially with older games invented pre-VRR.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

31 May 2020, 16:27

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

30 May 2020, 15:31

Also, I'm now skeptical about the benefits of adaptive sync and g-sync.

You mean FreeSync or VESA Adaptive-Sync (VRR), not "Adaptive VSync" (which is not VRR).

Oops, yes I meant FreeSync.

Talos Principle, the game I tested it with, isn't very old. I didn't use "vsync on" though, so maybe to retain no tearing without a frame lock requires "vsync on".

I saw various resources that said not to use vsync with freesync, which is why I did that:

Input lag with G-sync and FreeSync: https://youtu.be/MzHxhjcE0eQ?t=826 - g-sync/free-sync with v-sync off is better. When FPS increases Freesync gets lower input lag but g-sync stays the same.

Capping FPS + overview of all sync & capping technology: https://graphicscardhub.com/fps-limiter/

"You need to cap your frame rate 5-10 FPS lower than the refresh rate (141 for 144hz monitor) or it enables v-sync which adds input lag": https://archive.vn/tvAAD

Discussion about RivaTuner and input lag: https://archive.vn/bcEJe