what's a good 240Hz monitor that has good input lag at 60Hz?

[.kernel 0x000]

I play SFV and retroarch too, I'm afraid I will have poor input lag with games that are 60Hz only. What's a good 240Hz or more monitor that doesn't have that issue?

[deama]

I play SFV and retroarch too, I'm afraid I will have poor input lag with games that are 60Hz only. What's a good 240Hz or more monitor that doesn't have that issue?

You can run a 240hz at 60fps and it will give you less input lag than 60hz at 60fps, so just get the lowest input lag 240hz monitor.

[RealNC]

If you have g-sync, then just use 240Hz and enable g-sync. Make sure you enable "Sync To Exact Content Framerate" and "VSync" in the RetroArch options. See https://www.libretro.com/index.php/upco ... sync-users

If you don't have g-sync, then use 240Hz and in RetroArch set the "Vertical Sync Swap Interval" to 4 (it's in Settings/Video/Synchronization.) This will sync 4 frames at a time before running the next emulation frame, resulting in 240/4=60Hz vsync.

In both cases, you will be using 240Hz, so you won't be getting any 60Hz lag the monitor might have.

[.kernel 0x000]

If you have g-sync, then just use 240Hz and enable g-sync. Make sure you enable "Sync To Exact Content Framerate" and "VSync" in the RetroArch options. See https://www.libretro.com/index.php/upco ... sync-users

If you don't have g-sync, then use 240Hz and in RetroArch set the "Vertical Sync Swap Interval" to 4 (it's in Settings/Video/Synchronization.) This will sync 4 frames at a time before running the next emulation frame, resulting in 240/4=60Hz vsync.

In both cases, you will be using 240Hz, so you won't be getting any 60Hz lag the monitor might have.

Well G-Sync is hard disabled in Street Fighter V via drivers as per requested by Capcom to Nvidia so that's not an option here. I want to be safe anyways and get a 240Hz monitor that handles 60Hz well.

[rose77]

I play SFV and retroarch too, I'm afraid I will have poor input lag with games that are 60Hz only. What's a good 240Hz or more monitor that doesn't have that issue?

You can run a 240hz at 60fps and it will give you less input lag than 60hz at 60fps, so just get the lowest input lag 240hz monitor.

are you sure with that ???

[Chief Blur Buster]

are you sure with that ???

This is correct.

You're being confused by two subtly different truths.

(A) High Lag Situation (worse than 60Hz panel)
Running 60fps at 60Hz on typical 240Hz panels

(B) Low Lag Situation (better than 60Hz panel)
Running 60fps at 240Hz on typical 240Hz panels

Details Matters!

Moral of the story:
- For low lag 60fps on a 240Hz panel, don't lower the refresh rate of your 240Hz panel
- You should try G-SYNC or FreeSync and cap to 60fps (or let app naturally cap itself, if it's already pre-capped, e.g. emulators)
- Most fighting games will support 60fps on 240Hz, 280Hz, and 360Hz panels

Exceptions occur. For example, ASUS XG248 (old monitor) and ViewSonic XG2431 (upcoming monitor) has low 60Hz latency, a few panels have low 60Hz lag AND low 240Hz

Don't confuse (A) and (B)! Understand the details.

[rose77]

wow very clear.

i play at street fighter v .

the game is at 60 fps

but i also want to play to other fps game.

this screen seems to be good to me : AW2721D allienware

but i saw(rtings review) that he has some issu with input lag at other range than his native resolution compared to other screen.

what do you think about this screen to play at stf5 for the moment ?

tx you for your help

[deama]

are you sure with that ???

This is correct.

You're being confused by two subtly different truths.

(A) High Lag Situation (worse than 60Hz panel)
Running 60fps at 60Hz on typical 240Hz panels

(B) Low Lag Situation (better than 60Hz panel)
Running 60fps at 240Hz on typical 240Hz panels

Details Matters!

Moral of the story:
- For low lag 60fps on a 240Hz panel, don't lower the refresh rate of your 240Hz panel
- You should try G-SYNC or FreeSync and cap to 60fps (or let app naturally cap itself, if it's already pre-capped, e.g. emulators)
- Most fighting games will support 60fps on 240Hz, 280Hz, and 360Hz panels

Exceptions occur. For example, ASUS XG248 (old monitor) and ViewSonic XG2431 (upcoming monitor) has low 60Hz latency, a few panels have low 60Hz lag AND low 240Hz

Don't confuse (A) and (B)! Understand the details.

If we assume the game runs constant 60fps, would a 60hz CRT have less input lag than a VA/IPS panel 240hz monitor? Assuming we run the monitors and CRTs in those situations at their max refresh rate, e.g. run CRT at 60hz, and the VA/IPS panel monitors at their 240hz.

wow very clear.

i play at street fighter v .

the game is at 60 fps

but i also want to play to other fps game.

this screen seems to be good to me : AW2721D allienware

but i saw(rtings review) that he has some issu with input lag at other range than his native resolution compared to other screen.

what do you think about this screen to play at stf5 for the moment ?

tx you for your help

You should leave it at 240hz.
If you want to lower your input lag more, than I don't think you can do much with monitors these days as a 240hz monitor has quite low input lag, there's other better things out there, such as optimising your windows, disabling DWM, fixing your GPU/CPU clocks so the fps is even more stable and may even reduce some input lag, overclocking, etc...

[Chief Blur Buster]

If we assume the game runs constant 60fps, would a 60hz CRT have less input lag than a VA/IPS panel 240hz monitor? Assuming we run the monitors and CRTs in those situations at their max refresh rate, e.g. run CRT at 60hz, and the VA/IPS panel monitors at their 240hz.

This does not have a simple yes/no answer.

"Depends". Scanout lag is vastly lower at 240Hz but absolute lag

Absolute lag (the processing lag aka tapedelay-style lag / GtG lag) versus the scanout lag (first pixel to last pixel fully refreshed) are two separate latency factors, as not all pixels have the same latency, so your question does not have a "Yes" or "No" answer, unless it's nuanced.

But as a general rule of thumb, you will perform better in esports with a 240Hz screen than a 60Hz screen, even for 60fps material, as long as it's relatively low absolute latency.

There are situations where a 60Hz CRT performs better but not universally in all lag metrics. A 60Hz tube still takes 16.7ms to refresh the first pixel through last pixel, which means some pixels of a 60fps frame may be lagged by 1/60sec = 16.7ms

Metaphorically, it is like the LCD tortise and the CRT hare. The CRT gets a headstart (first pixel refreshes sooner due to lack of GtG lag / buffer lag) but the 240Hz LCD tortise wins the race because of the 1/240sec scanout which can more than "catch up" for any tapedelay-style (absolute) latencies. Sync technology also matters.

Most 60fps games are VSYNC ON, which actually gives the 240Hz LCD a much bigger advantage, because you may have 2-3 framebuffers of lag, so instead of 1/60sec versus 1/240sec (~13ms differential), we're possibly looking as much as 2/60sec or even 3/60sec vs 1/240sec differential (~46ms differential) for the last pixel. A framerate far below refresh rate generally ends up having no frame queue (waiting line-up of framebuffers waiting to refresh onto the screen during VSYNC ON), unlike ramerate equalling or trying to exceed refresh rate.

These are just approximate numbers, but needless to say, there are lots of factors where massively lower scanout lag more than outweighs slightly higher absolute lag -- it's the tortoise-vs-hare race effect.

TL;DR: Not all pixels refresh at the same time

[deama]

If we assume the game runs constant 60fps, would a 60hz CRT have less input lag than a VA/IPS panel 240hz monitor? Assuming we run the monitors and CRTs in those situations at their max refresh rate, e.g. run CRT at 60hz, and the VA/IPS panel monitors at their 240hz.

This does not have a simple yes/no answer.

"Depends". Scanout lag is vastly lower at 240Hz but absolute lag

Absolute lag (the processing lag aka tapedelay-style lag / GtG lag) versus the scanout lag (first pixel to last pixel fully refreshed) are two separate latency factors, as not all pixels have the same latency, so your question does not have a "Yes" or "No" answer, unless it's nuanced.

But as a general rule of thumb, you will perform better in esports with a 240Hz screen than a 60Hz screen, even for 60fps material, as long as it's relatively low absolute latency.

There are situations where a 60Hz CRT performs better but not universally in all lag metrics. A 60Hz tube still takes 16.7ms to refresh the first pixel through last pixel, which means some pixels of a 60fps frame may be lagged by 1/60sec = 16.7ms

Metaphorically, it is like the LCD tortise and the CRT hare. The CRT gets a headstart (first pixel refreshes sooner due to lack of GtG lag / buffer lag) but the 240Hz LCD tortise wins the race because of the 1/240sec scanout which can more than "catch up" for any tapedelay-style (absolute) latencies. Sync technology also matters.

Most 60fps games are VSYNC ON, which actually gives the 240Hz LCD a much bigger advantage, because you may have 2-3 framebuffers of lag, so instead of 1/60sec versus 1/240sec (~13ms differential), we're possibly looking as much as 2/60sec or even 3/60sec vs 1/240sec differential (~46ms differential) for the last pixel. A framerate far below refresh rate generally ends up having no frame queue (waiting line-up of framebuffers waiting to refresh onto the screen during VSYNC ON), unlike ramerate equalling or trying to exceed refresh rate.

These are just approximate numbers, but needless to say, there are lots of factors where massively lower scanout lag more than outweighs slightly higher absolute lag -- it's the tortoise-vs-hare race effect.

TL;DR: Not all pixels refresh at the same time

Oh, thanks for the answer.