Best monitor for fast-paced FPS games? [Old Thread]

[Chief Blur Buster]

Yes, video converters usually have lag.

A lot of DVI-to-VGA and DisplayPort-to-VGA adaptors generate input lag.

Only 'dumb' 1:1 signal converters like certain simple HDMI-to-VGA converters, are virtually lagless. The Open Source Scan Converter is one of the few lagless converters, but that one is designed for console gaming and classic gaming, not PC gaming.

Graphics cards no longer have VGA outputs, so you could end up accidentally adding external adaptor lag if you begin using a CRT.

So if you have a graphics card with no VGA output, why bother? Just get a 240Hz LCD and skip the lag of a VGA adaptor.

[Sparky]

Though if a converter does add 10~20ms of lag, I have some serious questions about the competence of the engineer that designed it. That's a lot of unnecessary die space dedicated to memory.

[Chief Blur Buster]

You need a minimum of memory for DisplayPort micropackets and jitter-introducing overheads (e.g. PCI protocol over Thunderbolt/USB-C).

DisplayPort is micropacket based. Packets requres many microseconds of buffer.

So is usually somewhat under one millisecond, though, but you have overheads on both ends of the cable, since display cables are becoming packetized. Amongst codec overheads (signal modulation demodulation). All overheads can add up to a couple milliseconds even for less-than-frame-buffered conversion.

Even for the future (e.g merging two DisplayPorts via a Thunderbolt hub) - for eSports, try to avoid conversion steps as you may not have guaranteed 1:1 micropacket mapping between micropacket standards of different display cables or even different DisplayPort "versions" (e.g. hubs that merge two DisplayPort 1.0 signals into one bus of a different micropacket size/latency).

[Sparky]

Yeah, but a LCD has all those same constraints, if the converter is 10ms slower than an LCD fed from the same type of interface, something is very wrong.

[Chief Blur Buster]

True. A converter should not add 10ms of lag. Many do not. The order of magnitude is much closer to 1ms. But some unnecessarily do the 10ms order of magnitude of lag.

[cskippy]

Is this why I play better on my Benq XL2411Z with DVI compared to my Acer XB270HU with Displayport? I always notice a difference and feel more connected with the Benq.

[vladislavmedvednikov]

I heard that this kind of adapter doesn't add any delay, just changes the pinouut to fit DVI-I port which supports both analog and digital signal. That's the only thing needed to connect a CRT to my GTX 970. However I also heard that the signal would have to be converted to analog->digital->analog which may add some input lag (no clue how much).

So currently I'm using XL2411Z. Buying a GDM-FW900 wouldn't be an upgrade? I've seen people getting 125hz on 1440x900 or 160hz on 1152x720. How is the Hz of CRT compared to LCD's? I've read somewhere that for example 85Hz CRT is still faster than 120Hz LCD due to it's technology nature.

[Chief Blur Buster]

I heard that this kind of adapter doesn't add any delay, just changes the pinouut to fit DVI-I port which supports both analog and digital signal. That's the only thing needed to connect a CRT to my GTX 970. However I also heard that the signal would have to be converted to analog->digital->analog which may add some input lag (no clue how much).

True, and that's ideal for CRT if possible. But more and more newer graphics cards no longer have DVI-I outputs. It's either all DP or DVI, with no analog VGA-compatible pins available.

Even with some cards that still have DVI, it's DVI-D rather than DVI-A. Digital DVI and HDMI also has a micropacketization-related latency, but AFAIK, DisplayPort has even more of that (Although still at submillisecond scales).

[Chief Blur Buster]

So currently I'm using XL2411Z. Buying a GDM-FW900 wouldn't be an upgrade? I've seen people getting 125hz on 1440x900 or 160hz on 1152x720. How is the Hz of CRT compared to LCD's? I've read somewhere that for example 85Hz CRT is still faster than 120Hz LCD due to it's technology nature.

Depends. Could be an upgrade in some ways. If you're downscaling on your XL2411Z anyway and if you can pull off ~125Hz on the W900, you can pretty much have similar resolution and refresh. Then it will likely be an upgrade latency-wise without the loss of the latency-randomization (since 125Hz is not much lower than 144Hz).

On the other hand, if I was choosing a new display, and had a choice between a W900/FW900 versus a 240Hz monitor, I'd be getting the 240Hz monitor for eSports use at this time. But your mileage may vary given your specific priorities (e.g. blur reduction, absolute lag, and lag randomization), your needs, and your budget.

Priority Blur Reduction == Favours CRT (no blur reduction lag) or strobe backlights (adds average half-refresh-cycle lag)
Priority Lowest Absolute Lag == Favours CRT (if you have native analog output available)
Priority Lowest Lag MIN/MAX Variance == Favours Highest Hz (240Hz eSports monitors)

It ends up becoming a "pick two of the three" game.

How competitive are you? Are you playing professionally in paid eSports tournaments in your country? If you are playing professionally and you are allowed to choose your own display, maybe try both (Both the W900 CRT and the 240Hz LCD), you need all the advantage you can muster. But if you are invited to eSports tournament arenas/stadium that forces to use their sponsored monitors, then I highly recommend training on the 240Hz LCD instead. This is because whatever the sponsors put in the stadium will be much more similar to the display that you choose to train on.

Display-changes are sometimes somewhat jarring to seasoned professional eSports players that visits tournaments, especially if they're trained their aiming to a specific display -- even a 1ms lag difference, while not directly felt, sometimes create changes in hitrates (e.g. precise mouse turns, 8000 pixels per second sideways turning + 1ms extra lag = 8 pixel average offset in aim, at least until you get used to the new aimfeel of the new display latency). You train on a CRT at home, then you get invited to an eSports tournament, and then required play on their sponsored monitors (now becoming increasingly 144Hz or 240Hz LCDs), and bam, you're not playing homefield advantage anymore. Obviously, it depends on the country you are in.

If you never play at sites that requires you to use their sponsored monitors, then all of this doesn't matter, and single milliseconds typically don't matter to more than 99% of average people, but it's a consideration worth mentioning since milliseconds certainly begin to matter in the elite leagues.