Blur Busters Forums

Traveler wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2023, 10:15

So in other words, this is the monitor latency result we should be looking for if all we care about is to know the monitor's input lag?
If I can deal with ghosting, overshoot and crosstalk because I'm not motion blur sensitive too much, but I am bothered with desync/latency/delay/input lag ect., I shouldn't care much about monitor's response time (GtG)?

GtG doesn't technically delay appearance of new pixel information (at least enough to cause what we think of as traditional input latency; more like smears it), whereas display processing does.

Regardless, again, some reviewers include GtG in display lag results anyway.

Traveler wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2023, 10:15

Like OSRTT/OSLTT?

First I've heard of those, but from a quick look, they're photodiode-type, so how close they are to isolating and measuring display latency is up to those devices' particular build and hardware/software testing methods.

Do note, photodiode testing is most reliable in synced scenarios where the updates all start in the same place during scanout (top left of screen), whereas with no sync scenarios, updates can start anywhere in the scanout (tearlines).

Traveler wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2023, 10:15

Also, if you don't mind sharing, how did you get an LDAT?

I was put in touch with an Nvidia contact a couple years back due (indirectly) to my association with Blur Busters. It's possible anyone can inquire about them, but I don't know the procedure (or if there is one).

Traveler wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2023, 10:15

Latency in the middle of the screen where crosshairs are located is what is most important then.

For gaming, perhaps, but for isolating and measuring absolute display latency, it should be at the very top left of the display, since that's where the scanout process starts.

Not all display reviewers do this, which can also inflate the numbers by a bit.

Traveler wrote: ↑

07 Jul 2023, 10:15

I understand that.
Though, does this mean that high-end monitor's input lag is basically a non-issue at this point and response time is the speed they actually differ the most between one another?

VRR operation requires near-instantaneous scanout operation to function properly, so most recent VRR-capable monitors have very similar amounts of display processing.

As for how response time (aka GtG) factors into this for LCD monitors, it can depend on the panel type; TN > IPS > VA, etc (in order of typical GtG speed).

Also, if, say, a 1080p 240Hz panel releases around the same time from Acer and ASUS, the likelihood of those panels being the same or variants of each other is very high (there's only so many panels the manufacturers source from; AUO, LG, etc), thus any display-level latency, be it GtG or processing, can be down to the overdrive tuning, firmware, and scaler (standard or G-SYNC module) differences between the two manufacturers.

Ok..

What is the go-to source for these things?
I see RTINGS has a list like this: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

Traveler wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2023, 15:44

Ok..

What is the go-to source for these things?
I see RTINGS has a list like this: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

There's really currently only three English language review sources that specialize in what could be called focused and in-depth monitor reviews (with any of the the rest being relatively surface/editoral-level in comparison):

1. RTINGS
2. TFTCentral
3. PC Monitors

All three reviewers measure display processing/GtG latency, but RTINGS obviously has the largest/most frequent amount of reviews, and thus the most extensive source of input lag measurements across the displays they review (they are also the only source I know of that offer a sortable list).

As for trying to select a monitor based on the least display processing, it'd probably be better to start by determining what feature set, resolution and refresh rate is required, and at what price point, and then narrow it down to the latest models with those parameters and compare between them.

Again, if you're picking from the latest-gen gaming monitor of the time, they're all probably going to use the same or similar panel capable of the given res/refresh rate combo (be it OLED or LCD), so it's usually just down to secondary differences between the brands implementing those same panels in their particular models.

If I go by RTINGS list where GtG is included in final input lag results, Dell Alienware AW2521H and ASUS VG279QM are the "fastest" at their native resolution and max. refresh rate (both 1.7ms of input lag).

They also say anything below 15 ms is a good value + noticeable difference is 10 ms at 1920x1080/280Hz (ASUS VG279QM) and 5 ms of noticeable difference is when BFI is on.. how do I interpret these "noticeable difference" numbers with BFI on/off?

Traveler wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2023, 20:05

They also say anything below 15 ms is a good value + noticeable difference is 10 ms at 1920x1080/280Hz (ASUS VG279QM) and 5 ms of noticeable difference is when BFI is on.. how do I interpret these "noticeable difference" numbers with BFI on/off?

BFI latency is additive to display processing latency and occurs due to it obscuring portions of each frame to reduce image persistence. This is an unavoidable tradeoff to increase motion clarity.

As for "noticeable difference" in latency, this is subjective to the individual player and their given tolerances, sensitivities, and capabilities; what is intolerable latency to one player may be unnoticeable to another. All the reviewers can give you is the raw numbers. Obviously lower is better though.

jorimt wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2023, 21:07

BFI latency is additive to display processing latency...

Of course.. but, how is it possible for ASUS VG279QM to have same 1.7 ms of input lag with BFI on and off?

As for "noticeable difference" in latency, this is subjective to the individual player and their given tolerances, sensitivities, and capabilities; what is intolerable latency to one player may be unnoticeable to another. All the reviewers can give you is the raw numbers.

That's what I thought.
a good latency sensitivity test example would be "Latency Split Test" from ApertureGrille.com
In theory then, it is humanly possible to tell a difference between 1.7 and 2.7 ms of input lag.

Obviously lower is better though.

In a sense that even if some players can't feel the input lag difference, the latency is still there and it will affect their competitive advantage or disadvantage in games?

Traveler wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2023, 22:28

Of course.. but, how is it possible for ASUS VG279QM to have same 1.7 ms of input lag with BFI on and off?

Ask RTINGS; it's their test method and results, after all. They have a Q/A section at the end of each of their reviews.

That said, some forms of strobing are lower latency than others. For one, the shorter the black frame lasts, the less strobe-induced latency, but also the less persistence reduction.

Traveler wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2023, 22:28

In a sense that even if some players can't feel the input lag difference, the latency is still there and it will affect their competitive advantage or disadvantage in games?

More like in the sense it's better to be limited solely by your own reaction time than have any mouse, keyboard, display, system, and/or internet latency added on top of it.

Even then, the brain can adapt to additive latency and ultimately compensate by acting on an offset.

That said, even if there was zero device/internet latency across the entire chain, individual players are still limited by their own capabilities, so since nearly everyone is playing with similar amounts of additive latency right now (due to technological limitations and a finite number of available consumer parts/models/ISP infrastructures), everyone would still be limited by their own skill.

For example, a high school batter will probably be struck out by an MLB pitcher 9/10 times.

Once the industry does achieve near-zero additive device/internet latency (which we've effectively already reached in LAN tournaments, at least with the internet factor), it will be interesting to see how and what excuses players come up with for their inconsistent competitive performance.

Good thing I found this thread because neither deepseek nor chatgpt could give an accurate response.

I was confused about this because VRR enabled means your 240 HZ Monitor is running at around 60hz to 62hz when playing fighting games which are locked to 60 FPS

So I was very much confused as to whether you would even get the benefit of the 4ms input delay found in 240 HZ games which presumably was tested at 240 FPS.

Glad this thread confirms that fighting game at 60 FPS with VRR enabled will still give 4ms input delay once your windows setting is 240hz

Supermodel_Evelynn wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2025, 12:22

Good thing I found this thread because neither deepseek nor chatgpt could give an accurate response.

I was confused about this because VRR enabled means your 240 HZ Monitor is running at around 60hz to 62hz when playing fighting games which are locked to 60 FPS

So I was very much confused as to whether you would even get the benefit of the 4ms input delay found in 240 HZ games which presumably was tested at 240 FPS.

Glad this thread confirms that fighting game at 60 FPS with VRR enabled will still give 4ms input delay once your windows setting is 240hz

I find AI worthless in niche and nuanced topics like these, I always like to remind myself that these models are trained on everything on the internet, think of how many factually wrong things are said on the internet which AI could use to give you an answer.