Blur Busters Forums

What monitor would you recommend that is fast at 60hz, are there any that are close to a CRT out there? (input lag)

BH_231 wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2024, 08:28

What monitor would you recommend that is fast at 60hz, are there any that are close to a CRT out there? (input lag)

What do you mean with "fast"?
Assuming you've meant good motion clarity, there's only 1 which fits your use-case and is available in the consumer space - XG2431 (best used for 60-120hz content with strobing)
If you meant input lag, just check tftcentral's chart and get something from there.

yes, input lag is what i meant, how credible is that website, and where do i navigate to check input lag?

BH_231 wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2024, 17:22

yes, input lag is what i meant, how credible is that website, and where do i navigate to check input lag?

Both tftcentral as well as rtings are considered credible. They might be using different latency measurement methods though, so keep that in mind. You can compare latency between different displays from tests on the same site, but not with tests from other sites. (Rtings for example measures latency at the center of the screen, which gives different results when measuring it at the top or the bottom.)

RealNC wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2024, 21:08

BH_231 wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2024, 17:22

yes, input lag is what i meant, how credible is that website, and where do i navigate to check input lag?

Both tftcentral as well as rtings are considered credible. They might be using different latency measurement methods though, so keep that in mind. You can compare latency between different displays from tests on the same site, but not with tests from other sites. (Rtings for example measures latency at the center of the screen, which gives different results when measuring it at the top or the bottom.)

I checked rtings, as it is easier to navigate than tftcentral and it seems like the lowest value is 8.4ms, and they only covered a few monitors unfortunately. I remember as a kid playing games on a CRT and how much more responsive everything was, as soon as we switched to a modern flatscreen display everything went downhill from there. Is my only option a CRT through a converter? (i heard there is added lag with that option) and those are hard to get for a cheap price anyway any decent ones at least. My monitor is great when running at its highest refresh rate but not so good at 60hz, and consoles are locked to 60hz. I could be wrong though, maybe 8.4ms is good enough, and i just feel like there might be a better option somewhere that i just dont know about.

BH_231 wrote: ↑

12 Sep 2024, 10:29

I checked rtings, as it is easier to navigate than tftcentral and it seems like the lowest value is 8.4ms, and they only covered a few monitors unfortunately. I remember as a kid playing games on a CRT and how much more responsive everything was, as soon as we switched to a modern flatscreen display everything went downhill from there.

Processing lag of modern gaming monitors ("modern" meaning made in the last 8 years or so) is usually less than 2ms. When LCD displays first went mainstream, it was common for them to have latencies upwards of 20ms.

As I said before, Rtings measures lag at the middle of the screen. A 60Hz CRT will also have 8ms of latency. 0ms at the top, 8ms in the middle, 16ms at the bottom. Both a CRT and an LCD will need about 16ms to display the whole frame from top to bottom. The difference is the delay before the very first scanline at the top is shown. With CRTs, that delay is virtually 0ms. With modern displays, it can be as low as 0.5ms, or as high as 2ms. Which is very little compared to old LCDs, especially TVs or non-gaming monitors.

Is my only option a CRT through a converter? (i heard there is added lag with that option)

Yes, there is added lag. Don't know how much, but since modern gaming monitors don't have much lag anymore, the only reason to go CRT is because you like CRTs in general, not for the input lag.

and those are hard to get for a cheap price anyway any decent ones at least. My monitor is great when running at its highest refresh rate but not so good at 60hz, and consoles are locked to 60hz. I could be wrong though, maybe 8.4ms is good enough

It's not just good enough. It's near perfect, since as mentioned, the Rtings measurement is in the center of the screen.

Processing lag of modern gaming monitors ("modern" meaning made in the last 8 years or so) is usually less than 2ms. When LCD displays first went mainstream, it was common for them to have latencies upwards of 20ms.

Yeah no kidding, noticed it right away when we first got one.

The difference is the delay before the very first scanline at the top is shown. With CRTs, that delay is virtually 0ms. With modern displays, it can be as low as 0.5ms, or as high as 2ms. Which is very little compared to old LCDs, especially TVs or non-gaming monitors.

So is this what people mean when they say ''CRT screens have zero input lag'' also whats that delay like for the new 480hz oled screens?

Yes, there is added lag. Don't know how much, but since modern gaming monitors don't have much lag anymore, the only reason to go CRT is because you like CRTs in general, not for the input lag.
It's not just good enough. It's near perfect, since as mentioned, the Rtings measurement is in the center of the screen.

I had no idea that modern monitors were starting to catch up to CRT screens. According to rtings my monitor has about 12.4ms at the center, like you said they do their measurements at the center, so can i assume it would be 24.8ms at the bottom, and zero at the top, and also how noticeably worse would this be compared to the 8.4ms monitor?

BH_231 wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2024, 12:44

The difference is the delay before the very first scanline at the top is shown. With CRTs, that delay is virtually 0ms. With modern displays, it can be as low as 0.5ms, or as high as 2ms. Which is very little compared to old LCDs, especially TVs or non-gaming monitors.

So is this what people mean when they say ''CRT screens have zero input lag'' also whats that delay like for the new 480hz oled screens?

Yes. Zero lag means the frame data that goes over the cable is being scanned out as it arrives. On digital displays the signal is processed as it comes in. Maybe that holds the data back by like 1ms or 2ms on modern gaming monitors.

I had no idea that modern monitors were starting to catch up to CRT screens. According to rtings my monitor has about 12.4ms at the center, like you said they do their measurements at the center, so can i assume it would be 24.8ms at the bottom, and zero at the top, and also how noticeably worse would this be compared to the 8.4ms monitor?

Not zero at the top. The processing is constant. If you had zero at the top, you'd have 16ms at the bottom at 60Hz. The center should be 16/2, so 8ms on a zero lag display. Or thereabouts, it depends on the signal timings (pixel clock.) But 8.4ms at 60Hz in the center pretty much means processing lag is very low (near 1ms.)

12.4ms in the center implies a processing lag of about 4ms.

This is all at 60Hz, mind you. For 120Hz all these values gets cut by half, at 240Hz they're only a quarter, etc. At 480Hz, you get 2ms at the bottom, 1ms at the center for a zero lag display. So if a 480Hz display shows 3ms latency in the center, that means the display has a processing lag of 2ms at 480Hz.

Be aware that monitors can have different amounts of processing lag at different refresh rates. So always look at which refresh rates Rtings has tested display latency. However, keep in mind that you get the latency benefit of the higher refresh rates even when running games at 60FPS either through VRR, or by using 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 vsync. If I use 1/4 vsync for example on my 240Hz monitor, I get effectively 60Hz vsync, but with the display latency of 240Hz, which is lower than a 60Hz CRT. (1/4 vsync can be done on Nvidia cards using Nvidia Profile Inspector. I don't know if it's possible on AMD.)

However, keep in mind that you get the latency benefit of the higher refresh rates even when running games at 60FPS either through VRR, or by using 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 vsync. If I use 1/4 vsync for example on my 240Hz monitor, I get effectively 60Hz vsync, but with the display latency of 240Hz, which is lower than a 60Hz CRT. (1/4 vsync can be done on Nvidia cards using Nvidia Profile Inspector. I don't know if it's possible on AMD.)

Dont you already get that benefit just from running the game 60fps @ 240hz, rather than 60hz? I tried it in Elden Ring (forces 60 fps) and couldnt tell the difference between 1/4 vsync vs. ''use the 3d application'' unless you mean something else and im just not understanding. My monitor doesnt support VRR according to my PS5 so thats out of the question, and also the test was done using borderless windowed mode, as ER forces 60hz mode in full screen.

BH_231 wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2024, 15:20

in Elden Ring (forces 60 fps) and couldnt tell the difference between 1/4 vsync vs. ''use the 3d application''

1/4 is for 240Hz (240/4 = 60.) On 120Hz, you'd use 1/2 (120/2 = 60.)

But if everything looks fine to you already, then there's no reason to bother with it.

as ER forces 60hz mode in full screen

I believe there's mods to fix that.