Support NeoGAF

[C- Warrior]

Is a 8ms response time LCD good enough? I don't know if framerate matters (30 vs 60), but for some reason when I play Street Fighter 4 on my LCD (8ms) compared to my friends mine feels sluggish on arcade mode. Now, it may just be that his LCD is about 3x's larger, while mine is only about the size of a large computer monitor, but it just seems as if his runs smoother?

Anyway, mines 8ms, if that is fast enough for SF4 (60 fps) than I guess I'm seeing something that doesn't exist.

PS: Wasnt there an official HDTV thread here?

 

[Trailblazer]

Shit i hope so, because thats what i have.

 

[Suburban_Nooblet]

It's normal, the industry standard for lcd monitors.

Mine is 5ms and now many of the "gaming lcd's" are 2ms.

8ms should not be causing problems.

 

[Grayman]

My understanding is that the 8ms/5ms/2ms just effects the ghosting and output lag is independent of it.

 

[Grayman]

What is the native resolution of the monitor and what is your system sending it?

 

[C- Warrior]

What is the native resolution of the monitor and what is your system sending it?

1400 x 900

and my 360 is set at 1280 x 720

 

[Foxix Von]

My understanding is that the 8ms/5ms/2ms just effects the ghosting and output lag is independent of it.

This, any kind of lag that might be going on would more than likely have to do with scaling that the TV is doing.

VQ

 

[godofcookery]

what model # is your LCD?

 

[Grayman]

your screen is most likely a few frames behind your xbox. I don't own a 360 but assume that you can't force it to run 1400x900 even in vga mode.

There was a tv and monitor thread but it got unstickied a few months ago, still pops up from time to time.

 

[manzo]

1400 x 900

and my 360 is set at 1280 x 720

Why don't you run your 360 on your monitor's native res? 360 supports 1440x900 just fine you know.

your screen is most likely a few frames behind your xbox. I don't own a 360 but assume that you can't force it to run 1400x900 even in vga mode.

There was a tv and monitor thread but it got unstickied a few months ago, still pops up from time to time.

360 supports 1440x900 through VGA and HDMI.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

As someone who made the jump from 8ms to 4ms, yes it isn't that big of a deal.

 

[jakonovski]

It's perfectly fine. Think of it this way: at 8ms, the screen is able to handle 125 images per second, but your console only puts out 60 images per second at most.

 

[C.T.]

You have to be careful. A lot of companies just give you the grey-to-grey response time. the white-to-black responsive time is worse. It's the time a pixel changes it's color.

 

[Grayman]

It's perfectly fine. Think of it this way: at 8ms, the screen is able to handle 125 images per second, but your console only puts out 60 images per second at most.

it doesn't work that way bro

 

[jakonovski]

it doesn't work that way bro

How does it work then?

 

[DIrtyWeasel]

How does it work then?

I'm no expert, I'll just try to remember from what I learned when I was TV shopping a few months ago.
I'm pretty sure response time has nothing to do with the frame rate. I think it's about how quickly pixels change colors. Slow response times mean you'll get ghosting. So if you're watching a scene where somebody runs across the screen, you'd see his outline follow him due to the pixels not changing colors fast enough behind him. This would happen whether it was 30 or 60fps.

I think PSP has very significant ghosting.

 

[Diablohead]

I been using an 8ms for a few years and never had any lag problems, it's quite nice.

 

[womfalcs3]

My TV has a response time of 8 msec, and I haven't had issues with the image; even in fast-paced action games.

 

[M3d10n]

I got a 2ms LCD monitor. Ghosting is only barely noticeable on scrolling 60fps images (like turning a camera around), but it's pretty close to my old CRT. At 30fps you shouldn't notice it as much, since the screen has twice the time to change the image.

Now, input lag has nothing to do with this. Your monitor is probably one, two or even three frames behind the 360 in order to do the scaling and probably image processing. You should be able to bypass most input lag by setting the 360 to the monitor native res (only possible via VGA or HDMI) and disable all kinds of image processing or dynamic contrast adjustments.

By simply using VGA you is almost sure to eliminate any input lag, since TVs will revert to "PC mode", where filters are disabled since they would get in the way when using the TV as a monitor (you truly don't want dynamic contrast and "sharpening" on while browsing the web).

 

[Psychotext]

This site can give a good indication of the best and worst ghosting you'll see on various LCD monitors:

Best: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=218&p1=2098&ma2=36&mo2=370&p2=3448&ph=1

Worst: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=218&p1=2098&ma2=36&mo2=370&p2=3448&ph=9

 

[TouchMyBox]

I have a 2ms monitor, and it's response time is shit. Bright colours move nicely, greys streak everywhere. I have a 8ms TV, and while it's not too noticeable from far back, when i used it as a monitor it was horrendous. Let's not talk about my old 12ms monitor.

 

[Insane Metal]

It doesn't really matter. Play on it and see if you notice any "ghosts" in fast images. If not that's ok.

Most of the makers put the "8ms" or "2ms" on their products when they output 15+ms AT BEST.

 

[intheinbetween]

I have a 2ms monitor, and it's response time is shit. Bright colours move nicely, greys streak everywhere. I have a 8ms TV, and while it's not too noticeable from far back, when i used it as a monitor it was horrendous. Let's not talk about my old 12ms monitor.

most of the 2ms monitor/tvs i've seen are grey-to-grey not black-to-black

 

[TouchMyBox]

most of the 2ms monitor/tvs i've seen are grey-to-grey not black-to-black

That's what kills me.

edit: official specs on mine are 2ms grey-to-grey and 5ms black-white-black

 

[Blue Geezer]

ive got a benq 2400W so if you are considering changing monitor i would really reccomend this monitor. its as fast as a whippet with a bumfull of dynamite and supports 1900 * 1200 with no problems at all.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

plasmas are said to have 0.05ms (thats what my tv´s manual said)

but yes i do think that 8ms is more or less standart...

 

[big_z]

response times with lcds are mainly bullshit to begin with. because there is no standard companies will use unusuable settings during testing to find the lowest ms claim possible. even worse is that the ms claim isn't and average, it's just a number the monitor/tv hit for a split second at some point during testing. so even though they might claim 2ms the overall average can still be as high as 30ms or more.

i've always found the lag with lcd to be noticeable, mainly with fighters.

 

[tokkun]

The problem you should be concerned with is the INPUT LAG of your monitor, not the response time. While the response times are often < 10 ms, input lag is frequently 50-200 ms. This is what makes LCDs rough for timing-based games like rhythm games or technical fighters.

Input lag is rarely given as a spec on LCDs, but rather something you have to figure out by searching the net.

 

[jakonovski]

I'm no expert, I'll just try to remember from what I learned when I was TV shopping a few months ago.
I'm pretty sure response time has nothing to do with the frame rate. I think it's about how quickly pixels change colors. Slow response times mean you'll get ghosting. So if you're watching a scene where somebody runs across the screen, you'd see his outline follow him due to the pixels not changing colors fast enough behind him. This would happen whether it was 30 or 60fps.

I think PSP has very significant ghosting.

I have to admit I still don't get it. Pixels only change when the screen updates itself, which is 60 times per second at most for gaming. That means there's 17ms between every pixel change command coming in from the console. Therefore by definition the ghosting cannot be because of any response time less than 17ms.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I've got a 32 inch 6 ms LCD hooked in via VGA and is @ its native resolution...I still get input lag.

The only thing I can think of to do at this point is to get a smaller computer monitor used by gaming leagues for any competitive gaming and use my standard high def for singleplayer/co-op.

I really don't understand this technology :\

 

[sankt-Antonio]

I have to admit I still don't get it. Pixels only change when the screen updates itself, which is 60 times per second at most for gaming. That means there's 17ms between every pixel change command coming in from the console. Therefore by definition the ghosting cannot be because of any response time less than 17ms.

maybe this will help?

or this:

LCD monitors

Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.

Older monitors with long response times would create a smear or blur pattern around moving objects, making them unacceptable for moving video. Long response times can be annoying to a viewer depending on the type of data being displayed and how rapidly the image is changing or moving. Many current LCD monitor models have improved to the point that this is rarely seen.

A figure of 8 to 16 ms for rise + fall times is typical. The response time was traditionally recorded at the full black > white transition which became the ISO standard for this specification on LCDs. Grey transitions are far more common in practice but in terms of pixel latency, they remained significantly behind the ISO transition. In recent years there have been a wide range of Response Time Compensation (RTC) / overdrive technologies[1] introduced which have allowed panel manufacturers to significantly reduce grey transitions. Response times are now commonly quoted in "G2G" (alternately "GTG," meaning: "grey-to-grey"[2]) or "GLRT" (meaning: "Gray Level Response Time"[3]) figures and specs of 6ms, 4ms and 2ms G2G are widely available. There are various names used for RTC technologies, and these vary from one manufacturer to another. Terms such as ClearMotiv (Viewsonic), AMA (BenQ), MagicSpeed (Samsung) and ODC (LG.Philips) are widely used to identify RTC enabled displays.

In comparison, a CRT displaying a picture with an update frequency of 60 to 80 Hz could be said to have a response time of 12.5 ms and upwards. However, as the picture is updated completely (and virtually instantly) each time the electron beam passes over the screen, CRTs do not have the same problems with smearing or ghosting. The same is true for plasma displays (however, both CRTs and plasma displays can have problems with flicker).

LCD screens with a high response time value are often unsuitable to play fast paced computer games. A response time of <16ms is sufficient for video-gaming[4], and the difference between response times once they're below 10ms begin becoming imperceptible due to limitations of the human eye [5] [6]

The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD). Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.

To address input lag, some modern televisions will offer some sort of "gaming mode" where the TV passes the signal through with minimal processing to minimize any potential image lag.

 

[Psychotext]

Input lag is rarely given as a spec on LCDs, but rather something you have to figure out by searching the net.

Luckily... once more that's something digital versus has covered, at least on their newer reviews:
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=413&p1=3936&ma2=36&mo2=370&p2=3448&ph=12

(Yes, I really rate that site)

 

[jakonovski]

maybe this will help?

or this:

LCD monitors

Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.

Older monitors with long response times would create a smear or blur pattern around moving objects, making them unacceptable for moving video. Long response times can be annoying to a viewer depending on the type of data being displayed and how rapidly the image is changing or moving. Many current LCD monitor models have improved to the point that this is rarely seen.

A figure of 8 to 16 ms for rise + fall times is typical. The response time was traditionally recorded at the full black > white transition which became the ISO standard for this specification on LCDs. Grey transitions are far more common in practice but in terms of pixel latency, they remained significantly behind the ISO transition. In recent years there have been a wide range of Response Time Compensation (RTC) / overdrive technologies[1] introduced which have allowed panel manufacturers to significantly reduce grey transitions. Response times are now commonly quoted in "G2G" (alternately "GTG," meaning: "grey-to-grey"[2]) or "GLRT" (meaning: "Gray Level Response Time"[3]) figures and specs of 6ms, 4ms and 2ms G2G are widely available. There are various names used for RTC technologies, and these vary from one manufacturer to another. Terms such as ClearMotiv (Viewsonic), AMA (BenQ), MagicSpeed (Samsung) and ODC (LG.Philips) are widely used to identify RTC enabled displays.

In comparison, a CRT displaying a picture with an update frequency of 60 to 80 Hz could be said to have a response time of 12.5 ms and upwards. However, as the picture is updated completely (and virtually instantly) each time the electron beam passes over the screen, CRTs do not have the same problems with smearing or ghosting. The same is true for plasma displays (however, both CRTs and plasma displays can have problems with flicker).

LCD screens with a high response time value are often unsuitable to play fast paced computer games. A response time of <16ms is sufficient for video-gaming[4], and the difference between response times once they're below 10ms begin becoming imperceptible due to limitations of the human eye [5] [6]

The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD). Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.

To address input lag, some modern televisions will offer some sort of "gaming mode" where the TV passes the signal through with minimal processing to minimize any potential image lag.

Well to be honest, that seems to support what I said. The kind of data sent by consoles (60fps) can be handled with a 16ms response time (60fps is 16,7ms).

 

[Mileena]

Not really. Anything over 5ms is pretty noticeable. I'm a CS player though so the slightest lag will piss me off. <3 my 2ms HP.

 

[Diablohead]

I have a 2ms monitor, and it's response time is shit. Bright colours move nicely, greys streak everywhere. I have a 8ms TV, and while it's not too noticeable from far back, when i used it as a monitor it was horrendous. Let's not talk about my old 12ms monitor.

If you are finding 2 and 8ms that terrible your tv is probably adding to the lag by some scaling or filters, are you sure they are all off or adjusted? if I can railgun someone in Q3 or snipe in halo / gears on an 8ms samsung, you should be able to just as easy as i'm no pro.

 

[jakonovski]

Not really. Anything over 5ms is pretty noticeable. I'm a CS player though so the slightest lag will piss me off. <3 my 2ms HP.

1) I doubt your monitor refreshes itself at 200Hz.

2) Humans can perceive 10ms differences at most, and even then only with peripheral vision.

So in conclusion, I suspect this brouhaha has more to do with self-suggestion than anything real.

 

[TouchMyBox]

If you are finding 2 and 8ms that terrible your tv is probably adding to the lag by some scaling or filters, are you sure they are all off or adjusted? if I can railgun someone in Q3 or snipe in halo / gears on an 8ms samsung, you should be able to just as easy as i'm no pro.

Nope, it's ghosting. There isn't crazy post processing in a standard samsung lcd computer monitor.

 

[kodt]

The response time is not what you need to worry about. 2ms, 5ms, 8ms probably all just fine for games. Input lag is a much larger issue and most LCD manufacturers do not publish the input lag times. Input lag refers to the lag time between the signal being sent to the monitor and the time it takes for the monitor to actually display that signal.

Here is a good thread on the topic:
http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=94426

Also, I did a test once on my PC to see the input lag on my LCD screens, I connected a CRT and an LCD in clone mode and ran a stopwatch timer, taking pictures would show the LCD was lagging behind the CRT by about 15ms.

Images here:

http://www.genmay.com/showpost.php?p=23318937&postcount=68


Some TV's have a game mode which will disable all post processing effects that can cause input lag. Other times you can just disable all of these features yourself. Even then you are going to be left with some lag 10-15ms maybe, the goal is not to have enough where it starts to affect gameplay. Some FPS and fighting game purists will only use CRTs. You can find LCD's that have virtually no input lag, however they are pretty expensive and are only found as PC monitors in the 22-24" size.

 

[H_Prestige]

plasmas are said to have 0.05ms (thats what my tv´s manual said)

but yes i do think that 8ms is more or less standart...

Plasma cells are said to have a 0.001 ms response time, but that's just the nature of a direct view display.

 

[Mileena]

1) I doubt your monitor refreshes itself at 200Hz.

2) Humans can perceive 10ms differences at most, and even then only with peripheral vision.

So in conclusion, I suspect this brouhaha has more to do with self-suggestion than anything real.

Right...

Put a 2ms and a 8ms side by side and have them play Quake or CS and tell me you can't see a difference. If you can't, you're fucking blind.

 

[kodt]

Right...

Put a 2ms and a 8ms side by side and have them play Quake or CS and tell me you can't see a difference. If you can't, you're fucking blind.

Click on the second link in my post a few posts up.

I compared the input lag time between a CRT and two different LCD's

One LCD was 2ms response time, the other had 8ms. The input lag time was pretty much exactly the same on both at 15ms. I have played CS on both with no discernible difference. (And I played competitively for 3 years) Again, input lag is probably what you are noticing. Without knowing the input lag times on the monitors you are comparing the comparison is useless.

 

[Tain]

kodt is on the money, and horror stories about screens with 50ms of lag even at their native resolution are kinda why I haven't bothered with a LCD yet. Not the entire reason, but it's something I'm going to be paying a lot of attention to when I finally do buy a CRT.

 

[Mileena]

It's not input lag lol. Bad response times = ghosting on CS and if you indeed did play competitively than you know what I'm talking about. Spraying on 8ms and spraying on 2ms are two completely different things. You know, there's a reason why SK, fnatic, MYM, mTw, and every other pro team uses strictly CRT (unless they're at LAN that provides LCD; then all of them complain when they lose. lol) or 2ms LCD. I have a 8ms garbage Sony and a 2ms HP and CS is unplayable on the Sony, I can't spray a colt let alone AK. My 2ms is no different than my old CRT though. I also like the 2ms because I play Rock Band on it and I don't have to calibrate any lag, it's perfect.

Oh and all this FPS talk is nonsense; if you can't see the difference between 60fps and 100fps on a HL1 or HL2 game you're pretty dumb. 60fps is unplayable for CS; hell I even notice when my FPS drops from 100 to 90.

 

[M3d10n]

Well to be honest, that seems to support what I said. The kind of data sent by consoles (60fps) can be handled with a 16ms response time (60fps is 16,7ms).

No, it does not: a LCD pixel transitions from the old color to a new color. The duration of such transition is the response time. So a 16ms screen would spend 16 ms "crossfading" between the previous frame and the current one, causing ghosting. Such extreme ghosting would result in a small input LAG of more or less half a frame, since after the image was changed it will only become fully visible 16ms later.

I have the 19" version of the monitor on the left

 

[grap3fruitman]

My brother went from playing COD4 on a 2ms 22" LCD to our 52" LCD and couldn't figure out why he was doing so much worse, even with game mode on.

He hated the added 2ms of lag and didn't even know what it was.

Although I did recently find out that my tv has a special PC input mode for no lag on one of the HDMI inputs and over VGA.

I couldn't imagine 8ms of lag...

 

[TunaLover]

output lag is the worst, how you can check if the LCD TV has a fast scaler, there any specification about that? Any LCD TV without lag for native 480i and 480p it's possible?

Someone in gaf mention that lag issues are software specific fault, I don't remember the topic.

 

[kodt]

It's not input lag lol. Bad response times = ghosting on CS and if you indeed did play competitively than you know what I'm talking about. Spraying on 8ms and spraying on 2ms are two completely different things. You know, there's a reason why SK, fnatic, MYM, mTw, and every other pro team uses strictly CRT (unless they're at LAN that provides LCD; then all of them complain when they lose. lol) or 2ms LCD. I have a 8ms garbage Sony and a 2ms HP and CS is unplayable on the Sony, I can't spray a colt let alone AK. My 2ms is no different than my old CRT though. I also like the 2ms because I play Rock Band on it and I don't have to calibrate any lag, it's perfect.

Oh and all this FPS talk is nonsense; if you can't see the difference between 60fps and 100fps on a HL1 or HL2 game you're pretty dumb. 60fps is unplayable for CS; hell I even notice when my FPS drops from 100 to 90.

Older monitors did ghost in CS. I remember back in 2003 my friend had a Samsung LCD and the ghosting was horrible. I have a more recent Samsung LCD with 8ms response time and there is no ghosting that I can notice. Whatever caused ghosting the tech has improved even on 8ms monitors.

The reason those top clans use CRT's is because there is pretty much no input lag. The measurable input lag on a CRT is like less than 1ms. Also they can set the refresh rate on those CRT's to 100hz or 120hz and have the refresh rate match exactly the FPS they are getting in the game. This means you are seeing every frame the game is sending.

I can see the difference between 60fps and 100fps. But I can see the difference on an LCD that only runs at 60 or 75hz. Or at least I can feel the difference.

To make sure people don't confuse response time and input lag:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206

# Response Time

Moving pictures present a problem for LCD technology, more than competing phosphor-based technologies like CRT and plasma (impulse-type). LCDs are called "hold-type" displays, because they hold their image until told otherwise. They must gradually twist to another position in order to display a new color. During this twisting period, trails and ghosting are left behind as one pixel tries to fall and another tries to rise. Since nematic liquid crystals can fall much faster than they can rise, the ghost tends to be either considerably lighter or darker than the original image.

LCD module manufacturers managed to reduce the viscosity and cell gap of the liquid crystal, which reduced response time. This had the disadvantage of limiting the color depth to just 6-bit (262K colors).

Another proposed way of reducing the ghost image (effectively emphasizing the "real" image) was to use overdrive, a means of response time compensation that sends bursts of voltage to increase a crystal's transition speed in both rise and decay. This has been especially helpful for reducing the response time of MVA and IPS panels, making them a lot more suitable for moving pictures. With well-controlled overdrive, the typical rise and fall response time of a PVA panel is around 20 ms. Gray-to-gray response time for a similar MVA-based LCD reaches 8.5 ms on average.

This comparison shows the moving image characteristics of the NEC 20WMGX2, an overdriven IPS-based panel, against a Sony SDM-HS95D, a TN panel that does not incorporate overdrive technology.

A downside of overdrive is the "overshoot" that it can cause when the burst of voltage is too high. This means very bright and dark artifacts can occur around the moving object. These are generally accepted as being worse than the ghosting itself. Algorithms are improving though, and the best LCDs have an average overdrive error percentage of lower than 5. There can be a few situations where the ghosting will be worse, as seen with the 60% maximum RTC error on the NEC 20WMGX2, but most users will accept a lower response time for 95% of transitions and a higher one for the remaining five percent.

According to BenQ, the main roadblock nowadays is retinal persistence. They proposed a method of black data insertion that wipes the eyes of the previous image by using a scanning black bar. The most common implementation is the scanning backlight mechanism. In this method, there are several backlights lined up horizontally that are switched off in each frame. The effect closely resembles lines of decaying phosphors on a CRT screen. It has shown some success in making LCD gaming more comfortable. So far there are very few LCDs that actually implement the technology, the BenQ FP241WZ being one.

At Display Taiwan 2007, Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) introduced yet another method ("Clear Motion") to reduce ghosting effects. This algorithm sharpens the image as it moves, partially counteracting the blurring that accompanies moving pictures on an LCD. So far, the technology has not been implemented in any LCD monitor.

# Input Lag

Input lag is different from a high response time. With input lag the whole frame is delayed by a certain amount of time, causing a delayed response. It can be annoying in a situation where you expect a quick and smooth response (e.g. moving your mouse). If you're watching a movie it may not even be an issue since no particular response is anticipated. In games there will always be a disadvantage since you won't see your opponent quite as fast as he'll see you (if he uses a faster display). Graphics design may also present a problem (the resizing of a circle may take longer to actually register on screen). I can not tell you how bad input lag is, because it's a matter of sensitivity. You may want to use the bigger screens (23"+) at the store, if they have them hooked up, to judge whether or not it annoys you. It's most likely to affect you if you do activities on the PC that are sensitive to timing, like gaming or audio processing.

Input lag is thought to be caused by the frame buffer kept in an LCD for advanced operations like adaptive contrast and overdrive. This frame buffer usually needs to contain 2-4 frames to do its work effectively. 2-4 frames * (1000 ms/60 Hz) = 33 ms - 67 ms. of input lag at a 60 Hz refresh rate. Still, the amount of input lag depends on the image transition that is occurring, and as it stands the "frame buffer" theory has no way of explaining why it varies.

The amount of measured (min - avg - max), or estimated (avg), image delay is provided for each LCD in the Recommendations section. (Credit goes to DigitalVersus for the input delay data.) Please note that all measurements mentioned here of image delay are input lag plus the response time it takes to show a digital timer's number segments on the LCD. (The response time it takes to show the segments (usually strict black->red transition) is very short, so image delay is not an accurate measurement. It serves only to help you compare what you'll experience among different LCDs, which it is quite accurate for.)

VA panels are typically high in input lag, however there have been a couple instances of very little to zero milliseconds of input lag. It is still unknown what causes input lag.

 

[Diablohead]

I ran windows on my lcd at 75hz and it just gave me eye ache because I was not use to it, it did feel rather smooth to me though.

 

[TunaLover]

You may want to use the bigger screens (23"+) at the store, if they have them hooked up, to judge whether or not it annoys you. It's most likely to affect you if you do activities on the PC that are sensitive to timing, like gaming or audio processing.

That's mean that 19'', 22'', 23'' don't suffer from input lag?

 

[Reallink]

Where did this idea that PRT = Input Lag originate, PC monitors?