The vast majority don't, you can get one that does but you have to do your research. The "response time" listed in monitor/tv specs is not the same as the input lag.
TVs are especially bad, in the default mode some of them have ~200ms input lag. "Game Mode" usually brings it down to more like 20ms though.
It seems most get under 20ms lag when put into game mode, which I'd think is what matters to most people. At that point, when it isn't daisy-chained with any other lag (so a wireless controller delay will make a difference), it's imperceptible to me. I am not a professional gamer though, and from what I understand the higher refresh rates that pro gamers use (such as a 240 Hz monitor) have measurable improvements in their performance as gamers.
Haha looks like we googled the same thing at the same time.
This seems to just be TVs too - monitors get much better numbers. I find higher input lag to be much less of an issue when using analog sticks vs a mouse.
For me at least the difference between ~2ms and ~10ms input lag is very noticeable when aiming with a mouse, but basically imperceptible with say a wired 360 controller (I'm assuming the 360 controller isn't adding significant input lag itself though).
response time has little to do with latency, it's purely a property of the panel. At 60Hz refresh, an LCD will have a minimum of 16.7ms latency because it buffers an entire frame before displaying. 20ms of latency would mean there is additionally 3.3ms of lag, not that it takes 20ms for each frame (it's already buffering the next frame in those 3.3ms, so the next frame will be displayed 16.7ms later).
Many TVs buffer several frames for video processing in their default mode, which is why they can have 100s of ms of latency when not in game-mode; the response time is identical regardless of which mode it is in though, as the response time is purely a property of the panel.
Are you sure all LCDs buffer frames for a full frame duration before displaying? I haven't heard that before. I was under the impression that they basically start displaying them as soon as the GPU sends the frame - any buffering being done on the GPU.
Thanks for asking. I'm pretty sure I was wrong. At 60Hz refresh rates it takes 16.7ms to send a full frame to the display, so the minimum latency is 16.7ms even with a CRT (Which has no buffering).
That's simply completely false. You are talking about transition times. To my knowledge there are zero monitors with less than one frame input lag, which is more than 4 ms even for the rare 240 Hz screens and around 7 ms for the average 144 Hz gaming screen.
An excellent gaming screen like a PG258Q might have GTG of 1 ms but at the full 240 Hz it still has about 5 ms of input lag.
Comments
Not on modern TV's and monitors. They have less than 2ms latency now.
The vast majority don't, you can get one that does but you have to do your research. The "response time" listed in monitor/tv specs is not the same as the input lag.
TVs are especially bad, in the default mode some of them have ~200ms input lag. "Game Mode" usually brings it down to more like 20ms though.
Edit: did a google, don't know how accurate these are: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag
It seems most get under 20ms lag when put into game mode, which I'd think is what matters to most people. At that point, when it isn't daisy-chained with any other lag (so a wireless controller delay will make a difference), it's imperceptible to me. I am not a professional gamer though, and from what I understand the higher refresh rates that pro gamers use (such as a 240 Hz monitor) have measurable improvements in their performance as gamers.
Haha looks like we googled the same thing at the same time.
This seems to just be TVs too - monitors get much better numbers. I find higher input lag to be much less of an issue when using analog sticks vs a mouse.
For me at least the difference between ~2ms and ~10ms input lag is very noticeable when aiming with a mouse, but basically imperceptible with say a wired 360 controller (I'm assuming the 360 controller isn't adding significant input lag itself though).
2ms sounds like maybe OLED.
Also, latency claims are often misleading. For example, the 2ms response time is limited to grey-to-grey transitions.
A 20ms response time still means the signal is dropping every fifth frame in a 60 fps game.
response time has little to do with latency, it's purely a property of the panel. At 60Hz refresh, an LCD will have a minimum of 16.7ms latency because it buffers an entire frame before displaying. 20ms of latency would mean there is additionally 3.3ms of lag, not that it takes 20ms for each frame (it's already buffering the next frame in those 3.3ms, so the next frame will be displayed 16.7ms later).
Many TVs buffer several frames for video processing in their default mode, which is why they can have 100s of ms of latency when not in game-mode; the response time is identical regardless of which mode it is in though, as the response time is purely a property of the panel.
Are you sure all LCDs buffer frames for a full frame duration before displaying? I haven't heard that before. I was under the impression that they basically start displaying them as soon as the GPU sends the frame - any buffering being done on the GPU.
Thanks for asking. I'm pretty sure I was wrong. At 60Hz refresh rates it takes 16.7ms to send a full frame to the display, so the minimum latency is 16.7ms even with a CRT (Which has no buffering).
Could you reword this?
That's simply completely false. You are talking about transition times. To my knowledge there are zero monitors with less than one frame input lag, which is more than 4 ms even for the rare 240 Hz screens and around 7 ms for the average 144 Hz gaming screen.
An excellent gaming screen like a PG258Q might have GTG of 1 ms but at the full 240 Hz it still has about 5 ms of input lag.