lcd panel input lag brands

When you"re using a monitor, you want your actions to appear on the screen almost instantly, whether you"re typing, clicking through websites, or gaming. If you have high input lag, you"ll notice a delay from the time you type something on your keyboard or when you move your mouse to when it appears on the screen, and this can make the monitor almost unusable.

For gamers, low input lag is even more important because it can be the difference between winning and losing in games. A monitor"s input lag isn"t the only factor in the total amount of input lag because there"s also delay caused by your keyboard/mouse, PC, and internet connection. However, having a monitor with low input lag is one of the first steps in ensuring you get a responsive gaming experience.

Any monitor adds at least a few milliseconds of input lag, but most of the time, it"s small enough that you won"t notice it at all. There are some cases where the input lag increases so much to the point where it becomes noticeable, but that"s very rare and may not necessarily only be caused by the monitor. Your peripherals, like keyboards and mice, add more latency than the monitor, so if you notice any delay, it"s likely because of those and not your screen.

There"s no definitive amount of input lag when people will start noticing it because everyone is different. A good estimate of around 30 ms is when it starts to become noticeable, but even a delay of 20 ms can be problematic for reaction-based games. You can try this tool that adds lag to simulate the difference between high and low input lag. You can use it to estimate how much input lag bothers you, but keep in mind this tool is relative and adds lag to the latency you already have.

There are three main reasons why there"s input lag during computer use, and it isn"t just the monitor that has input lag. There"s the acquisition of the image, the processing, and finally actually displaying it.

The acquisition of the image has to do with the source and not with the monitor. The more time it takes for the monitor to receive the source image, the more input lag there"ll be. This has never really been an issue with PCs since previous analog signals were virtually instant, and current digital interfaces like DisplayPort and HDMI have next to no inherent latency. However, some devices like wireless mice or keyboards may add delay. Bluetooth connections especially add latency, so if you want the lowest latency possible in the video acquisition phase, you should use a wired mouse or keyboard or get something wireless with very low latency.

The time this step takes is affected by the speed of the video processor and the total amount of processing. Although you can"t control the processor speed, you can control how many operations it needs to do by enabling and disabling settings. Most picture settings won"t affect the input lag, and monitors rarely have any image processing, which is why the input lag on monitors tends to be lower than on TVs. One of these settings that could add delay is variable refresh rate, but most modern monitors are good enough that the lag doesn"t increase much.

Once the monitor has processed the image, it"s ready to be displayed on the screen. This is the step where the video processor sends the image to the screen. The screen can"t change its state instantly, and there"s a slight delay from when the image is done processing to when it appears on screen. Our input lag measurements consider when the image first appears on the screen and not the time it takes for the image to fully appear (which has to do with our Response Time measurements). Overall, the time it takes to display the image has a big impact on the total input lag.

Input lag is the amount of time it takes for a display to process a button input while gaming. If you value your gaming experience, you want to avoid displays that exhibit high input lag, as it makes your gameplay feel sluggish and unresponsive. Our input lag database below will help you avoid laggy displays, as it is the world’s largest database for input lag data.

Stick to displays marked Excellent for the best user experience, as they provide the lowest input lag when set to Game Mode. All displays are tested at 60hz. Most displays of the same model number share nearly identical input lag across size ranges.

However, a monitor with low input lag, in my opinion, can make an impact when similar skill levels are involved. Higher resolutions and a better picture may be great for eye candy, but do very little to impact your gameplay. In fact, many professional gamers in my circle turn down resolution and settings while competing.

With that let"s discuss several great low-input-lag monitors that are at the top of their game for responsiveness. These include budget options, FreeSync, and G-Sync monitors, as well as IPS options.

I"m not going to put this list into any rigorous order as different monitors are better for different budgets and genres. However, all of these monitors have Input lags that are competition-worthy. I wouldn"t necessarily pick the monitor with the lowest input lag. Rather go with the monitor here that you like the best.

A few years ago IPS panels had a hurdle that few manufacturers could get over. Refresh rate. And while most gamers preferred an IPS monitor for watching movies or everyday work, many of them couldn"t get past the motion blur they"d see.

If there"s one downside, it"s that the brightness isn"t as high as many of the other IPS panels on the market right now reaching a high of around 350 cd/m2. For me, it was plenty.

Testing and numbers aside these monitors both look amazing on all the games I tested them on. Yes, you may get a small bit of backlight bleeding. For photo editing, the solid calibration and wide gamut backlight set it apart from similar options on the market, and with a low response time and input lag, it"s an ideal option for gamers.

This is an inexpensive IPS panel done right. It gives you that TN panel performance (use action mode) with fast response times and a great picture. I highly recommend you enable HDR. It definitely makes a huge difference. Backlight bleed will vary from panel to panel and, for me, was minimal with this one.

No, you don"t get quantum dots or true HDR 600, but you do get a 165Hz Ultra WQHD panel for the 34" ultra-wide at just $599 and a 27" 144Hz QHD curved monitor for just $260. These are not flagship prices, and therefore, you"re not getting a perfect experience here. However, you"re coming pretty close.

If you"re not looking for an IPS panel, FreeSync, or an integrated G-Sync monitor, then this is probably the one to own. It"s a little pricey for a 24" LED screen, but not compared to similar 144hz monitors. It can be adapted for both 3D and G-Sync.

While I really like the performance of the higher-priced / same panel Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ I couldn"t get past the fan. So, if you"re looking for a high-end gaming monitor with all the bells and whistles, I"d steer you towards Acer"s Predator model PBMIPHZX.

Cons: In spite of all the pros, this monitor is still only 1080p. Plus, the bezels are a bit thicker than some other options out there. So, I definitely wouldn"t recommend it for a double or triple monitor setup. In addition, this is a TN panel monitor. So, it"s certainly not for editing photos.

Console Input Lag for this is good with around an average of 13ms. That"s while running at 60Hz. While I"m not sure why you"d choose this for console, it is important to note that using it at 240Hz on PC shows considerably less lag.

There are, admittedly, a few monitors in this space with similar panels. If $500 seems like a lot, you may prefer something like the Aorus KD25F. It doesn"t include the BFI feature that the Zowie has, but it certainly has a few pros vs. the Zowie XL2546 (including price tag).

In terms of G-Sync monitors the Asus PG79Q is my favorite this year with the Acer XB271HU coming in at a close second. I found the PG279Q to just have slightly better quality for the panel. That being said, the Acer XB271HU"s stand is much improved vs last year"s version and doesn"t lose by much.

This monitor isn"t flawless, and this is a TN panel. It"s also a couple of years old at this point. So, viewing angles are not wide, but it is responsive and bright when placed in front of you. Ultimately, you"re getting great value for the price in a large 4k HDR monitor with FreeSync. I"d recommend it for all types of games.

Whether you"re looking for a low input lag console gaming monitor or simply want a PC gaming monitor with FreeSync, the Asus VG245H is a fantastic value. It has virtually no input lag and comes with a ton of features gamers will love.

It"s the modern version of the old ASUS VH236H used in the EVO tournament, with the same panel, a good input lag of 11ms, in a better overall monitor.

Input lag is a measurement of the delay between the time you enter a command on your keyboard, mouse, or controller, and the time it registers on your screen. A low input lag is crucial in "twitch" (time-sensitive) video games where fractions of a second matter.

Input lag is different from response time; the latter is an indicator of how fast a pixel can go from black to white and back again on a particular monitor. Monitor manufacturers tell you about their "gray-to-gray" (GTG) response times, which tend to be lower.

Although response time isn"t as important as input lag, response times in excess of 5ms can sometimes produce images that feel blurry or have ghosting, which can affect your gameplay. So if you have the option of lower response time, other things being equal, you"ll want to take it.

TN or twisted nematic is the most common type of LCD panel. TN panels are less expensive and offer lower response times than IPS panels, so until rather recently gaming monitors tended to be TN.

In today"s market, most TN panels over 21 inches are considered full HD with 1920 x 1080p resolution. Most TN panels don"t go beyond that; monitors that do are generally IPS panels which photo editors use for color accuracy.

Some disadvantages of TN panels are that viewing angles can be distorted, and color is generally limited to 18 bits. Thus, a TN panel can"t accurately produce the full 16.7 million colors required for "true color." On the other hand, an IPS panel with 10 bits per RGB, or 30 bits total, has just over 1 billion colors.

With a 1ms response time and 6ms input lag, it"s ready for any competition, and overall the picture looks pretty good too. Don"t get this model confused with the next one on our list, the 2450HT made for the PC. T

If you want to be a professional MLG PC gamer, then here"s Major League Gaming"s official PC monitor for this year, the BenQ RL2460HT. With a 1 ms response time and 0 input lag, it"s got the speed you want and all the options you need.

These models, from Dell"s UltraSharp series, have e-IPS panels which create a good picture with wide viewing angles. Their colors are not as accurate as those of the most expensive IPS panels on the market, but they still do a good job overall.

For input lag it comes with virtually no lag and the response time comes in at a cool 1ms. Tools exclusive to BenQ like their Black Equalizer help you to quickly see clearly in the dark. You"ll have to determine whether that"s something you"ll allow yourself to use. For me personally, it makes a huge difference.

MonitorPanel TypeSize (in)Display Size (Pixels)Refresh Rate (Hz)Response Time (ms)Input Lag (ms)Price (USD, 8/2015)G-Sync Built In?Asus VG248QETN241920 x 10801441ms GTG0.7ms250

When monitor technology changed from CRT to LCD some eight to ten years ago, many gamers held on to their heavy old CRTs, even though the pictures looked so much better on the newer models. They did that because their old monitors had little or no input lag and a higher refresh rate.

Since that time many LCD monitors have been put on the market, including LCD monitors with under one frame or 16.7 ms of input lag. Early LCD gaming monitors had a refresh rate of about 60Hz, which although relatively low was adequate to offset most of the benefits of the old CRTs.

Monitors like the ASUS VH236H gained popularity in professional tournaments like EVO early on because of their low input lag. Input lag on the VH236H was virtually unnoticeable, at about a half a frame or 8.3ms.

Ultimately, input lag, should be one of the determining factors you use when buying a gaming monitor as it gives real-world results. All of the monitors in the list above receive a passing grade on that front.

So you don"t even bother adding in brands of CRT monitors for people that don"t wanna blow a hole in there wallet from a LCD screen that barely manages to get zero input lag?

What about Dell 4K S2817Qr 28 inch TN for consoles? Under $300 Response time of 2 and input lag of 10ms. I"m looking for 1440 monitor cheaper and better specs than this.

Would you think the VX248H (not listed in article) would have the same input lag as the VX238H? Can"t seem to find numbers on the 24, while the 23 gets rave reviews. Thanks for any input!

I know BenQ RL2450HT was built for pc games, but isn"t better to get for console systems, since it has 4.2 input lag which is better than BenQ RL2455HM, the one made for console gaming??

The following TVs, featured at the top of the page, deliver either the lowest lag I"ve measured among the TVs I"ve reviewed, the best picture quality for the money, or a combination of both.

There are actually three LG OLED TVs tied for the lowest lag on the chart, but we"re choosing the C1 because it"s the best value. The other two, the C2 and the G1, are both more expensive, and all three deliver very similar picture quality -- which happens to be the best we"ve ever tested. The C1 is a 2021 TV, but the gaming extras and other differences between it and the C2 from 2022 aren"t worth the price.

Note that its lag score here was measured with the special "Reduce input delay (input lag)" setting in the Boost position. Boost is only available for 60Hz sources, so you can"t use it with 120Hz games or VRR. With those sources you"ll need to use the Standard position, which is still an excellent 13ms.

Another high-end 2021 TV, this Samsung QLED model delivers the best picture quality of any TV we"ve reviewed that"s not based on OLED display tech. It can get brighter than any of the OLED TVs listed here, supports all the next-gen gaming features, and showed lower lag than any 2020 TV we"ve tested so far.

Game mode makes a difference, except when it doesn"t.As you can see in the table above, many TVs cut lag substantially when you turn on game mode, but plenty don"t. In general, expensive TVs with elaborate video processing get more of a benefit when you engage game mode.

Turning game mode on can hurt image quality (a little).TV makers" menus often refer to reduced picture quality. Reduced picture quality is generally the result of turning off that video processing. In my experience, however, the differences in image quality are really subtle with console gaming, and worth the trade-off if you want to minimize lag for a great gaming experience.

If the TV input where your console is connected is shared with other devices and you don"t want to remember to re-engage game mode all the time, an auto game-mode feature might be useful. And some cutting-edge

Display lag is a phenomenon associated with most types of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) like smartphones and computers and nearly all types of high-definition televisions (HDTVs). It refers to latency, or lag between when the signal is sent to the display and when the display starts to show that signal. This lag time has been measured as high as 68 ms,Hz display. Display lag is not to be confused with pixel response time, which is the amount of time it takes for a pixel to change from one brightness value to another. Currently the majority of manufacturers quote the pixel response time, but neglect to report display lag.

For older analog cathode ray tube (CRT) technology, display lag is nearly zero, due to the nature of the technology, which does not have the ability to store image data before display. The picture signal is minimally processed internally, simply for demodulation from a radio-frequency (RF) carrier wave (for televisions), and then splitting into separate signals for the red, green, and blue electron guns, and for the timing of the vertical and horizontal sync. Image adjustments typically involve reshaping the signal waveform but without storage, so the image is written to the screen as fast as it is received, with only nanoseconds of delay for the signal to traverse the wiring inside the device from input to the screen.

For modern digital signals, significant computer processing power and memory storage is needed to prepare an input signal for display. For either over-the-air or cable TV, the same analog demodulation techniques are used, but after that, then the signal is converted to digital data, which must be decompressed using the MPEG codec, and rendered into an image bitmap stored in a frame buffer.

While the pixel response time of the display is usually listed in the monitor"s specifications, no manufacturers advertise the display lag of their displays, likely because the trend has been to increase display lag as manufacturers find more ways to process input at the display level before it is shown. Possible culprits are the processing overhead of HDCP, Digital Rights Management (DRM), and also DSP techniques employed to reduce the effects of ghosting – and the cause may vary depending on the model of display. Investigations have been performed by several technology-related websites, some of which are listed at the bottom of this article.

LCD, plasma, and DLP displays, unlike CRTs, have a native resolution. That is, they have a fixed grid of pixels on the screen that show the image sharpest when running at the native resolution (so nothing has to be scaled full-size which blurs the image). In order to display non-native resolutions, such displays must use video scalers, which are built into most modern monitors. As an example, a display that has a native resolution of 1600x1200 being provided a signal of 640x480 must scale width and height by 2.5x to display the image provided by the computer on the native pixels. In order to do this, while producing as few artifacts as possible, advanced signal processing is required, which can be a source of introduced latency. Interlaced video signals such as 480i and 1080i require a deinterlacing step that adds lag. Anecdotallyprogressive scanning mode. External devices have also been shown to reduce overall latency by providing faster image-space resizing algorithms than those present in the LCD screen.

Many LCDs also use a technology called "overdrive" which buffers several frames ahead and processes the image to reduce blurring and streaks left by ghosting. The effect is that everything is displayed on the screen several frames after it was transmitted by the video source.

Display lag can be measured using a test device such as the Video Signal Input Lag Tester. Despite its name, the device cannot independently measure input lag. It can only measure input lag and response time together.

Lacking a measurement device, measurement can be performed using a test display (the display being measured), a control display (usually a CRT) that would ideally have negligible display lag, a computer capable of mirroring an output to the two displays, stopwatch software, and a high-speed camera pointed at the two displays running the stopwatch program. The lag time is measured by taking a photograph of the displays running the stopwatch software, then subtracting the two times on the displays in the photograph. This method only measures the difference in display lag between two displays and cannot determine the absolute display lag of a single display. CRTs are preferable to use as a control display because their display lag is typically negligible. However, video mirroring does not guarantee that the same image will be sent to each display at the same point in time.

In the past it was seen as common knowledge that the results of this test were exact as they seemed to be easily reproducible, even when the displays were plugged into different ports and different cards, which suggested that the effect is attributable to the display and not the computer system. An in depth analysis that has been released on the German website Prad.de revealed that these assumptions have been wrong. Averaging measurements as described above lead to comparable results because they include the same amount of systematic errors. As seen on different monitor reviews the so determined values for the display lag for the very same monitor model differ by margins up to 16 ms or even more.

Several approaches to measure display lag have been restarted in slightly changed ways but still reintroduced old problems, that have already been solved by the former mentioned SMTT. One such method involves connecting a laptop to an HDTV through a composite connection and run a timecode that shows on the laptop"s screen and the HDTV simultaneously and recording both screens with a separate video recorder. When the video of both screens is paused, the difference in time shown on both displays have been interpreted as an estimation for the display lag.16 ms or even more.

Display lag contributes to the overall latency in the interface chain of the user"s inputs (mouse, keyboard, etc.) to the graphics card to the monitor. Depending on the monitor, display lag times between 10-68 ms have been measured. However, the effects of the delay on the user depend on each user"s own sensitivity to it.

Display lag is most noticeable in games (especially older video-game consoles), with different games affecting the perception of delay. For instance, in PvE, a slight input delay is not as critical compared to PvP, or to other games favoring quick reflexes like

If the game"s controller produces additional feedback (rumble, the Wii Remote"s speaker, etc.), then the display lag will cause this feedback to not accurately match up with the visuals on-screen, possibly causing extra disorientation (e.g. feeling the controller rumble a split second before a crash into a wall).

TV viewers can be affected as well. If a home theater receiver with external speakers is used, then the display lag causes the audio to be heard earlier than the picture is seen. "Early" audio is more jarring than "late" audio. Many home-theater receivers have a manual audio-delay adjustment which can be set to compensate for display latency.

Many televisions, scalers and other consumer-display devices now offer what is often called a "game mode" in which the extensive preprocessing responsible for additional lag is specifically sacrificed to decrease, but not eliminate, latency. While typically intended for videogame consoles, this feature is also useful for other interactive applications. Similar options have long been available on home audio hardware and modems for the same reason. Connection through VGA cable or component should eliminate perceivable input lag on many TVs even if they already have a game mode. Advanced post-processing is non existent on analog connection and the signal traverses without delay.

A television may have a picture mode that reduces display lag for computers. Some Samsung and LG televisions automatically reduce lag for a specific input port if the user renames the port to "PC".

LCD screens with a high response-time value often do not give satisfactory experience when viewing fast-moving images (they often leave streaks or blur; called ghosting). But an LCD screen with both high response time and significant display lag is unsuitable for playing fast-paced computer games or performing fast high-accuracy operations on the screen, due to the mouse cursor lagging behind.

The most exciting, fast-paced games—like shooters, fighters, or racing sims—are built around the assumption that split-second reactions will actually happen within a split-second on your screen. When they don"t, it"s a major immersion breaker, and input lag is usually the culprit.

Input lag refers to the total difference in time between you moving a controller of some kind (a mouse, keyboard, or gamepad) and a response on screen. Input lag can happen at every step along the signal chain—from the controller, to the console, to the screen—and it"s cumulative; if the controller, game, and TV each introduce 30 milliseconds of delay, you"ll get a total of 90ms input lag.

Though there are ways to analyze just the input lag of any display, we wanted to look at the problem holistically. We also wanted to tackle this from a gamer"s perspective, comparing the experience of playing on a TV with both a traditional console and a PC. To that end for both our PC and game console tests we used a wired Xbox 360 controller and played the same game: Skyrim.

Then, we used the GoPro Hero4 Silver (set to 720p at 120 FPS) to record us repeating the same inputs across all our various test setups. By reviewing the footage and counting the frames (with each frame recording an 8.33ms slice of time) we were able to measure how much delay each setup introduced.

We started our experiment with an Xbox 360 outputting via composite (AV) cables to an old-school CRT television. Why a CRT? Because though they"re big and bulky, CRTs introduce almost no lag; as soon as the console sends out a signal, the TV will display it. With a CRT we were able to see a base input lag of about 139ms, with about 40-50ms taken up by our controller input and the rest from the console itself. Generally anything less than 166ms (about 10 frames of a game running at 60 FPS) is considered negligible, so this is a perfect result.

We repeated the test on four other types of TVs, including a plasma, 1080p LED, an older CCFL LCD, and the 2014 P-series 4K LED from Vizio. All four of these sets include analog (composite and component) and digital (HDMI) inputs. In general we found HDMI presented the best results on modern TVs with a modern game console. The only exception is the older CCFL LCD, which performed marginally better with component cables.

Despite having a lightning fast refresh rate, the plasma was the worst performer—though our particular Samsung plasma is well-known for having input lag issues. The CCFL LCD and the 1080p LED were both about the same, oddly enough, though the game looked much better on the modern display.

The most surprising result? The Vizio 4K TV was the best performer after the CRT, as long as you stick to one particular HDMI input. This is because while most HDMI inputs top out at 60Hz (50Hz in PAL countries), this Vizio has a "High Velocity" HDMI input that supports 4K/60Hz or 1080/120Hz throughput. Even though this set has to upscale the Xbox"s HD image to 4K, using this port reduced input lag severely. On any other HDMI port the TV"s total input lag was a sky-high 292ms.

For PC gamers looking to move to the living room, we wanted to stick with the same setup. We replaced our Xbox 360 with a powerful gaming laptop, the Razer Blade Pro, which has a 2.4Ghz Intel Core i7-4700HQ processor, 16GB of RAM, and an Nvidia Geforce 860M graphics card. We omitted the CRT and CCFL LCD because they both have sub-1080p resolutions, leaving the plasma, LED LCD, 4K LCD, and the laptop"s screen to contend for the gold.

Our initial results were positive: Gaming directly to your laptop"s screen presents the least amount of input lag—even less than gaming with the Xbox 360 and a CRT. In fact, across the board we saw lower input lag when using a modern gaming laptop than when performing the same inputs on the Xbox 360.

The most surprising result? When running the PC version of Skyrim on Ultra settings at 1080/60 FPS, the 4K Vizio had only slightly more input lag than playing the Xbox 360 version of Skyrim on a CRT monitor. The laptop"s own screen is still king, but remember (again) that the Vizio is upscaling that 1080p image to display it at 4K. Again, it"s essential that you use the high-speed HDMI port as all the standard HDMI ports had an input lag of over 300ms.

The short answer is yes, especially if your TV"s native resolution is 1080p or higher. If you have an older TV—say from 2006 or 2007—with sub-1080p resolution, you may find that the interlaced 1080i signal (from a component input) is a little faster at the cost to some image clarity. If you"re using a 4K set then definitely opt for HDMI, but without a faster HDMI port the upscaling process will introduce significant levels of lag.

If you"re playing on older consoles: The tradeoffs are pretty obvious; you can play a Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, or any older console on a CRT if you absolutely want the best input lag—something competitive fighting game players have known for years. This means missing out on larger, better-looking screens, however. Modern LCDs like the one we tested can introduce 20 milliseconds or more of perceptible lag (over 166 ms). And while plasma performance may be better than LCD in terms of image quality, it sometimes means tons of additional input lag.

If you"re playing on a new console: You shouldn"t be afraid to make the jump to a 4K TV as long as it upscales well and has a "fast" HDMI input like the P Series. While games on the PS4 and Xbox One will likely top out at 1080/60 FPS this generation, the input lag from 4K upscaling is negligible—with the right port. If you"re buying a new TV, make sure it has HDMI 2.0 ports that support HDCP 2.2

If you"re a PC gamer: A full-on gaming rig is clearly the best bet for avoiding input lag. And with a laptop, playing directly to the screen is just as fast as using an older console and a CRT. If you"re set on gaming in the living room, the same rules apply: Look for a new UHD TV with faster HDMI inputs, or 1080p displays with game modes available. And while 4K gaming is cool, gaming at a consistent 60 FPS is more important.

Ultimately, input lag is the sum of many parts. There are individual variables from set to set and game to game that will affect input lag. If you want to learn more about what a specific display will add to the equation, we recommend DisplayLag"s invaluable Input Lag Database to help you get your twitch on.

One of the areas where the A-MVA panel does extremely well is in the areas of display lag and pixel response time. Just to recap, you may have heard complaints about "input lag" on various LCDs, so that"s one area we look at in our LCD reviews. We put input lag in quotation marks because while many people call it "input lag", the reality is that this lag occurs somewhere within the LCD panel circuitry, or perhaps even at the level of the liquid crystals. Where this lag occurs isn"t the concern; instead, we just want to measure the duration of the lag. That"s why we prefer to call it "processing lag" or "display lag".

To test for display lag, we run the Wings of Fury benchmark in 3DMark03, with the output set to the native LCD resolution - in this case 1920x1200. Our test system is a quad-core Q6600 running a Radeon HD 3870 on a Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 motherboard - we had to disable CrossFire support in order to output the content to both displays. We connect the test LCD and a reference LCD to two outputs from the Radeon 3870 and set the monitors to run in clone mode.

The reference Monitor is an HP LP3065, which we have found to be one of the best LCDs we currently possess in terms of not having display lag. (The lack of a built-in scaler probably has something to do with this.) While we know some of you would like us to compare performance to a CRT, that"s not something we have around our offices anymore. Instead, we are looking at relative performance, and it"s possible that the HP LP3065 has 20ms of lag compared to a good CRT - or maybe not. Either way, the relative lag is constant, so even if a CRT is faster at updating, we can at least see if an LCD is equal to or better than our reference display.

While the benchmark is looping, we snap a bunch of pictures of the two LCDs sitting side-by-side (using a relatively fast shutter speed). 3DMark03 shows the runtime with a resolution of 10ms at the bottom of the display, and we can use this to estimate whether a particular LCD has more or less processing lag than our reference LCD. We sort through the images and discard any where the times shown on the LCDs are not clearly legible, until we are left with 10 images for each test LCD. We record the difference in time relative to the HP LP3065 and average the 10 results to come up with an estimated processing lag value, with lower numbers being better. Negative numbers indicate a display is faster than the HP LP3065, while positive numbers mean the HP is faster and has less lag.

It"s important to note that this is merely an estimate - whatever the reference monitor happens to be, there are some inherent limitations. For one, LCDs only refresh their display 60 times per second, so we cannot specifically measure anything less than approximately 17ms with 100% accuracy. Second, the two LCDs can have mismatched vertical synchronizations, so it"s entirely possible to end up with a one frame difference on the time readout because of this. That"s why we average the results of 10 images, and we are confident that our test procedure can at least show when there is a consistent lag/internal processing delay. Here is a summary of our results for the displays we have tested so far.

As you can see, all of the S-PVA panels we have tested to date show a significant amount of input lag, ranging from 20ms up to 40ms. In contrast, the TN and S-IPS panels show little to no processing lag (relative to the HP LP3065). The BenQ FP241VW performs similarly to the TN and IPS panels, with an average display lag of 2ms - not something you would actually notice compared to other LCDs. Obviously, if you"re concerned with display lag at all, you"ll want to avoid S-PVA panels for the time being. That"s unfortunate, considering S-PVA panels perform very well in other areas.

Despite what the manufacturers might advertise as their average pixel response time, we found most of the LCDs are basically equal in this area - they all show roughly a one frame "lag", which equates to a response time of around 16ms. In our experience, processing lag is far more of a concern than pixel response times. Taking a closer look at just the FP241VW, we can see the typical one frame lag in terms of pixel response time. However, the panel does appear to be a little faster in response time than some of the other panels we"ve tested (notice how the "ghost image" isn"t as visible as on the HP LP3065), and we didn"t see parts of three frames in any of the test images.

After the initial article went live, one of our readers who works in the display industry sent me an email. He provides some interesting information about the causes of image lag. Below is an (edited) excerpt from his email. (He wished to remain anonymous.)

PVA and MVA have inherent drawbacks with respect to LCD response time, especially gray-to-gray. To address this shortcoming, companies have invested in ASICs that perform a trick generically referred to as "overshoot." The liquid crystal (LC) material in *VA responds sluggishly to small voltage changes (a change from one gray level to another). To fix this, the ASIC does some image processing and basically applies an overvoltage to the electrodes of the affected pixel to spur the LC material into rapid movement. Eventually the correct settling voltage is applied to hold the pixel at the required level matching the input drive level.

It"s very complicated math taking place in the ASIC in real time. It works well but with an important caveat: it requires a frame buffer. What this means is that as video comes into the panel, there is a memory device that can capture one whole video frame and hold it. After comparing it to the next incoming frame, the required overshoot calculations are made. Only then is the first captured frame released to the panel"s timing controller, which is when the frame is rendered to the screen. As you may have already guessed, that causes at least one frame time worth of lag (17ms).

Some companies discovered some unintended artifacts in their overshoot calculations and the only way they saw to correct these was to allow for their algorithm to look ahead by two frames instead of one. So they had to up the memory of the frame buffer and now they started capturing and holding not one but two frames upon which they make their complex overshoot predictions to apply the corrected pixel drive levels and reduce gray-to-gray response time (at the expense of lag time). Again, it works very well for improving response time, but at the expense of causing lag, which gamers hate. That in a nutshell is the basis of around 33ms of the lag measured with S-PVA.

Not every display uses this approach, but this could account for the increase in display lag between earlier S-PVA and later S-PVA panels. It"s also important to note that I tested the Dell 2408WFP revision A00, and apparently revision A01 does not have as much lag. I have not been able to confirm this personally, however. The above also suggest that displays designed to provide a higher image quality through various signal processing techniques could end up with more display lag caused by the microchip and microcode, which makes sense. Now all we need are better algorithms and technologies in order to reduce the need for all of this extra image processing -- or as we have seen with some displays (particularly HDTVs), the ability to disable the image processing.

One area where the 2311xi does much better than its budget price would indicate is in our lag testing. Input lag ranged from 1-3ms on testing, showing very little delay at all. The response time from blue to yellow to blue was only around 20-22ms as well, giving us a total lag result of 13ms. This is a decent amount under 1 frame of lag and should be adequate for even demanding users, and this was with the Overdrive feature disabled. Overdrive being enabled made no noticeable difference with lag or delay time, but might help slightly with blurring. Overall these are some very impressive numbers for the gamers out there who might be considering using this panel.

Power use on the 2311xi was a high point as well. With the backlight at maximum it uses a miserly 26W of power, and that drops down to 12W at minimum levels. Finding a monitor that uses less power than this might be possible, but you will likely only save a watt or two over the HP. All the examples in our database that use less are either smaller panels, or TN panels instead of IPS. There is nothing I can complain about with the power usage of the HP 2311xi; it does fantastic here.

If you’re looking to get a new gaming monitor, whether 60Hz, 144Hz, 165hz or even 240Hz, then you’re most likely considering two very important specs. We don’t mean resolution as that’s a given and the first item on the list right next to screen size. We’re referring to input lag and response time. While most prospective gaming monitor shoppers know what refresh (or frame) rate means, quite a few people remain confused about the distinction between response time and input lag.

Additionally, while almost every gaming monitor has a response time listed in the spec section, input lag rarely makes an appearance. That’s because while the confusion exists, the two terms are very different. Manufacturers can easily calculate and test monitor response times at the factory, but input lag (or input latency) presents a much more complex issue. Many factors that go into input lag have nothing to do with the monitor or the production process used to make the display, and so manufacturers would be remiss if they made bold input lag claims.

Despite that, as someone interested in gaming and gaming monitors you should definitely educate yourself on these two related but distinct terms. That’s because if you opt for a cheap monitor that ends up having slow response or lots of lag then your gaming may well be ruined. Even monitors with high refresh rates can be slow in this regard. If they suffer from sluggish response time and high latency your games will present with problems like motion blur and ghosting. Additionally, controlling in-game actions will feel “off” and unresponsive. That’s why gamers really should learn more about response time and input lag plus how the two differ.

Quite a simple answer to that one. Response time forms a part of overall input latency. That most likely explains why so many people misunderstand that the two specs describe different but connected aspects of a gaming monitor. Another cause for confusion may originate in the fact that both refer to speed and have become part of the popular discussion around gaming monitors as things to consider for optimal monitor performance. Often mentioned in the same sentence, response time and input latency sometimes become conflated with each other.

Sure, both tell us important things about a gaming monitor’s speed, but from very different angles. Response time is entirely native to the monitor proper, while input lag or latency include the whole process from you pressing a button to a corresponding action occurring onscreen.

Distilled to their bare essence, both terms detail the speed with which images change on a display and react to your input. But that’s a very simplistic description that doesn’t do the topic justice, so let’s look at them up close.

Response describes the length of time a given monitor or panel needs to change the properties of each pixel. Since TFT LCDs consist of millions of pixels (or transistors), for example 8.3 million in a 4K monitor, speed is understandably of the essence. Response time tells us how long a monitor needs to turn a pixel from red to green, as an example. The faster, the more responsive the image updates. Faster means smoother display and allows for higher refresh rates.

Think of response time like this. You’re playing a first person game and decide to turn left, down an alley. Your monitor gets the data from your PC or console and needs to update the image you see to reflect the new graphics being loaded in. A monitor with 5ms technically does this five times slower than a 1ms screen. Of course, we’re talking about milliseconds so the difference may not be perceptible. But every little bit counts as games by nature need to be responsive, and like we said response time contributes to overall lag or delay.

Different gaming monitor panel types support slightly diverse response times, although advancing technology has helped narrow down gaps. The fastest response occurs on TN panels, which generally are the best for reflex-based gaming. Essentially all TN panels do 1ms these days, which is why they’re the only ones capable of 240Hz refresh rates, as well. VA and IPS panels usually come in at 2ms-5ms but provide better colors and viewing angles. We’ve discussed panel technologies if you want to know more.

TN panels carry out the least pixel processing of the three main panel types, explaining their high speeds. VA and IPS panels have been designed to ensure better colors, but that requires more processing – meaning delays. As the simplest mainstream panel type, TN manages the fastest response times by getting straight to the pixel, so to speak.

The total time required to show an action on the screen amounts to what is known as input lag. The word input mostly refers to you, the user. You press a key or click a button on a keyboard or controller and then expect a corresponding action on your gaming monitor (or TV). The time needed to show you that action equals input lag.

Input lag rises from a host of factors. From your controller or keyboard the signal moves to your PC or console. If you’re using wireless input devices that movement takes a little longer than with wired versions. Then your PC or console take time to process the data you gave them, then more time to send graphics info via a cable to your display. Generally, HDMI and DisplayPort have the same speed: light speed. So cables aren’t a major issue, but they’re a step. Then every monitor has processing units that accept signals and work to update the screen. Thus, the monitor’s internal circuitry introduces lag. Response time factors into latency as we mentioned above. That means the time a monitor needs to get a signal, process that signal, then change its pixels to depict visuals obviously adds latency.

Any image processing done on your monitor increases latency. Even if base response time is 1ms, should the monitor then add refinements like HDR, dynamic brightness/contrast, edge sharpening, local dimming and so forth – well, latency increases. Remember the basic rule: image processing means lag.

That’s why for gaming we recommend using PC mode or game mode. Those switch off most image processing to keep you close to raw response time on the monitor. How do we measure input lag? Also in milliseconds, but it’s a lot more than response time. Really good monitors like the BenQ EL2870U,  the 4K HDR monitor EW3270U, and 144hz gaming monitor EX2780Q with speakers clock in at 9ms-10ms based on third party reviews, but the average hovers somewhere between 15ms and 22ms for typical gaming monitors and gaming-minded TVs. You should not detect any negative effects with those latency figures, and your games will feel very responsive. It’s only when latency exceeds 40ms or so that people begin to notice sync issues. Anything over 50ms would be basically unplayable. Don’t laugh, lots of cheap monitors and TVs even now deliver performance slower than that, resulting in completely ruined gaming experiences.

When shopping for a gaming monitor do some research, read reviews, and check out the spec sheets. You’ll likely find out about each model’s response time easily enough, but reviews and forum posts will shed more light on input lag. Stay with reputable, established brands. Get monitors that specifically mention gaming, as good manufacturers won’t claim gaming-grade performance for slow monitors, it’s simple as that.

Also simple is the difference between response time and input latency. The former is local to the monitor and helps you understand how fast the panel is on its own. The latter refers to a much more comprehensive and useful number because it includes response time and illustrates the actual gaming experience you’ll have with a monitor or TV.

Among the many tests we carry out on all flat-screen HDTVs we review these days is to measure their input lag, which is arguably the most important attribute for a responsive gaming experience when playing video games on these displays. Traditionally we have used a digital stopwatch plus high-speed camera combination to get an idea of how much a television lags behind a CRT monitor (which is for all intents and purposes lag-free), but lately we’ve added another tool to our arsenal in the form of the Leo Bodnar lag tester which takes a lot less time and is more convenient to use.

Please use the following table (Javascript needs to be enabled) to sort all the TVs we’ve reviewed on which input lag has been measured either via the Leo Bodnar device or the conventional high-speed camera method. You can even filter the list by TV brand, display technology (LED LCD or plasma), screen size and rating.

Disclaimer: While this chart is designed to help you find the best gaming HDTV with the lowest input lag, the listed results are limited to the reviews available in our database.

This refers to the delay from the moment a display receives a signal from a game controller (for example, by moving the analog stick or pressing a button) to the results manifesting on screen. As modern flat-panel televisions come with more and more features included (motion-compensated frame interpolation, backlight dimming, 3D capabilities, smart functionalities, etc.), more time is required to perform complex video processing, unfortunately contributing to higher input lag.

From our experience, input lag is never made known by TV makers, who instead prefer to advertise a figure called “response time” which measures the time taken for a pixel to switch from either black to white or grey to grey (depending on which is more flattering). As a result, almost all input lag data available on the internet comes from end users rather than manufacturers.

Up until 2012, the main method used by those who do not have access to advanced (and expensive) oscilloscope-grade instruments to measure input lag involves cloning a digital stopwatch on two displays (one being a reference – usually CRT), and then using a camera to capture both screens in one picture at sufficiently high shutter speed. The input lag, measured in miliseconds (ms), is the difference between the two stopwatch times recorded simultaneously.

The principle behind Leo Bodnar’s input lag tester is so elegant (send a signal and then measure the delay directly) that we wondered why no one else had thought of it before. That said, despite its speed and convenience, there are a couple of things to bear in mind when interpreting its results, especially when compared against the traditional stopwatch/camera method.

The results generated by the Leo Bodnar lag tester are usually higher than the figures obtained using the cloned digital stopwatch/ high-speed camera method. This is because the latter requires the use of another display as reference (therefore any further lag on the reference display, however low, would have been subtracted from the final figure), whereas the former directly measures a TV’s input lag PLUS pixel response time without any intermediary.

What does this mean? When you read about an HDTV’s input lag result (in miliseconds), it’s important to know if the number was obtained using Leo Bodnar’s device or the photo method. As a rough rule of thumb, we wouldn’t mind playing video games which demand fast reflexes (e.g. first-person shooters like Call Of Duty, Halo or Battlefield 3) on TVs whose input lag measured 33ms or below (i.e. 2 frames or less) using the stopwatch/camera method, or 40ms or less via the Leo Bodnar lag tester.

Obviously, the lower the input lag, the greater the responsiveness, so if you’re an FPS veteran looking for a top-notch, fantastically fluid gaming experience, we recommend getting a television with input lag measuring not more than 16ms (photo) or 25ms (Leo Bodnar) respectively.

When we first got our hands on the Leo Bodnar device, we were surprised when we obtained (nearly) the same 48ms figure from a Panasonic ST50 PDP (plasma display panel) and a new Panasonic ET60 LED LCD (both running in their fastest Game mode). From our experience of playing a decent amount of first-person shooter games online, the Panasonic ST50 is a total joy to play on compared to the LCD. The former feels considerably smoother than the latter, but both are returning basically the same figure.

Or, put another way, we can believe the figures returned by the lag tester, but began to wonder if it’s being harsher on plasmas. Here’s our theory on why this is.

An LCD-based display updates the screen from top to bottom, one line at a time, which means that a player’s brain cannot make sense of a part of the image until it has been completely rendered. The LCD’s top-to-bottom addressing can be seen with the Leo Bodnar lag tester: measuring the top patch tends to give a lower number than measuring the centre patch from our tests. However, on a PDP, the result is always the same on both patches.

Because plasma displays work by flashing the screen several times just to draw one video frame, on a PDP, an intermediate image doesn’t look half-drawn in the same way that it would on an LCD. Instead, it would have very low gradation (and brightness). In theory, this means that the player has a better chance of seeing the entire gameplay screen, albeit not at full quality, since the subfield drive throws out different steps of the dynamic range quickly just to draw one fully-gradated frame.

This is the key difference according to our theory. On the LCD, obviously our eyes can’t make sense of parts of the frame which haven’t been drawn yet (parts of the frame are either fully rendered or not), but on the plasma, we get extra temporal precision in the feedback loop, since we can see rough versions of the frames before they’re even fully drawn. And, in a fast-paced game, our brain doesn’t care if it’s seeing incomplete images – it should still be able to make out rough outlines and shapes.

How does this explain why plasma televisions that feel much more responsive are shortchanged by the Leo Bodnar input lag tester which returns a higher figure? Well, we surmised that the flashing white bars need to hit a specific brightness threshold before they can be picked up by the device’s photosensor for lag time calculation: if you decrease or increase the on-screen luminance using the TV’s [Contrast] or [Backlight] control, the Leo Bodnar’s lag number should rise or drop correspondingly.

A plasma’s subframe, while not bright enough to trigger the photosensor, can readily be perceived by us in the sensorial feedback loop, thus accounting for the discrepancy between the displayed input lag figure and the actual responsiveness of a PDP. Ironically, the older stopwatch/camera method – though inconsistent – is capable of capturing subframes before they’re fully drawn (since it’s not limited by any luminance threshold, and the shutter speed is much higher than the panel refresh rate), and so more accurately reflects how responsive a PDP is. This is the reason why we continue to run both tests on most HDTVs we review despite the photo method being such a labour-intensive process.

When reading a published input lag figure, find out if it’s taken using the traditional stopwatch cloning/ high-speed camera method or with the newer Leo Bodnar lag tester device. Because the latter generally returns a higher number than the former, comparison between different displays is most meaningful when the same method is used.

The camera method would appear to take into account the difference caused by a plasma’s subfield driving method in a way which the Leo Bodnar lag tester does not.

Most TV manufacturers include a feature called [Game Mode] on their HDTVs, which serves to reduce input lag by cutting down on various video processing applied to the picture on screen. Although enabling [Game Mode] is normally enough to minimise lag, on certain models better results can be attained using special tricks. Here’s a brand-by-brand breakdown of how to achieve the lowest input lag on the 2013 TVs we’ve reviewed to date:

Of course, there might exist minor differences between specific TV models to obtain the lowest lag, so feel free to check out our individual reviews for more details.

When playing certain video games, it isn"t just every second that counts - it"s every millisecond. The difference between "now" and "a fraction of a second from now" can be the difference between victory and defeat. This difference -- the time between when an event occurs and when you see it occur -- is called lag. While lag cannot be eliminated, reducing it is key to a great gaming experience.

The term "lag" can refer to any time difference. However, we"re primarily concerned with input lag. This is the time difference between when a video signal arrives at your projector and when that picture is displayed on the screen. All digital projectors, regardless of their specifications or intended use, will incur some amount of input lag. That"s just the nature of digital video processing -- the projector has to take a stream of ones and zeroes and reconstitute it as an image. When that image isn"t in the projector"s native resolution, it has to be scaled, and that can add processing time. If you"re using advanced features like frame interpolation or smart sharpening, those frames of video must be analyzed in sequence and altered before reaching the screen, which adds processing time. Automatic irises adjust themselves based on the average illumination in a scene, which (you guessed it) adds processing time. In other words, there are a lot of things that can slow down an image in transit.

When lag is particularly bad, you will likely notice that something is wrong. When watching movies or video, you might notice that the sound arrives before the picture does, so people"s lips don"t match their words, or you hear gun shots in action movies before the character on screen has actually fired. When playing video games, you"ll press a button and notice a significant delay before the game responds - or you"ll respond to a timed prompt on screen, and despite thinking you"ve nailed it, you miss your cue.

Input lag is of special importance when working with video games because games are interactive. If you"re just watching movies or video and input lag is severe enough to cause lip-synch errors, you can correct it with an audio delay that slows down the audio track until it is in synch with the video. You can"t do that with games, though, because games require your input in response to what"s shown on the screen. If you delay the audio, it doesn"t remove the core problem - you find out about events after they"ve already happened.

While input lag gets a lot of attention, it is not the only source of gaming lag. A May 2009 article in Eurogamer called Console Gaming: The Lag Factor revealed that console games can be inherently laggy. In Eurogamer"s testing of console games, those running at 60 frames per second had an inherent lag of 67 milliseconds (4 frames), while 30 fps games had a minimum inherent lag of 100 milliseconds (6 frames). That"s in addition to any lag added by your display (their testing included a check against a reference CRT monitor -- not perfect, but better than nothing).

This inherent lag is not input lag. It tracks the time difference between a button press and a visual response, while we"re concerned with the difference between signal arrival and visual response. The delay between button press and visual feedback is usually called "response time," though it"s not uncommon to see the terms "response time" and "input lag" used incorrectly.

There"s also the issue of network lag. In multiplayer, the game has to keep track of your actions and the actions of everyone else in the game with you. When that data is delayed or falls out of synchronization, it can be intensely frustrating - but it isn"t input lag.

Input lag can be an important factor in choosing a projector, but only to a relatively few people. Low input lag is always good; it means that movies and video won"t require an audio delay and games will display more quickly. But as discussed above, input lag can be fixed when you"re using non-interactive media by adding a simple audio delay circuit. Many A/V receivers, in fact, include such a circuit. If yours doesn"t, there are stand-alone devices that will do the job.

So that removes movies and video from the equation, and we"re left with gamers. But many games can be played on high-lag projectors without issue, especially if those games don"t rely on split-second timing. Casual games, turn-based games, and many console games still feel snappy and responsive on projectors with high input lag, and we often hear from projector owners who think a particularly laggy projector is "just fine" for gaming.

If movies and video don"t matter and most games don"t matter either, who should care? Those folks who play a lot of games, and whose gaming choices demand super-fast responses: most fighting games and first-person shooters. The other group likely to notice input lag are PC gamers. Purpose-built gaming computers give you more control over the level of video processing applied internally than consoles do, so gamers concerned with maximum speed can reduce the number of pre-rendered frames the graphics card will store in its buffer. You can"t do that on a console.

If you play a lot of games with fast-twitch response times, and especially if you play those games on a PC instead of a console, you should pay attention to input lag when it"s time to pick a projector. If that doesn"t sound like you, but you still want to have a solid gaming experience, read on.

Just to be clear: when we talk about input lag, we"re talking about very small amounts of time. Lag is measured in milliseconds. One millisecond is one one-thousandth of a second. Therefore, if your game is running at 60 frames per second, each frame takes up 16.67 milliseconds.

In Eurogamer"s 2009 tests, they found that the point where most people felt lag became detrimental was 166 milliseconds, or ten frames, of total lag a 60 FPS signal. This includes input lag, but it also includes the native response time of a game, which can be significant. When total lag exceeded 166 milliseconds, test subjects noticed the delay in their actions and felt that it was a hindrance to their performance. Therefore, your entire system needs to be fast enough to stay under this ten-frame limit for total response time.

According to Eurogamer, console games running at 30 frames per second represent the worst-case scenario for input lag. If these games have a minimum lag of 100 ms, your projector needs to add less than 66 ms to the overall response time. The good news is that 66 milliseconds is an easy target, and there are plenty of projectors out there that will hit it -- some of them quite affordable.

We make it a habit to check input lag on every projector that comes into the office, regardless of its intended use. Our testing shows that many inexpensive DLP presentation projectors have about 33 milliseconds of input lag, and many inexpensive LCD projectors stay under 50 milliseconds. If your primary concern is speed but you have a tight budget to work with, you can find a snappy, quick projector for less than $500. It might not be native 1080p, but you can"t argue with the price or the speed.

If you can tell the difference between 14 ms and 24 ms, more power to you -- but you already know who you are. Don"t go throwing away your existing gear if you"ve never noticed lag before just because you"re now aware that faster displays exist. It"s the nature of technology that whatever you purchase will be obsolete in about ten minutes, so you mig