Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I use a 4:3 monitor as my primary .
That's inaccurate. $1400 oled from LG has 10ms input latency. That's not high. I can agree it is expensive but relative to other gaming displays it's not.very expensive OLED TVs with immense input latency
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.That's inaccurate. $1400 oled from LG has 10ms input latency. That's not high. I can agree it is expensive but relative to other gaming displays it's not.
That's inaccurate. $1400 oled from LG has 10ms input latency. That's not high. I can agree it is expensive but relative to other gaming displays it's not.
I don't think that at all. I just think mistakes were made in deprecation of specific types (darn you Applied Nanotech Inc. and your bogus patents).Trust me there's no point getting into it with a guy who thinks display technology stopped improving 30 years ago.
That said, there is still no modern display that can, all at the same time:
- Display perfect blacks
- Have motion clarity as good as CRTs
- Have response times at or below 1ms
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.
View attachment 286533
Even if your examples are that low and you just don't think 10ms is all that big a difference, it is for me. I play rhythm games where every little bit can help. My laptop's display has about 13-15ms, yet transitioning to the 0 of my CRT is still a big jump for what I do.
Regardless, 10ms is top-tier for a TV.
Huh? That's just.... wrong. CRTs do have 0- they're analog. Those gaming monitors all have less than 1 as well. I'm not sure what's leading you to think the numbers represent the relative difference from a CRT and not the literal response times of each monitor.The chart you're showing is additional time over CRT delay (which is not 0), the 10 ms for the LG OLEDs is total time.
Huh? That's just.... wrong. CRTs do have 0- they're analog. Those gaming monitors all have less than 1 as well. I'm not sure what's leading you to think the numbers represent the relative difference from a CRT and not the literal response times of each monitor.
You're comparing different things. If you measure a "lagless" 120hz CRT the same way it would be 8 ms.
Ahhh, now I think I see what's going on.CRTs do have on the order of nanoseconds of processing lag, because they don't really do any processing. That's not to say that the signal is going from your PC to the screen at that speed - that's still limited by the refresh rate and display timings. Which is I think where people get the whole CRTs have lag too thing. So yeah a CRT at 60 hz has more "lag" than a TN 240 hz LCD because the latter is pumping out four frames to the CRT's 1.
6ms is certainly beyond excellent for a TV. We definitely live in the golden age of couch gaming (though, I could be cheeky and try to say CRT projectors are top tier. But, c'mon, how many people just have a home theater? It's just kind of apples to oranges, TVs to projectors).I prefer the way TFTCentral breaks down lag. The RTings times are actually confusing since they are relative. So yeah the lag for the CX is actually only 6 ms which is not bad at all (pic unrelated).
View attachment 286755
I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.I really feel that the only reason 16:10 existed at all is because it made for an easier transition for someone coming from a 4:3 monitor. 16:10 was something of an intermediate step, with a typical 1920x1200 display being able to accommodate programs designed for 1600x1200 much more easily than a 1080p monitor. Also, for some, 16:9 just seemed a bit too wide at first.
I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.
Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.
This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.
Uh...
I agree the casual market is largely what killed off 16:10, and that 16:10 is generally more handy if you don't want to spend extra desk space and/or money for a 16:9 display with enough vertical real estate. But, what you said here doesn't really define why you disagree. GotNoRice asserted the notion that 16:10 was a compromise for those used to 4:3, not that 16:10 was a compromise in general. So, given your stance that vertical screen space is valuable for power users, did casual users drive the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 even before 16:9? Or is there more to it?I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.
Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.
This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.
No offense, but you probably don't notice just because you play games that don't have their experiences hampered that much by lag (which is most games, really). I'm fairly certain no Samsung LCD TV has input lag under 30ms, and that's being rather generous.LCDs have a lot of lag, but given the right source it's not unbearable. My samsung TV is decidedly not a gaming monitor, and when I hook up low res consoles to it the lag is unbearable. But if you use a native resolution and get the scaler out of the way, it's much closer to 0.
For example, if I hook my NES or Wii directly to the composite input, it takes close to a second after making some user input to see motion on the display. That's bad. But if I scale it up and convert it to hdmi first with an external scaler (and not one of those cheap chinese composite/component->hdmi boxes), the lag is almost nonexistant– I don't think I could measure it with my eyes.
tl;dr, get a 5:4 display. They're pretty awesome.
Do you only have one display?Uh...
Do you not have multiple windows open side by side?
That is a crutch, not a solution = creates other problems
Multiple displays is kind of a crutch as well, depending on what you do. It's likely not seamless in his case.Do you only have one display?
It seems like 16:10 monitors haven't been updated for years.
There are so few options.
None with 120hz or other common options.
16:10 is having a resurgence on laptops now, but nothing for desktops.
Is there really no hope for us?
Uh...
Do you not have multiple windows open side by side?
That is a crutch, not a solution = creates other problems
I agree the casual market is largely what killed off 16:10, and that 16:10 is generally more handy if you don't want to spend extra desk space and/or money for a 16:9 display with enough vertical real estate. But, what you said here doesn't really define why you disagree. GotNoRice asserted the notion that 16:10 was a compromise for those used to 4:3, not that 16:10 was a compromise in general. So, given your stance that vertical screen space is valuable for power users, did casual users drive the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 even before 16:9? Or is there more to it?
A crutch? A crutch for what? Its an option.Uh...
Do you not have multiple windows open side by side?
That is a crutch, not a solution = creates other problems
16:10 makes sense for laptops due to their form factor, namely fitting a keyboard and trackpad which ultimately determine the size of the lid.
But for desktop displays it hasn't made sense for a good time. 27" at 1440p and higher res just doesn't need to be taller vertically. There's plenty of room for content.
My last 16:10 display was a 30" 2560x1600 screen. I swapped it for a 27" 2560x1440 one. Not only was the 27" sharper, it was a better overall size for me.
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.
View attachment 286533
Even if your examples are that low and you just don't think 10ms is all that big a difference, it is for me. I play rhythm games where every little bit can help. My laptop's display has about 13-15ms, yet transitioning to the 0 of my CRT is still a big jump for what I do.
Regardless, 10ms is top-tier for a TV.