I want to go to this motherfucker’s crib, go on his setup with his Samsung, move the joystick for 5 seconds and say: “It lags motherfucker!”
I think I figured out the problem and can resolve the issues with that troll I blocked:
What’s a “frame”? Well in a 60fps game there are 60 frames in 1 second. However people are using MS or milliseconds to measure lag. Well a millisecond is 1/1000th of a second. 10ms, which Iirc is the standard Of BenQ, would be 1/100th of a second.
Since the game only displays a frame every 60th of a second, input lag of 100th of a second would be resolved before the game rendered its next frame. So when we say “lagless” or “CRT standard”, what we actually mean is anything under 1/60th of a second.
Now this is where my brain starts to hurt, because **given that, then wouldn’t 1 “frame” in a 60 fps game actually be 16.67ms!?! **
That’s where my math is taking me. And in that case, any monitor response under 16.67ms shouldn’t effect a 60fps game unless I am missing something.
And if 16.67 ms is “1 frame”, which again in a 60fps game it is, that would mean that my CRT is under it, and my HDTV, and this is a guess, is slightly over it, but certainly not double it because again I notice 1 frame.
And that last statement is the one that gets me in trouble here. “OMFG PARRYALL HOW DARE YOU THINK YOU CAN PERCIEVE A FRAME AND MAKE JUDGEMENTS WITHOUT A MACHINE MEASUREMENT”. You don’t have to accept what I’m telling you, these are guesses based on feels, and if you want to disregard them then you can, I’m not trying to sound mean but I don’t care what people think, I trust my hands eyes brain etc.
Maybe one day I’ll get the equipment and test for myself and/or I’ll get a BenQ, certainly I’ll be more mindful of the input next time I am at Victory Pointe.
I think you’d come over my house and say “hot damn ParryAll this shit is smoooth, and the picture is insane and the size is nuts, where can I get one?”
@ParryAll I know you don’t buy what people are saying about the perception of lag but I think that you should check out this article on the topic:
Allen, B., Maximoff, P., West, W. (2007) Pushing the limits and perception of human reaction time. American Journal of Physiology, 25(3), 245-261.
I know lots of guys, at least 15 guys in my local area, people whom I care much more about no offense, I don’t know any of you, and 9/10 of them feel and percieve the PS3 lag over 360 for SFIV, including myself which is scientifically proven to be 1.3 frames.
And there was outrage over the initial PS4 version of Ultra because it had 1.6 more frames than PS3! For a total of 3 frames! Which people en masse said was horrible/unacceptable.
What that tells me is that, many, but perhaps not all, can notice 1-1.3, some aren’t that sensitive/in tune. But 3 frames, and suddenly the vast majority can and does notice. They/we are not crazy, many of them PS3 owners, and I thought this was common knowledge. The PS3 owners say they adjust for the “faster” speed, we 360 cat’s adjust for the slower. It’s simple and this is common knowledge, we don’t need computers to tell but not everyone is as perceptive.
Regardless Nicola I am a huge fan and greatly appreciate your input ol chap. Sorry your free energy solutions got hijacked ;/
Good night.
Took him that long and a hurt brain to figure out 1 frame was 16.67ms? Lol, don’t post threads if you don’t want help and facts from people if all you want to do is tryst your hands/eyes/brains and don’t believe real tests.
“And if 16.67 ms is “1 frame”, which again in a 60fps game it is, that would mean that my CRT is under it, and my HDTV, and this is a guess, is slightly over it, but certainly not double it because again I notice 1 frame.” Lol… your HDTV is more like 3 frames, are you that dumb? You posted the results yourself from Cnet.
There no point, they did not listen to me in the “Do your controller lag thread” when I posted a similar study. This guy already has his mind set on “what is fact and what is not”.
I just going to wash my hands of this issue.
And @ParryAll please stop PMing me.
Hurt? Whose hurt? Maybe that one guy.
Thanks to my trusty brain I’ve worked out the truth: 16.67ms=1 frame in a 60fps game.
That means that CRT technology, which is a 60hz, 60frames per second refresh, that means the limits of the technology are 16.67ms per frame. Any input faster than that wouldn’t matter, because if you pressed a button while frame 0 was displayed, frame 1 displays with your character now “moving” but the response time measured will be 16.67ms, always. That’s “instantaneous” to our brains perception of the game at that framerate, for that technology.
Now if you have 120 or 240hz display, that’s a much different story. If the game is rendering at 60fps then it’s the same, but if you rendered the game at 120 then response times over 8.335ms would “lag”. And if you were rendering 240, any response time under 4.26 or so ms would “lag”.
SRK lies. Math doesn’t =)
My “ParryAll” estimates:
CRT: at or below 16.67ms. HDTVs and monitors, that I own, somewhere between 16.67 and 33ms, certainly NOT 33ms though, not an extra frame. No way. Don’t agree tough titties my hands brain eyes don’t lie. Well agree to disagree. I am extremely sensitive to this as are most top players. Anyways Have nice lives.
"I am extremely sensitive to this as are most top players. "
Says wifi is fine for gaming, uses a huge laggy TV that doesn’t want to agree with how laggy it really is.
http://www.psych2go.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/obama-laugh1.jpg
Hey y’all just here to confirm that this lunatic is correct and his super human senses have cracked the conspiracy wide open. They’re all against you. Every review site has lied and only the pros and this clown know the truth. He has provided us with one weird trick to solve latency issues. “Testers” hate him!
You guys are stupid and as usual blow things out of proportion.
Anyways while my display is not listed here: http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/, the closest match I could find was a 55" Samsung, same model year, same spec, 20-21ms lag, which sounds about right.
In a 60FPS game, 16.67ms is a frame. I said that through my super human, wait I mean average amongst pros, lag perceptions, that it was between no frames (< or = to 16.67ms) and 1 (33ms). Lo and behold my “super powers” were dead on, again.
Still fooling yourself? Those are 4k panels, your is not so they won’t even be similar. Yours is already on Cnet and rated at 44ms. Give it up and go like you said you would 5 times already.
So this got me thinking and I went to Displaylag and saw which TVs 47 inches and up had 20ms of lag or lower.
This is the entire list:
http://i.imgur.com/4UKq37F.png
The low lag lifestyle is expensive, isn’t it?
I got a 47LD450 on the recommendation of the AVS forum, I think they did the test with the camera or whatever was hot in 2011-12 and the lag seemed amazing for the time but with financials as they are I’ve just been leaving well enough alone.
This is the actual post that sold me on it: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1257131-official-lg-xxld450-thread-22.html#post19723268
1-2 frames and I even won the panel lottery!
Any of the 17ms displays are virtually lag free for a 60FPS videogame.
1ms = 1/1000th of a second
10ms=1/100th of a second
16.67=1/60th of a second
17 ms, unless they were rounding up from 16.67, is tiny fractions of a second of lag.
Your first 1 frame of input lag occurs at roughly 33ms.
I kept telling people my TV was under a frame, nobody wanted to listen, now I have proof. I’m not showing off I’m just trying to state facts and tell the truth was all.
Proof that your 44ms TV is under a frame of lag? 1 frame starts at 33ms? Better go back an double check your work. B)
Now I am thinking you are just making stuff up.
I checked Display Lag dot com, did a search for 55" Samsung TVs.
There no 55" Samsung TV that rated at 21ms of lag, there is a 20 and 22".
And the search gave me 26 entries, spanning from 20ms to 59ms.
I might of given you a benefit of a doubt, ignoring all the previous conversations we had to this point
Then I notice you said LED TV, so I filter the results from 26 down to 8.
The results span from 27ms to 48ms.
http://i.imgur.com/ixe4o0k.png
And if I ignore all the 4K results, that get us the lowest possible input lag of 35ms (with PC mode)
@Smashbros, if you want to get the really good scores, you need to go with about 26" range or less.
Uhh no you don’t like me, so you want me to be wrong, and it’s you whose making shit up:
3D LED 2015 this is by far the closest match to what I have:
http://i.imgur.com/4UKq37F.png
Now perhaps it’s 24ms, that says 20, it’s not 17 for sure as id be easily able to tell if it was as snappy as my CRT, it’s not, but it sure as hell is not 33 or above. That’s instantly noticeable to anyone who isn’t retarded and my set has little in common with those as its 3D and those are not.
Wait why am I even havin this conversation with you? You’re both blocked, you do nothing but troll me, you can beleive whatever you want man if it helps you sleep better thinking I got a laggy ass poor person set you go right ahead and think that. I’m done. With both of you. I said it was less than a frame, I was right, you’ve both been clowned, keep the salty tears coming.
Also again with the bad advice.
Don’t listen to him dude. Unless you’re running games at 120fps or more 17ms lag is perfect.
“Closest thing to my TV is one 2 years newer, a completely different panel that’s 4k instead of 1080p”
Yes, if you want to spend $2,999.99 (on sale) on a 65" 3D 4K TV or closer to $200 for a 26" that out performs the 65 inch when it comes to gaming.
Samsung 65" 3D 4K TV on sale for the low price of $2,999.99
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-65-class-64-5-diag--led-2160p-smart-3d-4k-ultra-hd-tv-silver/5184121.p?id=1219646565339&skuId=5184121
BenQ Gaming Monitor RL2455HM (24-Inch LED) List Price: $299.99
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HSKSMI?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00
16.67 or 17ms and under is all the same for 60fps gaming.
Now if he’s gaming on PC at or above 120fps that’s a different story.
Also you act like gaming on 65" is the same as 24" lmao. 60" and above is incredible. 24" is back-in-college/poor person level. If those displays were 30 or more ms of lag that would be another story.
It’s 2015, I bought it February of last year.
The Bravias are a couple of years old. Those are with 360. They aren’t listed either but the closest I could find was 30ms. That wouldn’t shock me but I know with HDMI the lag is increased by at least a frame so, it depends how the displays were tested.
Also at this point I’m just going to take your trolling, I mean ignoring it, understanding that you’re just salty because I can afford nice things.