9001th thread about it

I saw a lot of threads about comparison of monitors, but didn't see any where you find any real comparable numbers -- only specifications etc.
And this is the way to see the real difference, not only phrases like "CRT is much better than TFT", "120hz is much better than 60hz" or "My monitor is the best because Dahang likes it".
And additionally it allows to compare your de-facto reaction speed with other players.
If there were any topics like this one, counting what I wrote above, please show me -- maybe I missed something.

thx

my results:
at home: Dell U2311H / win7 - 230ms
at work: LG Flatron IPS231 / winXP - 184ms
have no idea what caused so big difference.

Before doing any reaction tests, turn off Windows Aero - it adds tremendous amounts of lag.

aero functionality is around 50ms of random drawing crap delay.
(it's off in games)

Windows Aero effects this test for somereason, turn it off and you will have faster reaction time

Tried it a few times, 150ms was my fastest at an average of 165ms.

Samsung 2233rz 120hz
Logitech mx300 @ 500hz
Windows 7 Home Premium

P.S. i think comparing these results gives you little insight in the hardware differences, since some people are just slower than others...

One more test: Some old 19" ViewSonic VA903b / WinXP - 174.8

Oddly enough I get exactly the same results on my Samsung rz2233 and on my old piece of shit hp pavilion f1723 60hz monitor (~160ms).

Is there a Hate-o-Meter to measure the HATE on id-software?

ITS OVER NIIINE THOUSAAAAAAND!!!!!

this will never be accurate enough because of the distance it takes the mousebutton to register. you'll have to use that shit they install into a retard's brain that lets you click around the monitor with your eyes.

sure, but I'm instersted in the actual difference between my reaction and other people's, including hardware and personal reaction.
+ many people, like twister or me, have more than 1 monitor, and it's interesting to see the difference between them when the same person tests them.

if that's the shittty red/green flash 10 s delay test, disregard all results, it's broken and not really signifcant unless you wanna know if you're below or over 300 ms

better choice: http://www.esreality.com/post/2278881/new-reaction-test/

Problem is that the target moves erratically and quicker than average QL UPS. I do suppose it offers a ballpark figure of your reaction time, though.

170ms 4.6 ( no ULTRA SUPER EXTREME TEA )

172ms 3.9 ( after some massive caf intake )

both my best trys.

What tea? >_>

100c water
( makes tea really bitter but steeps quickly, for nice black tea I would recommend 85-95c, just wait till the water stops bubbling and then wait 1 min )

small tiny cup 100mil

Black ceylon tea long leaf fill the cup half way

poor water on and let the tea leaves soften and steep,

add suger to counter act the bitterness
( you want this for the caf not the taste )

consume the drink and eat the soft tea leaves with it.
( most of the caffeine stays in the tea leaves, funny thing is tea technically has more caffeine per gram than coffee, but not in the drink ).

Works better than energy drinks for me, but I don't have it often and I'm very on and off with my caffeine intake only have tea 2-5 times a week, and when I do have tea I make it to enjoy it not for the caffeine rush.

Hmm, i drink mostly green tea. Any advices?

same caffeine content but even more bitter when steeped at high temperatures so steep at 65-80c for taste 70 is a good middle point, and the idea of having loads of caffeine in tea is to eat the tea leaves ( and they have to be real tea leaves, some green teas aren't actually tea ) and it's really hard to eat tea when it's dry so you have to steep it to soften it so you end up drinking the steeping water and eating the soft leaves.

real tea is the cammelia sinensis plant most teas are but I found some that aren't like some forms of green herbal teas that are just herbs and no tea and red tea (rooibos) .

Thanks, will try to eat some leaves, wIll see what happens :)

Just don't eat the tea dust in tea bags, they feel terrible, look for long leaves and med short leaves.

I'd be interested in sound reaction time. It would need to precisely calculate mixer and soundcard delay though because these can get high

crt > lcd

xp > win7

dats all u need to know

wrong on both

um no. ive done the experiments for these reaction time tests.


sorry you're an idiot troll.

what experiments? your original statements are wrong and misleading.
also, no.

im completely right and you're completely wrong. deal with it.

1. There are LCD monitors that have the same amount of input lag as high-end CRTs. Also, there are LCD monitors that have 120Hz refresh rates. I've only seen a few CRTs that go above that and in my opinion it is not necessary.

2. If you disable Aero in Windows 7 there is no reason Windows XP is any better regarding responsiveness.

crt is still faster than lcd doesnt matter 120hz or not.


do you even know?


xp was still faster than win7 with aero off.

Do I know? Yes. Typically CRT is superior to LCD in nearly every category. However, in the past two years companies have made some outstanding LCD monitors. In particular, LG has a LCD monitor with a mode called THRU that virtually eliminates all latency. I've seen numerous benchmarks where it ran head to head against top of the line CRT monitors. So yes, your assumption that CRT monitors are better because most flatscreens are riddled with latency anywhere from 8 to 50 milliseconds is correct, but there are exceptions to the rule. I do miss the discoloring bezel and buzzing of my old 50 lbs. CRT. It warmed my room during cold winter nights, but unfortunately the technology is dead. Now that LCDs are capable of competing with their latency measurements and refresh rates there is not many reasons to use them.

CRT:

1. Hot.
2. Heavy.
3. Radiation.
4. Hard traveling.
5. Burn-in possibility.
6. Commonly 4:3 ratio.
7. High energy consumption.

LCD:

1. Price.
2. Poor blacks.
3. Possible ghosting.
4. Possible dead pixel.
5. Possible narrow viewing angle.
6. Surface susceptible to scratches.
7. Quality loss when outside of native resolution.

CRT:
1. Always a good thing
2. Pussy
3. Less than eating 10 bananas a year (yep)
4. Pussy
5. Same issue with LCDs and everything.
6. Preferred for fps gaming by most good players
7. Also a shared problem with LCDs
8. You conveniently forgot you mention CRTs destroy all LCDs in input lag, ghosting, refresh rate, resolution and all that, for 1/10 the price and that includes LG (btw have you seen one work with thru mode? it looks beyond awful and there's still lag), asus and all that. All decent players know that (the rest don't notice it), and also it made it to "mass" media with carmack's 2012 keynote.
LCDs aren't as bad as they were before and they are getting closer, but no more than that. The 80+ year old technology is still better, just not as sexy.

LCD:
1. lol poor
2. Not all of them. Some do well in sports.
3. Present in all of them, not just "possible". Only noobs don't notice it
4. See CRT
5. lol poor
6. As in...everything?
7. Not much of an issue really with current gfx cards, and it isn't terrible changing resolution
8. Forgot to mention the reasons why everyone stopped buying CRTs, which are size, design and that it's almost impossible to find a new one nowadays

And in general terms, I think you are the usual guy that blindly trusts internet reviews. 99.9% of them made by people who have no idea and the rest won't be as careful or dedicated to it as someone who intends to buy the actual product, or are biased if they did.
Only way to decide what to buy is looking them in person and having prior knowledge and experience. Nothing beats that, and that's the reason why i still use a CRT for gaming because it's a more enjoyable for that, just not with such a big gap like it did 5 years ago, and LCD for all the rest.

"Using the oscilloscope, we let the W2363D compete against Elsa Ecomo 19H98 CRT monitor. Through the optical analysis of the two luminance signals synchronized, the delay time has been determined. This method is more accurate than the common photo method. The W2363D has a very small delay time. This study shows that the LCD monitor is the CRT follows practically without delay: the delay time of the W2363D is nearly zero." -prad.de

If zero isn't enough for you then maybe you're a cyborg.

16:9 ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Funny how they don't say an exact number innit?

I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere in their 20 page review.

well link it then.

There are LCD monitors that have the same amount of input lag as high-end CRTs

afaik crt input lag is always in the nanoseconds while lcd is in milliseconds

no.
thanks retribution. :)

your 'experiments' didnt happen or you havent done them properly. just stop regurgitating myth if you have no solid data, please.

i have common knowledge and actual use testing of it. you on the other hand are just a tard.