Also there is still no videocards/monitors with latests displayport/hdmi viersions, who allow 4K in 120 or more FPS.
I'd wait for it 3-5 years for it, or have to use 1080 TN 240 Hz panel for gaming.

there are ips panels with 144hz

input lag

syncmaster 997mb was hell of a drug

Man I miss that shit. I can't remember if that was my exact model but I could crank it to 220hz with 640x480 and it was the smoothest shit ever.

640x480 xD

i still have one of these, it's insanely heavy. last time i tried using it the color started spazzing out on me, probably heating issues.

Right now is a stupid time to buy a monitor. Need better entries

240hz is okay, atleast it does not hurt eyes like crt

The problem with the quality of image is still there.

I would want 360hz or 500hz monitors to come out soon, but lets be realistic, most games dont even support such high framerate, and modern pc's are awfull weak at rendering high frames in any game out there.

Good days.
Iiama Vision Master pro 450 and 454 were kings!

I got both, second one for about 10$ in a time when LCD were all the hype and people gave amazing crt away practically for free.

Benq 2410 144hz is acceptable, tinkered around with the strobing backlight on and off, didn't see much difference.

It will only get better from there on, crt are obsolete now, but were ahead for quite a while.

WHEN?

I've been told there are no plans to release OLED at reasonable sizes anytime soon.

There's one of those 200hz Ilyama's never used in box for sale on ebay for 5 grand. What do you think boys? Should I do it?

crts gave me headaches compared to the tfts tho

pussy

Most players use BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 these days, 240 hz, might be something to it.

And then there is this one: MSI Optix MAG251RX
240 Hz, 1ms, IPS. Sounds great on paper.

Let's be serious, CRT are ancient history.

Just 1080p? No thanks
I want wqhd and ips

does the Alienware AW2518Hf 240hz count as well?

I just loved carrying my CRT to LAN parties.

Anyway, shouldn't current gaming monitors, like the ones mentioned in the post before, already be superior to CRTs?
Afair I played in 640x480 or 800x600 with 120 Hz. Nowadays there's 240 Hz, equally low input lag, and technologies to sync frames like G-Sync or Freesync on top of it. Can't tell me that's worse than what CRTs offered back in the day.

With anti-ghosting measures like adding black screens in between the frames, they pretty much beat crt in all aspects, at higher native resolutions.

equally low input lag

No, CRT input lag is in nanoseconds, zero in effect.

your mouse and game state data are not being updated anywhere near as fast as a billion times per second.

Looking forward to OLED monitors but looking at LG CX48, it's going to be a while

It's not a bottleneck but it still adds to the total lag. I'm sure I will feel a difference, however small.

So what's the refresh rate of your favorite CRT, and how much lag / delay does it add compared to a modern 240 Hz panel?

None. It's not about refresh rate, it's response time of the pixels.

It's 1-5 ms on my, admittedly old, lcd whereas any crt has those in nanoseconds.

Refresh rate is also component of input lag.
So is pixel response, mouse lag and gpu/cpu frame processing.

CRT have no signal processing lag and no pixel response lag but you still have other components. Modern computer with very high refresh rate and 240hz tn panel with sub 3ms gtg and neglible processing lag (resuling with 3 ms total display lag) imo will have a bit better total performance than crt.

How can they eliminate motion blur without adding input lag?

Strobing/black frame insertion. It doesn't necessary introduce input lag as "beginning" of the frame can be visible.

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?p=52530#p52530

Re: Does turning on VRB (Motion blur reduction) add input lag?
Post by Chief Blur Buster » 06 Jun 2020, 17:22

There is a minor amount of input lag for some strobing technologies, but some of it is extremely tiny (Between 1-3ms average at 240Hz). Older strobe technologies such as LightBoost were much more laggy, but current strobe technologies are much less laggy, and the primary cause of lag is the time differential between scanout lag (www.blurbusters.com/scanout) and the global-flash backlight.

I'm not talking in absolutes (doesn't necessary which means it could but its implementation).
And nether does blur busters (...for some strobing technologies).

Question is in context of VRB on Acer XF252Q so short answer would be that it measurably adds about 1ms lag (rtings measurements).

But for example rolling scan bfi on new lg oleds in theory shouldn't add input lag, in practice however there is some additional processing required and it do. Benq DyAc is supposed to be transparent to input lag though.

Development is cool and all, but you see how they're still doing it to catch up, not overtake.

120 Hz means one frame every 8,33 ms. 240 Hz halves that, meaning ~4 ms less delay between frames.

As for input lag, wouldn't you say the <1 ms of a modern monitor is also "essentially zero"?

No, because that's marketing - you get quoted the lowest response time the monitor achieves, not the highest. You can have 10 ms transitions even though g2g is <1ms.

Do you have source / measurements for this? Anyway, if true, that sucks :D

Pixel response times are commonly quoted by manufacturers as ‘grey to grey’ values with figures such as 1ms, 2ms or 5ms. Unfortunately there is no common measurement standard for this and, as explained above, not every pixel transition will occur at the same speed. Often the manufacturers will cherry pick their values so that they represent one of the most rapid pixel transitions a PC monitor will perform. Whilst some transitions may occur at the quoted speed, others might not happen anywhere near as quickly.

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/factors-affe...nsiveness/

Conclusion
When it comes to judging a monitor’s responsiveness manufacturers give us very little to go by. One of the key figures quoted in the specifications is ‘grey to grey response time’. In this article we’ve explored the importance of response times and why they are significant, but also why you must look beyond the single value specified by the manufacturer. We’ve also looked at why refresh rate is important and how response times and refresh rate intertwine to form a key part of how well a monitor will handle motion. Another layer to consider is ‘input lag’ which primarily affects how a monitor feels in response to a user’s input but depending on what is being measured may also affect how a responsiveness the monitor looks. This isn’t specified by manufacturers and is a concept that confuses a lot of users. The term is tossed around all too freely without a clear understanding of what exactly ‘input lag’ is referring to – pure signal delay vs. taking into account pixel response time as well. It must be stressed that, as with all elements of responsiveness, subjectivity is extremely important. Not every user has the same level of sensitivity to input lag or general motion performance and tolerances do differ.

Thanks for the link. Very informative. Probably everyone here should read it.

The MPRT test is very interesting. The best current gaming monitors get down to very low numbers of about 1,3ms.

I googled and found one value for a CRT of 3,7ms. So it seems like CRTs are inferior not only in GTG? See -> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2537...PRT_LCD_TV

Anyone here still using a CRT who can run this test for us? -> https://testufo.com/mprt

I think you're getting mixed up (although I'm no authority, so it might be me) between input lag and MPRT. As far as I understand it GtG is more of an input lag measurement in that it shows you how physically quick a change can take place on a monitor. MPRT is more of a motion blur measurement.

https://blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/

Many Brands Names for Blur Reduction
Several monitor manufacturers have released many brands of Motion Blur Reduction modes in recent gaming displays, with names such as:

Motion Blur Reduction
LightBoost (by NVIDIA)
ULMB – Ultra Low Motion Blur (by NVIDIA)
PureXP – Pure Experience (by ViewSonic)
DyAc – Dynamic Accuracy (by BenQ ZOWIE)
ELMB – Extreme Low Motion Blur (by ASUS)
VRB – Visual Response Boost (by Acer)
Aim Stabilizer – (by AORUS / Gigabyte Technology)
MotionFlow Impulse (by Sony)
1ms MPRT (by LG) — up to 16x clearer motion than “1ms GtG“!

...

Optimizing For Reduced Input Lag
Blur Reduction modes by several vendors, may add input lag. There are many tips & tricks by users in Blur Busters Forums to reduce or eliminate “strobe lag” for Blur-Reduction-optimized computer configurations.

...

MPRT and GtG are two very different display benchmarks. “1ms MPRT” is superior to “1ms GtG”. MPRT is a much more accurate benchmark of motion blur. Even “1ms GtG” displays can have “16.7ms MPRT”. That is motion 16x blurrier than “1ms MPRT”. To view motion blur that is unrelated to LCD GtG, see TestUFO Eye Tracking Animation.

The way I understand it is - the CRTs have the advantage of no input lag with no motion blur and with LCDs you have trade-offs between. Personally it makes no difference to me, as any motion blur I will probably be perceiving as lag anyway and that's why I say I will probably feel a difference for the better if I plugged in a CRT now.

Quote from the test page: "MPRT is pixel visibility time. MPRT can still create a lot of display motion blur even if pixel response (GtG) is instant."

However you define it and compare it to what you mean with "input lag", it does seem like something very relevant to what is perceived on screen and how laggy the screen seems (like you said).

We already have a lot of MPRT times (down to 1,3 ms for modern flatscreen gaming monitors) from your link. I only found one source for CRT times though, 3,7ms, the link to which I posted. However that's just one source, and the test method was not named. So it would be very interesting to get more results from more sources, to validate (or not) that result.

Probably not everything, but a lot or most of what we perceive subjectively can be measured, and those measurements can lead to a better and more objective understanding.

If a practical test / study with a large enough sample size, neutral conditions, with direct comparisons between technologies is conducted, and the outcome is that 99% of participants like one technology better, then we don't need measurements.
But what we have in this thread are anecdotal reports from a small number of users, as far as it seems without direct comparison, which may or may not be biased. I certainly won't make my mind up based on that, and neither should you or anybody else.

The reason you're not finding any MPRT results for CRTs is the same it doesn't have any GtG ones. CRTs don't hold the same picture until a new frame is sent, it just flashes a pixel on. t's always dark(off) into light (on). The technology is inherently capped by physics instead of processing delays in LCDs.

MPRT is pixel visibility time

Why would you want this to be as low as possible?

From this site: https://www.testufo.com/mprt

For the scientifically ideal instant-response sample-and-hold display, MPRT is exactly equal to the time period of one refresh cycle. For the scientifically ideal impulse-driven display (e.g. square-wave strobe backlight), MPRT is exactly equal to strobe flash length.

So it is more the case of MPRT having an ideal value for the particular type of screen than it being something you want to minimize like pixel response time.

Anyway, what you see on the screen can be absolutely perfect, with no blur or other artifacts at all, but it can still be delayed by a day from the time of the arrival of the corresponding signal to the monitor.

As I see it, the main concerns here are

(1) the signal processing time (how long the signal is processed after arriving at the device but before it gets to the screen);

(2) the pixel response time (how long it takes a pixel to change colour---the blur from this can be mitigated by strobing the backlight, but it still adds latency);

(3) the delay introduced by the refresh rate (e.g. at 100Hz, you could be waiting up to 10ms longer to see what has been rendered---higher is obviously better here if the game can be rendered at that frame rate).

In a CRT, the first two are virtually zero, unless I'm very much mistaken.

Yes, his misunderstanding is the technology itself. You need both low MPRT (low blur) AND low GtG (low pixel response) to imitate the way the CRT works from the start. You can get close to both of the CRT's inherent characteristic with an LCD, but NOT at the same time. Because you can only lower the MPRT by using more of the processing (GtG), even if it is low. His reference to the MPRT TV is what is messing with him I think. It probably has awful response time to pay for that low MPRT, because it's a TV, it doesn't need it...

I'll again point to the article I posted earlier. Here it is in full: https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.n...PRT_LCD_TV

Collectively, an LCD with 4.0 ms MPRT becomes highly superior to a PDP and similar to a CRT in moving image quality.

As for input lag, here's a link with measurements. I'd like to remind that these values, when measured, are inherently influenced by refresh rate, and can never be zero.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag


You have failed to provide ANY evidence for motion blur and input lag of CRTs. As such, your conclusions are pure bro science, if not quasi-voodoo.

It is also illogical to assume that the method of drawing black inbetween frames makes a CRT inherently superior. A blank screen does NOT correspond to the input, and is in no way more ideal than just holding the image until a new one arrives.


If you fail to be more logical and provide any more real evidence, I will not waste my time continuing this discussion. All the evidence currently present points to modern LCD gaming monitors being at least equal, most likely superior to CRTs in responsiveness / displaying moving pictures.

So... You didn't watch the youtube video. Or you didn't understand it. And like any "intelligent" and "emotionally mature" person you get all defensive and passive-agrressive the moment your understanding is called into question.

And you do this while linking me an article about nothing but LCDs, which:

Input lag is not an official specification because it depends on two varying factors: the type of source and the settings of the monitor. The easiest way you can measure it is by connecting a computer to two different monitors and displaying the same timer on both screens. One of them has to be a known quantity, so you either have a measurement on hand or use a virtually instant CRT monitor as a baseline.

Your learning and/or reading disability is not my problem. Try here.

Your Youtube video is absolutey worthless, baseless bro-science garbage. While I link to a proper paper / study, which you disregard.

My link shows measurements of LCDs, yes. You provide ZERO data for your claim, only anecdotal BS you repeat from some other equally clueless person.

The passage you quoted from the article is unproven and frankly just wrong, and it's not what I posted the article for. But props for finding and cherry-picking it to support your bogus claim.
Btw., even though they describe this (false) method, it's not what they use in their tests:

In our tests, we measure input lag using our own dedicated device we've designed just for this purpose, which sends an image on-screen and records the time it takes for the image to appear in its sensor (learn more about our tool here). This is a lot more accurate than the two screens method.

Simple math: the very best possible value for total lag, from gfx card to screen, for a 120 Hz CRT is 8,33ms.

The best measured all-in value for a LCD is under 3ms.

As I said, all evidence points to current gaming LCDs being superior to CRTs. I won't repeat it anymore, because now I am really done wasting my time on something that needs no further discussion.

The passage you quoted from the article is unproven and frankly just wrong, and it's not what I posted the article for. But props for finding and cherry-picking it to support your bogus claim.

Yeah, the article YOU picked out. That YOU don't agree with. And it's ME that is cherry-picking.

If you're not a professional politician your parents are blood-related.

You're more obnoxious than Sanchez

You know how you get respect? Quit being a dickhead

I think you'll find I was being perfectly reasonable up until he went arrogant because of his own ignorance.

And no, that's not respect - it's reddit karma.

No, that is respect.

So do you not respect yourself or is you calling me names somehow different than I, him? Or is it something else that makes one "being a dickhead"?

I think you know what respect means.

Humoring ignorance and entitlement?

If you fail to be more logical and provide any more real evidence, I will not waste my time continuing this discussion.

Never mind I was right. What matters is feelings. You get respect by faking it?

I believe you get respect by not being an asshat and being respectful

There's a way to get your point across without being patronising or condescending. If someone chooses to insult you that's what the ignore button is for.

And I did. But you're telling me that doesn't get me respect, lying does...

Two of us are telling you that you're wrong. I've posted a video claiming what me and Taichou are saying - CRTs are inherently lagless because they're analog. I quote you, your own article, saying the same thing. And you're the only one going "but why won't anyone measure the lag?". The lag that is... physics.

Yeah I don't know why nobody ever tried to measure that. It's kind of like it was never a thing... Like it didn't exist until LCDs came along... Strange that... It's almost as if it's like measuring the lag for... electromagnetism.

You say input lag wasn't a thing. Display lag isn't only component to input lag. I'd strongly suspect modern system with 300+fps and cpu/gpu headroom paired with 280/240hz screen would have faster/similar total input lag than system equipped with 120hz crt screen. And definitely faster than computer from crt era.

Display lag isn't only component to input lag.

Let me stop you right here, all of this here "input lag", in this thread, by anyone, is in the context of monitors.

So yeah, monitor input lag wasn't a thing with CRTs. And it cannot be. We've already been through this, look through all the resources. Also your comparison is irrelevant - you can always put a CRT on whatever generates the least lag - that would be the fastest.

Average (idependently measured) sub 3ms g2g is possible for tn panels.

For oled - it can be sub 0.2ms.

I own both 120hz oled (tv) and 240hz tn and apparently I'm not that sensitive to motion blur, only to input lag (significantly higher on tv because of processing time).

Maybe. Maybe you're insensitive for the 240hz, but the TV is so bad that even a grandma will notice it. It's not really a good comparison.

For oled - there difference in motion clarity but 8ms sample and hold window isn't that bad. And there is no pixel blur as reaction is virtually instantaneous. Technology is easily capable of 480+hz so its a shame its basically reserved for mid to high end tvs.

8ms sample and hold window isn't that bad

Ah come on man, that's what 125 to 1000hz is on your mouse, it's night and day and clearly not up-to-par for monitors, at least gaming ones.

Oh, there's a difference, all right. LCD monitors are certainly not as fast as their marketing Hz numbers would suggest. I haven't tried the new 300 Hz panels but it's an LCD...

Doesnt stuff like G-Sync or Freesync add input lag

thats a very good question :-) from my understanding i would only use g-sync/freesync if i have less fps than monitor refreshrate. but thats only my opinion.

so u bought an gaming TN panel and wondering why the heck colors and dark scenes suck so hard?

For those interested in the display lag of a CRT, this is the best I could find.

https://www.prad.de/untersuchung-des-testverf...messung/6/

You can translate to English with google chrome, which seems to be good enough.

Scroll down to the section "The measurement of the input lag for a CRT".

Quote:

In direct comparison to the previous measurement of 510 µs at the beginning of the actual image signal, which must be subtracted from the 510.67 µs, we can see that the first pixel of the CRT shines with a delay of irrelevant 670 ns. This delay now also consists of the delay of the photo receiver and the delay caused by the inertia of the phosphor.

The result of the first measurement is absolutely clear: The CTX EX1200 21 inch CRT monitor used can actually be rated as free of any relevant input lag. The measurement carried out proved it and no longer just claimed it, as was previously the case.

Thanks for the reference. I've seen similar input lag numbers for CRT over the years. The retro gaming community is all over this stuff.

I don't really believe it but I saw some test results that particular CRTs do have some input lag. I'm not sure this is even possible to process the analog signal like that before sending it to the electron gun. According to wiki image processing is impossible on CRT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag:

"For older analog cathode ray tube (CRT) technology, display lag is extremely low, 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 CRT, my understanding is: No image processing ('input lag'), CRT instantly feeds line by line the data from the VGA cable to the gun. The phosphor response time, as in excitation time from getting hit by the electron beam, is also negligible, so no "G2G" delay. The only delay is the gun raster speed determined by the refresh rate.

For the best LCDs: Image processing is mostly solved problem so tied CRT here(source?). Pixel doesn't respond as fast as a phosphor. There's the carrier mobility in the thin film transistor (carriers finite response to an applied electric field) and then the physical mechanism of the liquid crystal switching/rotation action (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_Time_Compensation).

....

Note: On carrier mobility of the TFT, this paper is interesting: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.10....tb00698.x Also see https://www.androidauthority.com/amorphous-ig...nd-399778/

"Si:H liabili-ties included in Table 1 – poor stability, poor mobility, and NMOS – mobility is the most important consideration likely to inhibit the use of a-Si:H for upcoming AMLCD commercial applications because that mobility is inadequate for the higher anticipated refresh rates required for future products and limits the ability to reduce TFT size"

From the above it would appear that about 10 years ago the switch from 60Hz to 120Hz LCD coincided with a switch from aSi TFT to LTPS. IGZO may be the future but the mobility is not as good as LTPS.

....

Notice in your source they say the light shows up in the top left. Because the gun does have to raster over the entire screen and this takes time. For 120 Hz, this means 8.3 ms from the top left to bottom right. My question is, does the GFX card 'lock-in' a complete frame or can it change the contents of a frame, say, half way through? If your game engine and USB poll rate operate at 500 hz, then you can update the game logic 4 times during a single frame draw. So can your in-game action change the bottom of the frame? I don't think so, I think the GFX card locks in a frame at a time. But then what about screen tearing? Just a sync issue, I don't think it's an actual sub-frame update.

My simplified model that ignores latency in the mouse sensors/buttons: With mouse and game engine at 500 Hz, on average you will have 1 ms of delay (half the period). Assuming the gfx card can assemble a frame within this 1ms of time, and the screen gets drawn on a 120 Hz CRT: You are looking at the middle of the screen so half the 8.33 ms raster time = 4.17 ms. So the average lag for a 500 Hz game engine and 120Hz CRT is 5.2 ms?

LCD can use higher refresh rates. At 240 Hz, the screen gets drawn in only 4.17 ms. Half of this is 2.1 ms, plus the 1 ms from the game engine is 3.1 ms. But, now we have to add the TFT carrier mobility lag and the liquid crystal rotation lag. What are these numbers? Let's say 2 ms combined for the cutting edge technology. So you are back up to 5.1 ms.

From this we can assume 240 Hz LCD = 120 Hz CRT in performance. But, the LCD switching lag is dependent on color, right? So the CRT will be more consistent, so I think 120Hz CRT still wins.

If you read my crazy rant, have a cookie.

I think we need John Carmack to answer these questions of lag because he worked on reducing latency for VR headsets so he's probably familiar with the entire chain from mouse to eyeball.

For the best LCDs: Image processing is mostly solved problem so tied CRT here(source?)

I don't have a source for this off-hand either. It would be cool if you could find one, but I imagine decoding and processing the digital signal (which is packetized in the case of DisplayPort) would take longer than the nanoseconds of the CRT, but it's probably still negligible.

(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_Time_Compensation).

Originally, Overdrive added some input lag, because it probably had to "calculate" how much to overdrive the pixel voltage by, but this might not be true anymore.

My question is, does the GFX card 'lock-in' a complete frame or can it change the contents of a frame, say, half way through?

Even back in the VGA days, you could write to the video buffer in the middle of the display's scanout so that more than one "frame" was visible at once, and people playing Quake 1 with very high FPS can have multiple tear lines, for example. The graphics card can change what frame it is outputting at any time regardless of what the monitor is doing. That's why screen tearing happens, and v-sync, g-sync, freesync, etc are used to fix that.

My simplified model that ignores latency in the mouse sensors/buttons: With mouse and game engine at 500 Hz...

It should only be necessary to compare the lag introduced by the monitor given that everything else will be the same, right?
Well, okay, it might actually be different here if the frame rate of the game is capped according to the type of display.
It gets complicated and is gonna depend on the coding of the game.

Also, my last CRT was capable of 160Hz, and that's what I ran it at.
Again, probably ignoring some small factor to keep things simple:
Average scanout lag for 160Hz CRT is 3.125ms.
Average scanout lag for 240Hz LCD is 2.083ms.
That's 1.042ms in favour of the LCD, so we can suggest that for LCD to win, its pixel response time + signal processing time must not be greater than this.

Either way, I don't use a CRT anymore. :D
New cards don't even have the proper outputs, and an adapter might even add its own lag.

Interesting about the mid-draw video buffer update. I will have to read more.

Yes I don't know for sure about the processing. Modern OLED panels have the power of a good phone SoC, which is basically a whole computer so it can't be too hard to do the computations quickly, even if the algorithms are trash. But maybe I'm wrong.

Yes I made it more complicated than needed just to point out the game engine may make a difference and there's more to the lag question than just the display. Maybe this is something people are aware and I needn't point it out but I personally am not sure about the entire chain, hence my last paragraph. It requires immense specialty to learn the whole thing from mouse button latch debouncing to semiconductor physics to coding standards. Toss in things like VRR and as you mention the signal itself through the cable (HDMI vs DP) it's a real headache. But this is OT I agree.

Also, there's the nvidia "pre-rendered" frames setting, which is now called 'low-latency mode'.

For quality HDMI/DVI->VGA DAC see this page: http://junkerhq.net/xrgb/index.php?title=Anal...s_for_OSSC

Like I said, those retro gaming guys are nuts. The OSSC upscales 240p analog to 1080p digital essentially laglessly.

I still use 120 Hz CRT with a 980 Ti, the last of the built-in DAC cards. In your case with 160 Hz, the CRT was probably unbeatable by any other technology so you downgraded for sure. But 2 or 3 ms is not a big deal, era of LCD is here? Mark OP question as answered. Well, except for lousy viewing angles, inconsistent pixel refresh, poor colors and contrast. Shame about CRTs

Nice video on this subject worth watching, I think they did a good job with the technical execution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA

Which flat monitor for Quake but also with good blacks (no backlight) so you can watch a movie would you recommend?

I have the XG2401, good input lag but horrible colors.

I've got the impression you are quite picky when it comes to monitors. Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt what is good enough for me would be good enough for you. :P

That said, I don't think there is any flat monitor yet that truly combines the best of both worlds (image quality and performance). Maybe I'm not up to date.

Maybe you just need two monitors. That's pretty common these days. Play competitive games on your current one and have another one for movies and photos and things like that.

I don't have the space for 2 monitors unfortunately. Someone recommended this:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/tuf-gaming-vg259qm

Looks cool, I just don't like that it says "TUF GAMING", im too old for that.

Yeah, unfortunately, that sort of thing tends to come with the territory of peripherals made for gaming.

That's the monitor I was going to recommend to you, someone beat me to it.

Yo is it possible to remove the TUF GAMING stuff? can I buy some asus sticker or something?

It looks like those words are only on the stand. If so, you could buy whatever vesa stand you want. https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Free-Standing...07Q79ZZJ6/

Interesting. However not sure if changing it for some chinese default stand will introducevibrations/wooblyness. I think im going to wait 2021. Is there any competing monitors coming in this field?

The main problems is black colors are garbage. Input lag is tolerable on my Viewsonic.Backlight isnt.

Remember a little over ten years ago when SED monitors were going to rock our world? All the good aspects of CRTs (and even better contrast) in the form factor of a TFT.
And then the joint venture developing it just stopped due to licensing quabbles. Pft.

Yes I remember that.

I think the next display tech to come out will be µLED. This is a good review paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-020-0341-9

"We believe in the upcoming years OLED and mLED-LCD technologies will actively accompanying mainstream LCDs. In the not-too-distant future, mLED/µLED emissive displays will gradually move towards the central stage."

For truly RGB emissive displays we have OLED already (though some OLED panels are not truly RGB emissive and simply use a blue LED converted to white light by a phosphor to shine white light through a single LCD pixel, think a panel where each pixel is its own LCD, kind of cheating, see Fig 1c of the paper) and µLED is potentially the future. Emissive µLED are inorganic LEDs that you look (almost) directly at when watching the TV (see Fig1a).

"On the other hand, µLED microdisplays have fulfilled all the requirements of a high luminance (>10,000,000 cd/m), a high ppi (>5000), a fast MPRT [pixel response time], low power and a long lifetime."

Disclaimer: I work in a research group that does III-V µLED research but I myself work on photodetectors so I'm not 100% up to speed on this subject.

My 240hz acer is pretty good, colors still shit compared to my crt though.

I decided against getting the LG 48CX. Too many compromises to be of any use as a monitor for coding/gaming. Not getting another crappy/overpriced LCD, though.