Main > Driving & Racing Cabinets
CRT Vs LCD for driving cabs
dkersten:
Great responses! :cheers:
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony on October 02, 2014, 08:55:35 am ---if you look at the link to the LB tester it clearly says that it measures "input lag + response time". Considering how the lag tester works it'd be impossible for it to NOT include response time because it can only see what the dispaly outputs and the output is limited by the response time.
--- End quote ---
Which is why panel type would be so important.. there can be a 10-20ms difference from a TN to an IPS, so on those PC monitors, it could triple the overall latency.
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony ---You're right that different display technologies generally have different response times but that's inconsequential to the lag listings in the database because, again, the response time is included in the lag numbers.
--- End quote ---
True, but I would think anyone interested in "nuts and bolts" like this would like to see WHY one brand might be higher.. is it because of slow processors or because of the screen they use? If you are making decisions based on latency, you could be sacrificing picture quality, and in the case of big screen games like DDR, off axis viewing would be just as important as response time. Knowing the screen type (which in some cases can be the cause of the majority of the total lag) will also let you know that a particular manufacturer might use slower processors, so for models not listed, you would know to avoid the IPS versions of that model if you want lower latency. It might be splitting hairs, but if I am going to use a website for specific performance specs on a device, I want to know the key contributing factors, not just the overall results.
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony ---HDMI and DVI (D) are the same protocol, you can use a straight through connector to change one plug end to the other and neither the display nor the source device knows the difference.
--- End quote ---
True again, but the point is, there are other processors involved when using HDMI vs DVI, for breaking out audio signal and copy protection, etc. A monitor with a DVI (D) input won't have all that, and hence the input lag will be (theoretically) lower. By not having the ability to test outside of HDMI, including computer monitors (particularly ones that use a pure DVI input with an HDMI connector for compatibility and not for full HDMI spec) is not a "fair" fight. Of course the monitors will have lower latency, they don't have those extra processors.
I want to reiterate that as a site to determine the best TV to use with a PC in a gaming environment, this is a great site. It just misses the mark in determining what a good gaming monitor is.
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony ---I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.
--- End quote ---
Frankly without reading the entire site, I thought this was half of what the site was for - video enthusiasts looking for the info on how to set their audio sync. That and for people wanting to hook an x-box to their tv.
--- Quote ---It's also worth noting that while the FPS community prefers PC, consoles are still the preferred platform for fighting games and as of right now there aren't any consoles that support display ports or this g-sync technology. (seems very promising I'd be interested in trying it out myself).
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---It seems to me that you're into FPSs and that's cool but that's not the end-all be-all of high precision gaming. There are many many places in the modern gaming world where low lag is very important.
--- End quote ---
To be completely honest, I have always viewed consoles as "for kids", and I have never even considered them as serious competitive gaming devices. I have been to a few events for "extreme gaming" and it is always either PC based, or arcade based (ie Big Buck). I didn't even know that console games had any kind of professional gaming leagues. I am not into FPS, but of every genre I have played, it is the only one where I have seen that things like input lag, refresh speed, ghosting, screen tearing, and overall frame rate are actually important. I myself was planning to purchase a G-Sync monitor back in April when the ROG was supposed to come out, and I might eventually get into the technology, I just no longer even play FPS games casually (or any game where a few milliseconds will make a difference or where I needed a powerhouse video card to play without stutters or screen tears) so it is no longer a priority.
When I spent a few days really boning up on G-sync, Lightboost, Free-Sync, and all the technology associated with trying to get LCD's to perform like the high end CRT's of old, everything I read was geared toward competitive FPS gaming. I have been to PAX and watched live world championships of LoL, I have heard of QuakeCon, and I have even competed in Big Buck tournaments at the bars around town, but I have never heard of competitive DDR, or even tournaments with console games. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just have never traveled in those circles, or even met someone who is involved. In all the years of gaming, both hardcore and casually, competitive gaming has always been synonymous with PC's. The last time I heard of console competition was the movie "the wizard", lol.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 01, 2014, 03:31:12 pm ---Also, not one single game I play will stretch and distort. If it is a 4:3 game, it plays in a 4:3 window and just doesn't use the extra screen.
--- End quote ---
If you're unfamiliar with that gaming hardware it's not a CRT arcade game, it's hardware that was designed to run in 720P on a Wide-screen LCD... and most of the games I plan on playing are Fighting Games (such as Blaz Blue and Street Fighter IV)... as well as SHMUPs (such as GigaWing Generations and Raiden IV) which is why I want a low-lag wide-screen LCD to go with it.... I don't know where you got the idea that I'll be playing "pac-man" on this screen
--- End quote ---
Actually, in the post immediately prior to that one, you said:
--- Quote ---Personally if I'm playing a game that was meant to be played in 4:3 and it's being stretched to fit a widescreen display, it's distracting to me, I can't lose myself in the game because my mind keeps concentrating on all the visual flaws caused by screen stretching... the same thing happens to me when there is some kind of weird border around the screen to fill in the gap for a smaller sized display... it's not something I WANT to pay attention too but it's something my mind can't help but latch on to and it prevents me from simply enjoying the game.
--- End quote ---
I assumed that your newer comments were an extension of this topic, which is why I was saying that 4:3 games don't stretch to wide mode on any mame game that I have ever played. The black bars on each side are the same color as my bezels, so I don't ever notice them, and I only see the 4:3 screen.
I also assumed that since you posted in this thread, you were making another argument for why LCD's are not as good as CRT's in arcade type games. In my case, I didn't use a fast 32" monitor on my last cab, and I really don't know what the latency is, yet it still didn't affect my ability to play and enjoy it. Granted, I am not a competitor in any kind of professional cyber athlete league, but then neither is anyone on this forum that I know of.
--- Quote ---You don't need to spend $800 on a bleeding etch G-Sync display along with the PC hardware to support. as you can see on the DisplayLag website there are quite a few "pretty good" monitors with less than 1 frame of lag that can be had for under $200. I only shared it because it's a pretty good guide help you select your next LCD... if you were planning on getting just a 32" whatever for your machine would you rather get the 26ms lag monitor for $200 or the 87ms lag monitor for $200? the decision at that point is pretty easy and it's an excellent resource for those kinds of decisions.
--- End quote ---
Usually when there is a noticeable discrepancy in any one area of technology, whether it be latency, picture quality, or build quality, there is also a noticeable discrepancy in price. It is rare that you can find any one product that outperforms another in any drastic way for the same price unless there are tradeoffs in other areas. I bought that 32" LCD because it was $220, local, and 1080p. To find those criteria in something while also having 4x lower latency is simply not going to happen. But even so, I would probably never notice the difference when playing pac man or even when playing Street Fighter.
I completely agree that when all other things are equal, pick the product with the best specs. And I don't disagree that using good components is a good idea whenever you can afford to. But I have adopted the philosophy that if you are going to focus on performance in any part of a system, it is a complete waste of time if you aren't going to follow through with it on the entire system, unless that one part you are focusing on is the "weak link". I don't see input lag as the weak link in a gaming system, unless that system is specifically designed for competition, in which case every other area where latency can be lowered would be just as critical. The guy that has a basic desktop computer but took the time to pick out the lowest latency monitor because it is best for competition is the same guy who puts a spoiler on a stock Honda so it will perform better on the track or the guy who buys the $400 running shoes because they are the ones that the Olympic sprinters use (even if he only goes for a walk once a week).
The weak link in competitive gaming is the player. You said in your first post about lag that a person can only react so fast (20ms). The thing is, a talented player who has spent many hours training to react can take advantage of better technology, whereas the average person probably can't react even a tenth as fast. Unless you are a trained "cyber athlete", you probably will never notice or be able to take advantage of a lower latency monitor.
Finally, while I don't disagree that finding the lowest latency monitor is good (as long as it fits all your other criteria, including budget), I have to point out something about competition. You don't gain an edge when everyone else is using the same hardware. In fact, if you train on superior hardware and all other things are equal, if you end up competing against someone who has trained on the hardware you will compete on, you lose your advantage. If every player has to deal with an extra 10ms of latency, the playing field is still equal, and the player is the only difference. At the very outermost extremity of competition, where both players are limited in their ability because of the hardware (and the competition is a draw in every respect), improving the hardware will allow one player to be superior to the other. But in the end, it isn't the car that wins the race, it is the driver.
twistedsymphony:
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 12:00:13 pm ---... I would think anyone interested in "nuts and bolts" like this would like to see WHY one brand might be higher.. is it because of slow processors or because of the screen they use? If you are making decisions based on latency, you could be sacrificing picture quality, and in the case of big screen games like DDR, off axis viewing would be just as important as response time. Knowing the screen type (which in some cases can be the cause of the majority of the total lag) will also let you know that a particular manufacturer might use slower processors, so for models not listed, you would know to avoid the IPS versions of that model if you want lower latency. It might be splitting hairs, but if I am going to use a website for specific performance specs on a device, I want to know the key contributing factors, not just the overall results.
--- End quote ---
That's a good point and I totally agree. I don't believe that low-lag should be the one and only factor that drives your purchase but I think a resource like displaylag.com gives you a good starting point to find the displays that are better in that regard and weed out the displays that are worse. and then once you have a few candidates you can select your display based on the total feature set that best fits your needs.
For instance the cabinet I'm putting together calls for a 32" LCD... so once I found that site I filtered down to the 32" displays they had listed, then took down the model number and read up on reviews and opinions and prices on those displays before I bought one .... it gave me a starting point to work from.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 12:00:13 pm ---By not having the ability to test outside of HDMI, including computer monitors (particularly ones that use a pure DVI input with an HDMI connector for compatibility and not for full HDMI spec) is not a "fair" fight. Of course the monitors will have lower latency, they don't have those extra processors.
--- End quote ---
I think that part of the decision to only test via HDMI at 1080p is that is arguably the most common setup and it ensures that all displays are being tested in the same exact way. I absolutely agree that there is benefit to utilizing other input types like unencrypted DVI, VGA and Display Port, but realistically those are all different lag readings... there are enough differences in the signal format alone that you can't fairly compare say VGA lag on one display to DisplayPort lag on another.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 12:00:13 pm ---I want to reiterate that as a site to determine the best TV to use with a PC in a gaming environment, this is a great site. It just misses the mark in determining what a good gaming monitor is.
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony ---I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.
--- End quote ---
Frankly without reading the entire site, I thought this was half of what the site was for - video enthusiasts looking for the info on how to set their audio sync. That and for people wanting to hook an x-box to their tv.
--- End quote ---
I would encourage you to contact the guy who runs it, I personally had a few ideas for making it better that I was planning on contacting him about.
Somewhere on his site he mentions that his point in creating the site is to help bring to light the lag problems that a lot of displays have and hopefully encourage display manufacturers to start properly listing those specs and working to improve that aspect of their displays... which is something I can personally get behind.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 12:00:13 pm ---To be completely honest, I have always viewed consoles as "for kids", and I have never even considered them as serious competitive gaming devices. I have been to a few events for "extreme gaming" and it is always either PC based, or arcade based (ie Big Buck). I didn't even know that console games had any kind of professional gaming leagues. I am not into FPS, but of every genre I have played, it is the only one where I have seen that things like input lag, refresh speed, ghosting, screen tearing, and overall frame rate are actually important. I myself was planning to purchase a G-Sync monitor back in April when the ROG was supposed to come out, and I might eventually get into the technology, I just no longer even play FPS games casually (or any game where a few milliseconds will make a difference or where I needed a powerhouse video card to play without stutters or screen tears) so it is no longer a priority.
When I spent a few days really boning up on G-sync, Lightboost, Free-Sync, and all the technology associated with trying to get LCD's to perform like the high end CRT's of old, everything I read was geared toward competitive FPS gaming. I have been to PAX and watched live world championships of LoL, I have heard of QuakeCon, and I have even competed in Big Buck tournaments at the bars around town, but I have never heard of competitive DDR, or even tournaments with console games. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just have never traveled in those circles, or even met someone who is involved. In all the years of gaming, both hardcore and casually, competitive gaming has always been synonymous with PC's. The last time I heard of console competition was the movie "the wizard", lol.
--- End quote ---
A big part of the reason consoles are the preferred platform for Fighting games is because it ensures that there is no variation... a PS3 is a PS3 is a PS3, it always renders at the same resolution and frame rate, where as a with a PC you can have vastly different specs that cause the game to function differently depending on the hardware configuration. Controllers/Joysticks need to be approved for use so the only real opportunity gamers have to improve the hardware they're using is in the display (and headphones). The EVO fighting game tournament is every year in August... you should check it out next year if you have a chance, they usually have 3 or 4 twitch streams to cover the whole 3-day competition http://shoryuken.com/category/evo-2/
Competitive DDR, SHMUPs and other modern arcade games is always based on arcade hardware, but due to the extreme cost of owning an actual DDR machine many competitors buy only the PCB to train on with the rest using homebuilt equipment, so finding stuff that is as close to the arcade as possible is the most important to them. A lot of those games aren't big in the US though, which is why you might not be as familiar with them.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 01, 2014, 03:31:12 pm ---I assumed that your newer comments were an extension of this topic, which is why I was saying that 4:3 games don't stretch to wide mode on any mame game that I have ever played. The black bars on each side are the same color as my bezels, so I don't ever notice them, and I only see the 4:3 screen.
I also assumed that since you posted in this thread, you were making another argument for why LCD's are not as good as CRT's in arcade type games.
--- End quote ---
This thread started because I was advocating that you should pick the "right display for the job", stating that if you had an original arcade cabinet designed for a large 4:3 CRT... you should replace it with a 4:3 display because a 16:9 simply wont fit without some significant compromise. That discussion had ended about a month ago... then someone bumped it and having recently discovered displaylag.com while searching for an LCD (to play games designed for an LCD). I thought it was an appropriate place to share.
if you look at the dates you'll see that despite my posts only being a few posts apart they are actually a month apart time wise.... so if you just recently found this thread I can see why you might have been confused.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 01, 2014, 03:31:12 pm --- In my case, I didn't use a fast 32" monitor on my last cab, and I really don't know what the latency is, yet it still didn't affect my ability to play and enjoy it. Granted, I am not a competitor in any kind of professional cyber athlete league, but then neither is anyone on this forum that I know of.
Usually when there is a noticeable discrepancy in any one area of technology, whether it be latency, picture quality, or build quality, there is also a noticeable discrepancy in price. It is rare that you can find any one product that outperforms another in any drastic way for the same price unless there are tradeoffs in other areas. I bought that 32" LCD because it was $220, local, and 1080p. To find those criteria in something while also having 4x lower latency is simply not going to happen. But even so, I would probably never notice the difference when playing pac man or even when playing Street Fighter.
--- End quote ---
You'd be surprised. once you start playing "2D" or "2.5D" (as is the case with most modern fighting game) with even a passing level of proficiency you'll start to notice the effects of display lag. Maybe not directly but I can regularly score over 100,000 in Donkey Kong on my emulation cabinet running an Arcade CRT. but playing that same game with the same PC hardware with an PC LCD (over VGA) I'm lucky if I can break 40,000 because the game is just "harder" all of the windows of opportunity to make jumps and avoid obstacles are shortened by the lag caused by the display....
The lag isn't noticeable but it's enough that puts you off your game. I've seen fighting game players have the opposite problem, they're used to playing on a laggy display and when they get to competition and using a really fast monitor they get destroyed because so much of fighting games is predicting what your opponent is going to do and if your prediction is executed too EARLY it ends up costing you.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 01, 2014, 03:31:12 pm ---I completely agree that when all other things are equal, pick the product with the best specs. And I don't disagree that using good components is a good idea whenever you can afford to. But I have adopted the philosophy that if you are going to focus on performance in any part of a system, it is a complete waste of time if you aren't going to follow through with it on the entire system, unless that one part you are focusing on is the "weak link". I don't see input lag as the weak link in a gaming system, unless that system is specifically designed for competition, in which case every other area where latency can be lowered would be just as critical. The guy that has a basic desktop computer but took the time to pick out the lowest latency monitor because it is best for competition is the same guy who puts a spoiler on a stock Honda so it will perform better on the track or the guy who buys the $400 running shoes because they are the ones that the Olympic sprinters use (even if he only goes for a walk once a week).
--- End quote ---
I agree, however when you're talking about competitive gaming on console or arcade it's not about having "better" hardware it's about having the "right hardware" there's nothing you can do to improve the performance of your Xbox, and you're limited to only a handful of approved controllers... so when you're picking a display you'd be best served to find one with lag that matches the monitor you're going to be using once you get to competition.
dkersten:
I don't disagree with you for the most part, I just don't completely agree with your philosophy or the importance you put behind the conclusions you have come to. It isn't anything personal, so I hope you don't take it as such. Since being here I have ended up in 3 different discussions regarding the benefits of "superior" monitors in arcade gaming, and I just don't buy into it. I used to, and I spent the money to stand behind my beliefs, but looking back I realize that it was a whole lot of "benchmarking" without much (if any) "real life" benefit.
I could continue to discuss the minutia of latency in displays, but I think it is a moot point. When it comes down to it, TV's don't make good gaming monitors, and this site spends a lot of time proving that.
Bottom line is I just don't feel (based on somewhat extensive experience with the technology and with gaming) that the input lag of your display is making that much of a difference in your ability to play the game and get enjoyment out of it. I am far from a pro in any game, but I am usually in the top half of any group I play with or against, and I just haven't spotted a difference between a game played on a decent computer monitor with low latency vs a game played on a television screen. There are too many other "weak links" in a system to worry about something this minor.
If you can find a "better" monitor with all other things being equal (including price) because of your research on this site, then I applaud you. Usually, as I said before, it is rare if not impossible to find two products at the same price point with the same set of features and specs that are drastically different in just one area. Typically if you are finding a TV with monitor-like latency, you are paying a premium for that or you are losing out on other qualities.
I hope whatever you pick out works well for you. I'll stick to the $220 model with the 3/8" bezel and 1080p resolution that I can buy locally, at least for an arcade monitor.
twistedsymphony:
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 06:10:54 pm ---I don't disagree with you for the most part, I just don't completely agree with your philosophy or the importance you put behind the conclusions you have come to. It isn't anything personal, so I hope you don't take it as such. Since being here I have ended up in 3 different discussions regarding the benefits of "superior" monitors in arcade gaming, and I just don't buy into it. I used to, and I spent the money to stand behind my beliefs, but looking back I realize that it was a whole lot of "benchmarking" without much (if any) "real life" benefit.
--- End quote ---
My desire for a low lag display comes from personal frustration with playing games on high lag displays if I'm not enjoying my time playing a game then there's no point in playing it.
I'm not sure what you think my "philosophy" is but the whole discussion of lag in this thread was me simply saying "hey guys, there's a nice resource you can use to help pick out a display".... nothing more, nothing less.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 06:10:54 pm ---I could continue to discuss the minutia of latency in displays, but I think it is a moot point. When it comes down to it, TV's don't make good gaming monitors, and this site spends a lot of time proving that.
--- End quote ---
I completely agree, however once you go above 27" "monitors" become prohibitively expensive and the only reasonably priced options are HDTVs... my goal with look at lag is NOT to find "the best display" but rather to find the one that "sucks the least" within my price range and size requirements.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 06:10:54 pm ---Bottom line is I just don't feel (based on somewhat extensive experience with the technology and with gaming) that the input lag of your display is making that much of a difference in your ability to play the game and get enjoyment out of it. I am far from a pro in any game, but I am usually in the top half of any group I play with or against, and I just haven't spotted a difference between a game played on a decent computer monitor with low latency vs a game played on a television screen. There are too many other "weak links" in a system to worry about something this minor.
--- End quote ---
I don't don't think you've ever played on a truly terrible display with over 100ms of display lag. it's rage inducing almost immediately... my only goal with looking at lag when selecting a display is to try to avoid this.... if you don't think there are displays that bad, then go look at that database and sort it to show the highest lag displays first... trust me, when the screen is a 1/10th of a second behind most games become unplayable.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 06:10:54 pm ---If you can find a "better" monitor with all other things being equal (including price) because of your research on this site, then I applaud you. Usually, as I said before, it is rare if not impossible to find two products at the same price point with the same set of features and specs that are drastically different in just one area. Typically if you are finding a TV with monitor-like latency, you are paying a premium for that or you are losing out on other qualities.
--- End quote ---
I completely disagree... with PC monitors you might be paying a premium for low lag, but with HDTVs it seems to be the complete opposite. The cheap, bare-bones TVs seem to be the fastest ones because they don't have any video processing crap slowing it down. Manufacturers strip out all of the features that are designed to "enhance" the image quality, features they charge a premium for... and as a result it's the expensive models that are slow because they're loaded with lag inducing processing.
--- Quote from: dkersten on October 02, 2014, 06:10:54 pm ---I hope whatever you pick out works well for you. I'll stick to the $220 model with the 3/8" bezel and 1080p resolution that I can buy locally, at least for an arcade monitor.
--- End quote ---
To go along with my previous point I bought a Samsung UN32EH4003... it's the lowest lag 32" display listed on displaylag.com at 26ms.. and it's also one of the cheapest 32" display I could find at only $200 new. I didn't base it on lag alone, I looked at the 10 lowest lag monitors listed there, the Samsung was not only the lowest lag but also the cheapest, and I read reviews from other gamers who had used it. I'm sure if I wanted to spend $600 I could get an 8ms "monitor" but as I said before... I'm just looking for the display the sucks the least and fits my size requirement and price range.
TipsyMcStagger:
--- Quote from: twistedsymphony on October 01, 2014, 11:13:27 am ---I recently started putting together a dedicated LCD cabinet (Vewlix clone) for Taito Type X and other modern games... I wanted to make sure I was using something with as low lag as possible. and I found this great site: http://displaylag.com/
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the link. I picked up a couple of Asus MX279H for my driving cab partially based on them being the best fit but also decent specs. Very happy to see them up the top of the list :applaud: Hopefully i'll have the L2M2 boards sorted soon and get my cab up and running.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version