Help me understand please!

[ShoshinUK]

Ok so I recently wen't on a crazy buying spree, to find my 'perfect' monitor.

I only game on PC so nothing else really matters, to keep it simple.

 

My biggest concern was input lag, of my whole system. My issue was I didn't really understand input lag and response time (GTG) relationship to my results in FPS games. (I have read some of our own articles and found them very helpful).

So a friend recommended this as a test.
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

 

Having used it to test 3 monitors I can say it seems accurate, and consistent. I could measure the difference between ethernet and WIFI in terms of time to react from a visual stimulus to mouse button press very well. I could also see my low input lag ROG Swift perform better than my (still fast) new 32 Asus VA panel.

Whats peoples thought on this test, does it make sense for what I want to understand better?

[Platypus_90]

The biggest variable in this test is you, as far as i can see. So unless you do, say, a hundred or so repetitions on each set-up, you cannot draw conclusions from it in respect to your monitor. Of course the rest of the system you use mustn't change.

[WereCat]

That test measures your reaction time, not monitor capabilities

[ShoshinUK]

2 hours ago, Platypus_90 said:

The biggest variable in this test is you, as far as i can see. So unless you do, say, a hundred or so repetitions on each set-up, you cannot draw conclusions from it in respect to your monitor. Of course the rest of the system you use mustn't change.

Yes understood, I have run 10 sets of 5 on all my tests. Far from perfect, but I then take away the 5 highest and 5 lowest results etc and average the rest. 

[ShoshinUK]

4 hours ago, WereCat said:

That test measures your reaction time, not monitor capabilities

Yes but it does so by measuring a visual stimulus to mouse click.

If all things remain constant, of course I am still a variable but I have to say it seems spot on if I keep the test environment sensible.

For example, I tested using WIFI and then using cat5e cable. A clear 40ms difference was shown as a constant.

[ShoshinUK]

just a little bump up  to see any more interest in this

 

[Glenwing]

10 hours ago, ShoshinUK said:

Yes but it does so by measuring a visual stimulus to mouse click.

If all things remain constant, of course I am still a variable but I have to say it seems spot on if I keep the test environment sensible.

For example, I tested using WIFI and then using cat5e cable. A clear 40ms difference was shown as a constant.

You are experiencing a placebo, the test never communicates over the internet. You need internet to load the website but the test itself is performed locally. The browser, having downloaded the instructions on how to perform the test (by loading the page), changes the color of the box and records the time, then waits for a mouse click and records the time again. It's not sending your click to a server or anything, and the color change of the box isn't being directed by a server.

 

The latency of the monitor and equipment do affect the test slightly, but the internet connection has no part at all.

[ShoshinUK]

3 hours ago, Glenwing said:

You are experiencing a placebo, the test never communicates over the internet. You need internet to load the website but the test itself is performed locally. The browser, having downloaded the instructions on how to perform the test (by loading the page), changes the color of the box and records the time, then waits for a mouse click and records the time again. It's not sending your click to a server or anything, and the color change of the box isn't being directed by a server.

 

The latency of the monitor and equipment do affect the test slightly, but the internet connection has no part at all.

now this is fascinating, I understand what your saying and will test again to see if I can experience the placebo again!

I will also get my 8 year old daughter to run the tests, she has no idea of cable or WIFI being different so let's see what that turns out like.

[Aphala]

Input lag is severely overblown, anything from 5ms > 1ms is fine. Never worry about it unless you buy an 6ms > 10ms  monitor that's when you'll see a determinable difference between them. I've gamed on my 7ms old old old monitor and now run 4k 1ms and it's quite a different feel. 

[ShoshinUK]

9 hours ago, Aphala said:

Input lag is severely overblown, anything from 5ms > 1ms is fine. Never worry about it unless you buy an 6ms > 10ms  monitor that's when you'll see a determinable difference between them. I've gamed on my 7ms old old old monitor and now run 4k 1ms and it's quite a different feel. 

Hi do you mean response time (GTG) as opposed to input lag?

The fastest monitors seem to have around 10ms input lag, with 1ms response time (GTG) and are 144hz plus refresh rate. I think these 3 factors combined give a real indication of the monitors realistic overall performance.