EF9500 or EG9600 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 06:53 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 5
EF9500 or EG9600

It's been over a year of research, of waiting for price drops, flat screens and yet I'm still not sure what to go with.

Bottom line I'm looking at 2 (3) models.

I thought I loved the flat screen, that it was super important to me, until a sales guy at ABT (local big box electronic) showed me something on the difference between curved and flat. I found that my eyes actually had an easier time looking at the curved from different viewing angles than the flat. That glare was reduced in the curved, and heightened in the flat. Since I'm not wall mounting I'm now debating, is all the flat hate born out of a resistance to change?

I know curved isn't well-liked by lots of TV reviewers and many people on this forum, I guess I'm curious if some people agree, or notice a difference in the 'feeling' of their eyes.

To that end it's either the EG9600 (curved) or the EF9500 (flat). I love the look of WebOS and LG's magic remote. I love the idea and look of OLED and I love the look of these two TV models.

I've also been looking for input lag results. Asking on these forums and doing my own research. Bottom line, the best LG is going to be able to do is 40ms. I'm a gamer and that's a rather sizable thorn in my side. In moseys the Samsung JU7500, a standard LED with a lag input of 23ms.

So here I am, still leaning on LG. With the question of do I get the 55 or shove out the extra cash for the 65 (even though the 55 will probably be big enough and I shouldn't spend the extra dough)...

Help me Obi-AVS, you're my only hope.

Always grateful for your consideration.

Last edited by Jschwim; 11-05-2015 at 07:10 AM.
Jschwim is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
The bottom line as I see it is that if 40ms is important to you, you are serious about lag.

And if you are THAT serious about lag, you won't ever likely adjust and be happy with it while gaming.

Therefore, DON'T buy OLED now. I used to play UT99 endlessly, so I understand how razor sharp awareness can build within a person. If you put lag in the middle of that, given how you've presented things, I'd say that no way will you be happy with 40.

Best guess I can offer you given your first post.
robert9674 likes this.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #3 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 09:36 AM
Senior Member
 
donaldm823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jschwim View Post
It's been over a year of research, of waiting for price drops, flat screens and yet I'm still not sure what to go with.

Bottom line I'm looking at 2 (3) models.

I thought I loved the flat screen, that it was super important to me, until a sales guy at ABT (local big box electronic) showed me something on the difference between curved and flat. I found that my eyes actually had an easier time looking at the curved from different viewing angles than the flat. That glare was reduced in the curved, and heightened in the flat. Since I'm not wall mounting I'm now debating, is all the flat hate born out of a resistance to change?

I know curved isn't well-liked by lots of TV reviewers and many people on this forum, I guess I'm curious if some people agree, or notice a difference in the 'feeling' of their eyes.

To that end it's either the EG9600 (curved) or the EF9500 (flat). I love the look of WebOS and LG's magic remote. I love the idea and look of OLED and I love the look of these two TV models.

I've also been looking for input lag results. Asking on these forums and doing my own research. Bottom line, the best LG is going to be able to do is 40ms. I'm a gamer and that's a rather sizable thorn in my side. In moseys the Samsung JU7500, a standard LED with a lag input of 23ms.

So here I am, still leaning on LG. With the question of do I get the 55 or shove out the extra cash for the 65 (even though the 55 will probably be big enough and I shouldn't spend the extra dough)...

Help me Obi-AVS, you're my only hope.
I had a similar decision but only because my new 9600 failed and I was getting a free replacement. I have found with my new 65EF9500, that the picture is brighter and the colors more vivid. AND the 3D is much better than the EG9600. 3D depth is much greater and pops out of the screen better than most movie theaters. Also, the placement of my TV is in a large bookshelf/open hutch so the flat looks better. I also found the sweet spot to be broader so that two people watching TV from opposite sides perceive a sharper picture. Now the biggest reason is the the EF9500 is HDR compatible for all sources including the next Blue-Ray 4K via HDMI where as the EG9600 is HDR capable only from streaming sources from the web like Netflix & Amazon

Don
SW Florida area
LG 65EF9500 OLED
LG LAS751M sound bar
donaldm823 is offline  
post #4 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 12:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Buy the 9500 and then buy a 1ms monitor. Problem solved.
HiImBrandon is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 06:46 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
It depends on what kind of games you play and if it's on PC or console.
I am coming from a Sony 40W4000 which has really low input lag (at or below 20ms) and I now have an EC9300 with I believe about 35ms. I don't notice a difference.

Just some things to put the numbers in perspective:

The cumulative input lag of a video game EXCLUDING display lag is usually around 100ms. See here: displaylag.com/video-game-input-lag-database/
This is the time it takes the game to process an input, the input being transmitted from the controller to the console, taken into account by the game engine and finally the renderer drawing the image that contains the result of said input. So from button press to transmitting the image through HDMI, already around 100ms already pass.

The display lag is just added on top. So the difference in cumulative responsiveness between a 20ms TV and a 40ms TV is only about 16% (120 ms vs 140 ms). The 20ms TV doesn't feel twice as responsive as the 40ms one.

In my experience, input lag on console games isn't a big deal at all. Since they mostly have high internal input lag to begin with (often because they run at 30fps, and have vSync active), they are designed around the fact and give you some wiggle room, aim assist and so on. It is generally less noticeble on third-person games, sidescrolling jump'n'runs and similar games. It is a little more noticeable on first person shooters and driving games.

Even then, it's not that bad. The only way it will certainly bother you is if you want to use the TV as a PC monitor and play FPS games on it. In which case you should simply be buying a gaming monitor for your PC instead, since the TV can't do more than 75hz anyway.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 08:23 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
The bottom line as I see it is that if 40ms is important to you, you are serious about lag.

And if you are THAT serious about lag, you won't ever likely adjust and be happy with it while gaming.

Therefore, DON'T buy OLED now. I used to play UT99 endlessly, so I understand how razor sharp awareness can build within a person. If you put lag in the middle of that, given how you've presented things, I'd say that no way will you be happy with 40.

Best guess I can offer you given your first post.

True, though I'm currently playing on an older Samsung and I wonder if I haven't gotten used to 50ms or higher. I really want that OLED, I really do, but my instcints are saying it would be a bad decision for exactly the reasons you're pointing out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
It depends on what kind of games you play and if it's on PC or console.
I am coming from a Sony 40W4000 which has really low input lag (at or below 20ms) and I now have an EC9300 with I believe about 35ms. I don't notice a difference.

Just some things to put the numbers in perspective:

The cumulative input lag of a video game EXCLUDING display lag is usually around 100ms. See here: displaylag.com/video-game-input-lag-database/
This is the time it takes the game to process an input, the input being transmitted from the controller to the console, taken into account by the game engine and finally the renderer drawing the image that contains the result of said input. So from button press to transmitting the image through HDMI, already around 100ms already pass.

The display lag is just added on top. So the difference in cumulative responsiveness between a 20ms TV and a 40ms TV is only about 16% (120 ms vs 140 ms). The 20ms TV doesn't feel twice as responsive as the 40ms one.

In my experience, input lag on console games isn't a big deal at all. Since they mostly have high internal input lag to begin with (often because they run at 30fps, and have vSync active), they are designed around the fact and give you some wiggle room, aim assist and so on. It is generally less noticeble on third-person games, sidescrolling jump'n'runs and similar games. It is a little more noticeable on first person shooters and driving games.

Even then, it's not that bad. The only way it will certainly bother you is if you want to use the TV as a PC monitor and play FPS games on it. In which case you should simply be buying a gaming monitor for your PC instead, since the TV can't do more than 75hz anyway.
This is super reassuring. The EC does have an ms rate of around 35ms. Did you do the trick of renaming the input PC?

I think I'm going to pull the trigger on a 65 inch. But I'm back to curved or not curved. I'm torn there.

Always grateful for your consideration.
Jschwim is online now  
post #7 of 36 Old 11-05-2015, 09:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
I don't think renaming the input per se does anything, you simply have to select the PC preset in the input menu.

The 4k LG OLEDs have around 46ms input lag. Which, when looked at cumulatively, is about 20% less responsive than a 20ms TV. I think that's still totally acceptable and the increase of picture quality vs. an LCD more than makes up for the slight lag disadvantage.
If you can deal with having a 55" and don't care about 4k (which you shouldn't at this size), why not just get the EC9300 or EC9100? I think they're great for gaming and there will be good deals on those for the rest of the year.

As for the curve, I was put off by it at first, too. But now I don't even notice it, really. It's very subtle, and it actually helps with reflections in the screen.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #8 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 04:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,742
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 31
if you can go with a bigger size go with a bigger size don't doubt it

myself I prefer curves like our old CRT tubes.

skip 4k and if it has 3d on the curve version get it

you are not going to notice input lag from your console to the set
gus738 is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 05:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
I don't think renaming the input per se does anything, you simply have to select the PC preset in the input menu.

The 4k LG OLEDs have around 46ms input lag. Which, when looked at cumulatively, is about 20% less responsive than a 20ms TV. I think that's still totally acceptable and the increase of picture quality vs. an LCD more than makes up for the slight lag disadvantage.
If you can deal with having a 55" and don't care about 4k (which you shouldn't at this size), why not just get the EC9300 or EC9100? I think they're great for gaming and there will be good deals on those for the rest of the year.

As for the curve, I was put off by it at first, too. But now I don't even notice it, really. It's very subtle, and it actually helps with reflections in the screen.
I want to look at both in my home. I'm leaning curve now simply because I felt it in my eyes, yet there's all this curve hate on AVS, and major reviewers. Not sure if it's just what they grew up with and know, or there are legitimate reasons. The CNET review for the 65 curved EG said the curve made artifacts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gus738 View Post
if you can go with a bigger size go with a bigger size don't doubt it

myself I prefer curves like our old CRT tubes.

skip 4k and if it has 3d on the curve version get it

you are not going to notice input lag from your console to the set
Sorry I doubted you before on the input lag. Definitely going OLED then. I can go bigger, but that extra 2k, then sales tax really hurts... I suppose if I'm planning on keeping this tv for upwards of close to 10 years... I don't think I can skip 4k and get a 65 inch OLED from LG. They have a 1080p 55 version in the EC version, and I think there was an EA version too.

Always grateful for your consideration.
Jschwim is online now  
post #10 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 06:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,742
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 31
there is still concern weather current 4k displays will be good by the year 2020 because of the new uhd standards , 8K is already in the works.

I got a good feeling by the next 10 years it'll it'll be here
I and some believe 3d will be in in favor over uhD BD


,I mean come on man look at the market VHS barely phased out ,DVDs still somewhat / purchase compared to Blu rays in the modern age where internet and streaming is becoming less expensive

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u(r.i.p)Samsung 51f4500
XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 08:06 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
I don't think renaming the input per se does anything, you simply have to select the PC preset in the input menu.

The 4k LG OLEDs have around 46ms input lag. Which, when looked at cumulatively, is about 20% less responsive than a 20ms TV. I think that's still totally acceptable and the increase of picture quality vs. an LCD more than makes up for the slight lag disadvantage.
If you can deal with having a 55" and don't care about 4k (which you shouldn't at this size), why not just get the EC9300 or EC9100? I think they're great for gaming and there will be good deals on those for the rest of the year.

As for the curve, I was put off by it at first, too. But now I don't even notice it, really. It's very subtle, and it actually helps with reflections in the screen.
I want to look at both in my home. I'm leaning curve now simply because I felt it in my eyes, yet there's all this curve hate on AVS, and major reviewers. Not sure if it's just what they grew up with and know, or there are legitimate reasons. The CNET review for the 65 curved EG said the curve made artifacts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gus738 View Post
if you can go with a bigger size go with a bigger size don't doubt it

myself I prefer curves like our old CRT tubes.

skip 4k and if it has 3d on the curve version get it

you are not going to notice input lag from your console to the set
Sorry I doubted you before on the input lag. Definitely going OLED then. I can go bigger, but that extra 2k, then sales tax really hurts... I suppose if I'm planning on keeping this tv for upwards of close to 10 years... I don't think I can skip 4k and get a 65 inch OLED from LG. They have a 1080p 55 version in the EC version, and I think there was an EA version too.

Always grateful for your consideration.
Jschwim is online now  
post #12 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
The cumulative input lag of a video game EXCLUDING display lag is usually around 100ms. See here: displaylag.com/video-game-input-lag-database/
This is the time it takes the game to process an input, the input being transmitted from the controller to the console, taken into account by the game engine and finally the renderer drawing the image that contains the result of said input. So from button press to transmitting the image through HDMI, already around 100ms already pass.
1. I have no idea where you're getting this from, but that is completely incorrect. There is not a 1/10th of a second lag added to everything. If there were, games would be unplayable. I would not, for instance be able to zip my viewpoint back and forth quickly if there a 1/10th of a second delay from mouse move to image (outside of display lag).

2. Further, I have no clue why you'd use that displaylag link as proof of this. Have you ever written a program that operates in real time from external interfaces (such as a mouse or keyboard or joystick)? I have for decades. There is no 100ms processing overhead!

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
I don't think renaming the input per se does anything, you simply have to select the PC preset in the input menu.
Careful of this. As bizarre as it sounds, we've bumped into an LG model or two in the past that actually required a name change in order for the low processing game mode to kick in.

Stupid really. I don't have one to verify this myself, but it's been reported off and on around here.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 08:42 AM
Member
 
shayne54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Display lag does make a major difference. I bought a gaming monitor just for this reason. I remember when I first started playing COD on Xbox (MW2) with friends I couldn't figure out why I would lose most gunfights. I did a little research online and discovered "display lag". My setup at the time had my xbox running into my pioneer receiver (which was up-converting the signal) then into my old school CRT projection tv that was also processing the signal. Each time that signal was processed it added unnecessary display lag. Once I fixed the situation my game play experience was completely different.

If gaming is of high importance to you I would suggest gaming on a monitor. The best ones have display lag as low as 09ms. Hard to find a tv that will compete with that!
shayne54 is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 09:54 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
1. I have no idea where you're getting this from, but that is completely incorrect. There is not a 1/10th of a second lag added to everything. If there were, games would be unplayable. I would not, for instance be able to zip my viewpoint back and forth quickly if there a 1/10th of a second delay from mouse move to image (outside of display lag).

2. Further, I have no clue why you'd use that displaylag link as proof of this. Have you ever written a program that operates in real time from external interfaces (such as a mouse or keyboard or joystick)? I have for decades. There is no 100ms processing overhead!
Why don't you just look at the link i've provided? It's all there. They have youtube videos of every game they tested.
The procedure is simple: They have a special gamepad that lights up LEDs as soon as the button is pressed, then count the time until the action appears on the screen. They use a display with known display lag and then substract the display lag from the measured time. The result is the internal game input lag.

Other people have done these types of tests on PC games and the lowest results they could measure is 35-40ms game lag (likely with games running at 120fps)

I don't see why this claim is so unbelievable to you. I am a game developer with 10 years of AAA dev experience, not as a programmer, but as graphics artist, but I've talked to very knowledgeable people about this plently of times.

More in-depth:
If you have a game running at 30fps (like Destiny for example), then every frame takes 33ms to render (one second divided by 30 = 33ms) The time it takes for the gamepad to process your input, digitize it and and transmit it over bluetooth to the console can easily take 10-15ms as well. The input that comes from the gamepad might arrive while the engine is in the middle of rendering a frame, so it will not be processed immediately, but after the previous frame is done. The input and game logic also has to be processed by the engine before a frame starts being rendered, because what is being drawn depends on the actions of the player. Then, once the frames are finished being rendered, they don't immediately get sent out to the display. The HDMI chip that outputs the picture has to wait for the display refresh. It refreshes in intervals of 33ms. If it didn't respect this interval, you would get frame tearing (the upper half of the image belonging to a previous frame and the lower half belonging to a later frame. To avoid this, the finished frames get stored in a buffer, so they are ready to be sent out as soon as the display has finished refreshing.
This is called vsync and triple buffering. The result is a smooth delivery of frames without hiccups, but at the cost of processing lag. With triple buffering, the video output of the game is at least 3 frames behind already, if you add another frame for rendering and another 1-2 for physics processing and input bluetooth delay, you easily arrive at the 5-7 frames lag that displaylag.com quotes.
gus738 and Resiroth like this.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #16 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
Why don't you just look at the link i've provided? It's all there. They have youtube videos of every game they tested.
The procedure is simple: They have a special gamepad that lights up LEDs as soon as the button is pressed, then count the time until the action appears on the screen. They use a display with known display lag and then substract the display lag from the measured time. The result is the internal game input lag.

Other people have done these types of tests on PC games and the lowest results they could measure is 35-40ms game lag (likely with games running at 120fps)

I don't see why this claim is so unbelievable to you. I am a game developer with 10 years of AAA dev experience, not as a programmer, but as graphics artist, but I've talked to very knowledgeable people about this plently of times.

More in-depth:
If you have a game running at 30fps (like Destiny for example), then every frame takes 33ms to render (one second divided by 30 = 33ms) The time it takes for the gamepad to process your input, digitize it and and transmit it over bluetooth to the console can easily take 10-15ms as well. The input that comes from the gamepad might arrive while the engine is in the middle of rendering a frame, so it will not be processed immediately, but after the previous frame is done. The input and game logic also has to be processed by the engine before a frame starts being rendered, because what is being drawn depends on the actions of the player. Then, once the frames are finished being rendered, they don't immediately get sent out to the display. The HDMI chip that outputs the picture has to wait for the display refresh. It refreshes in intervals of 33ms. If it didn't respect this interval, you would get frame tearing (the upper half of the image belonging to a previous frame and the lower half belonging to a later frame. To avoid this, the finished frames get stored in a buffer, so they are ready to be sent out as soon as the display has finished refreshing.
This is called vsync and triple buffering. The result is a smooth delivery of frames without hiccups, but at the cost of processing lag. With triple buffering, the video output of the game is at least 3 frames behind already, if you add another frame for rendering and another 1-2 for physics processing and input bluetooth delay, you easily arrive at the 5-7 frames lag that displaylag.com quotes.
I apologize, you may be right. I'm going to have to re-think this.

Yes, in a pipe-line style architecture (which they all are), it's the accumulation of all actions that results in latency. Similar to a car wash that takes an hour to complete, but still does 60 cars an hour because it's broken in to 60 one minute steps. We all know this.

But I highly doubt those numbers. They are simply too high. What LED are they viewing on the input pad? If I whip my mouse back and forth in a heated first person shooter match, then there is no way that computational overhead can cause a solid 1/10th of a second before it shows my scene changing. That's a horrendous delay even from a POS game console. Move---wait----see it with that wait being 1/10th of a second???

I don't believe it. There's something wrong. I used to (briefly) PM with the owner of displaylag back when he was first starting with (only) the leo bodnar measurements. I'll ask him about it later today.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.

Last edited by tgm1024; 11-06-2015 at 10:20 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 10:25 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
I was surprised as well when I read this the first time. I was debating between getting a Samsung LCD with 20ms lag or the EC9300 with 35, and thought that the 15ms difference was a big deal, but after this article I realize it wasn't.

If you look at this article, the minimum overhead for PC games is 35ms, with vsync off: http://www.displaylag.com/reduce-inp...initive-guide/
The 100fps figure is for console games with generally lower framerates and wireless controls.

I think it's very possible that a 35ms input lag may be unnoticeable to you when playing on the PC. The average reaction time of a human is around 250ms.
It might be that input lag, display lag etc become noticeable once you're over a certain threshold, which a slow TV combined with a laggy game can easily reach. But the difference between the values on the lower end is probably less dramatic than most people think.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeruL01 View Post
I was surprised as well when I read this the first time. I was debating between getting a Samsung LCD with 20ms lag or the EC9300 with 35, and thought that the 15ms difference was a big deal, but after this article I realize it wasn't.

If you look at this article, the minimum overhead for PC games is 35ms, with vsync off: http://www.displaylag.com/reduce-inp...initive-guide/
The 100fps figure is for console games with generally lower framerates and wireless controls.

I think it's very possible that a 35ms input lag may be unnoticeable to you when playing on the PC. The average reaction time of a human is around 250ms.
It might be that input lag, display lag etc become noticeable once you're over a certain threshold, which a slow TV combined with a laggy game can easily reach. But the difference between the values on the lower end is probably less dramatic than most people think.
The reaction time isn't at issue here. That's the time it takes for me to regconize and initiate an action. The issue is has to do with what happens once I'm aware I've initiated something. A person's reaction to their own actions is a blindingly tight phenomenon.

Microsoft had this great video talking about how humans respond to visual feedback of their own actions. The human sensitivity to this stuff is huge. In one of the two videos they made, they were showing the difference between 1 ms and 2 ms "response".

100ms is just an eternity once someone's brain said "look to the right". It would be immediately untenable for that to visually appear to happen 100+ ms later. There must be something wrong in their measurement mechanism. Perhaps the LED lights up slowly (they can do that), or there's a particularly bizarre lag with wireless consoles (as you suggested) or something else that I've never experienced. But it's just far too much.

Especially when you consider that people will bring game consoles into the store to try it out and see a 27ms lag TV be "ok" but a 45ms lag TV be far too much.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 10:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
It is definitely long. I still think it's plausible. Like I said, it very much depends on the game. Shooters are most susceptible to this (as you said, they are in a permantent state of reacting to your own actions) but most console games are dumbed down to a point where it doesn't even matter anymore with tons of aim assist and non-challenging gameplay.
Compare it to a 25 year old NES game which was designed around analog tech and CRT displays. Totally different ballpark.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 10:56 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Here's an interesting article about the subject: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...gainst-latency

Certain PS3 games (GTA IV and Killzone 2) had over 166 ms (!) of internal input lag!
Resiroth likes this.
JeruL01 is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Well it's starting to make sense why gamers scoff at the notion of using game consoles. I've only been a PC person.

In any event, I found one of the videos I was referring to. It's regarding touch devices and latencies between 100ms and 1ms.

It's 3 years old already. I'll keep looking for the other one, but I don't think it was an officially released video, so I may not find it.


We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 11-06-2015, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,742
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 31
if you would have done your test offline with your friends on the couch then I will believe you but it's online there's a lot of variables I don't have a single LCD look in my signature and I am heavily gamer but I know how to mix content example call of duty 3 hours 4 hours halo 3 hours 4 hours need for speed 2 hours movies 6 + hours .I have no lag invest online is because internet issues server issues etc


Quote:
Originally Posted by shayne54 View Post
Display lag does make a major difference. I bought a gaming monitor just for this reason. I remember when I first started playing COD on Xbox (MW2) with friends I couldn't figure out why I would lose most gunfights. I did a little research online and discovered "display lag". My setup at the time had my xbox running into my pioneer receiver (which was up-converting the signal) then into my old school CRT projection tv that was also processing the signal. Each time that signal was processed it added unnecessary display lag. Once I fixed the situation my game play experience was completely different.

If gaming is of high importance to you I would suggest gaming on a monitor. The best ones have display lag as low as 09ms. Hard to find a tv that will compete with that!

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u(r.i.p)Samsung 51f4500
XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 11-11-2015, 02:37 PM
Member
 
Resiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Gamers like to think that their performance is only limited by their equipment. Don't lose sleep over 13ms, average human reaction to external stimuli is 250+ ms http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/...ime/statistics. Yes, this matters, because while 250ms lag would be unplayable, it shows how slow people are to even respond to stimuli. 13ms isn't even a single frame at 30 fps (which many console games run at). Hell, it's not even a frame at 60 fps.

The JU7100 is 26.1 ms in game mode, and notably there are a lot more important things for gaming than just response time. For ex. motion handling (Vizio has a trail), which OLED does better than LCDs on the whole.

There are legit complaints about OLED, primarily ABL, to a degree vignetting/other manufacturing defects, but response time really isn't one of them.

Arguably the fastest/highest performance gamers (Starcraft) out there historically used intellimouse 3.0 and regular keyboards, adding, gasp, 8 whole milliseconds to their actions!

Bottom line is I wouldn't worry about such small details. Also be aware that game mode frequently makes the television look terrible depending on the model, so take that into consideration (would you even want to game at that quality? etc).

I frequently top servers regardless of rig/setup. Skill > equipment.
Resiroth is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 11-11-2015, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post
Gamers like to think that their performance is only limited by their equipment. Don't lose sleep over 13ms, average human reaction to external stimuli is 250+ ms http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/...ime/statistics. Yes, this matters, because while 250ms lag would be unplayable, it shows how slow people are to even respond to stimuli.
You're going to have to consider ceasing this line of reasoning. No, that 250ms reaction doesn't matter because what makes a motion-centric game playable in the first place is the response (speed) at which you see your own actions happen, not some reaction time to some other stimulus that didn't originate with you.

For you to comfortably control your environment, you need to have your actions be quickly apparent to your own eyes. If that is too great, you will always be uncomfortable, and the longer that delay, the more discomfort you will feel.

That reaction time to external stimulus is a fact of your own life---it only matters when competing against others. It has nothing to do with the playability of the game. Your premise is broken.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 11-11-2015, 09:27 PM
Member
 
Resiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
You're going to have to consider ceasing this line of reasoning. No, that 250ms reaction doesn't matter because what makes a motion-centric game playable in the first place is the response (speed) at which you see your own actions happen, not some reaction time to some other stimulus that didn't originate with you.

For you to comfortably control your environment, you need to have your actions be quickly apparent to your own eyes. If that is too great, you will always be uncomfortable, and the longer that delay, the more discomfort you will feel.

That reaction time to external stimulus is a fact of your own life---it only matters when competing against others. It has nothing to do with the playability of the game. Your premise is broken.
Did you look at the site? People vary between 200 and 400 ms. So whether or not you totally own that guy is going to be more dependent on your natural reaction time (as well as game skill) than whether you had a fancy TV lol. If you look online most TVs are around 40ms +- 10. Most reaction times are 260+-40. So which do you think matters more, the variance of display refresh rates, or just how fast your reflexes are? If you truly want to be an xxxxtreeeme gam0r, get a big CRT TV. LCDs suck compared to CRT, and you'd have a bigger advantage over LCD, than LCD over OLED by a longshot. Finally, reflexes absolutely do matter, as they essentially are a "ping" or "latency" for the human nervous system. It measures the return time for a stimulus. Our nervous system is far from instant, in fact it's quite slow compared to electronics.

If you're talking about solo games then:
How many gamers do you think even realize there is a gamer mode? Most people you'll be playing with will be playing just fine with 100ms input lag. OP, If you've played videogames at a non-avsforum's house he's had his TV in standard mode with 100ms input lag, I guarantee it. It's the way they ship (as default) and it's the way they should be set for decent visual quality anyway (not torch, but not game for sure). When I'm playing online FPS I switch my TV to game mode, but when I'm playing witcher 3 for ex. I use normal mode as the colors/processing is vastly superior.


If most people keep their TV in torch mode and not in "game mode" and still manage to play videogames with 100ms (standard for non-game mode) surely OP can manage with 50ms lol. This is a non-issue.


As has been mentioned my multiple other posters, tgm1024 is wrong about the cumulative lag that occurs even before displays are factored in. Last generation it was 150-200, this generation it's more like 100-125ms. It's one thing if you're playing competitive CS:GO on a PC with 500+ FPS/minimal frame timing issues, but in that case you should just get a 144hz monitor too. If you're playing on a console you'll already have 100ms by default, so 10-20ms doesn't really matter all that much.

Keep in mind for FPS/fighting games there's also the considerable latency between you and the server (increasingly this is required even though you're "single player"), frequently 50-100 if you don't live directly adjacent to the servers in question.

If you have an xb1/ps4 you can load up some of these games: http://www.displaylag.com/console-la...ame-input-lag/ to see if you find halo 3 to be unplayable, but halo 4 to be 100% fine lol. I think you'll find no difference (as no one was talking about how horrendous halo 3's input lag was relative to halo 4.


There's broscience for guys that don't know what they're talking about in the gym...I think we need a term like that to describe the pseudoscience that occasionally permeates this forum as well.

In general if you're a console gamer you're not looking (or expecting) CRT on PC levels of performance, and I'm pretty sure you don't care at all about a game that came out 16 years ago. The use of triple buffering, wireless controllers, wifi on the console (in many cases) etc. completely negates 10-20ms from the display. For the 10-15ms response time difference to be notable for you, you should also have noticed how wildly different the response times between all the console games that are out (50ms between halo and sunset for ex.!) but no one really has, so I doubt it applies to you. Cheers, I think you can't go wrong. Both are great TVs!
Resiroth is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 11-11-2015, 11:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post
In general if you're a console gamer you're not looking (or expecting) CRT on PC levels of performance, and I'm pretty sure you don't care at all about a game that came out 16 years ago.
That's funny because a week ago a co-worker of my father (who is ~60 years old) really wanted to get together and play Super Mario Bros. 3.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 11-11-2015, 11:58 PM
Member
 
Resiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post
In general if you're a console gamer you're not looking (or expecting) CRT on PC levels of performance, and I'm pretty sure you don't care at all about a game that came out 16 years ago.
That's funny because a week ago a co-worker of my father (who is ~60 years old) really wanted to get together and play Super Mario Bros. 3.
Super Mario bros yes, I was referring to UT/quake which were truly different than this generation of shooters in their demands/pacing,
Resiroth is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 11-12-2015, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1870 Post(s)
Liked: 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post
Did you look at the site? People vary between 200 and 400 ms. So whether or not you totally own that guy is going to be more dependent on your natural reaction time (as well as game skill) than whether you had a fancy TV lol. If you look online most TVs are around 40ms +- 10. Most reaction times are 260+-40. So which do you think matters more, the variance of display refresh rates, or just how fast your reflexes are?
You're confusing a number of things. First, it's not display refresh rates, it's the ability for the game+monitor to respond to your user actions. Second, how fast your reflexes are ONLY determine how good you are in the game. Not how comfortable the game is.

You've got the cart entirely before the horse here. For instance, in a first-person-shooter where the user reaction times are critical, a person with terrible reaction timing can have a great time battling another person with terrible reaction timing. You see this all the time---I used to set up specific noob matches for newcomers to UT99.

We've had a lot of evaluation with this, and it's time to consider wiping out all mosquitoes. We can do that with carefully crafted GMO. It's just not an insect that is worth having around. Mother nature will adapt, just as she always has with the millions of other species that have vanished on their own. In fact, the impact will be remarkably minor.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 11-12-2015, 10:31 AM
Member
 
Resiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post
Did you look at the site? People vary between 200 and 400 ms. So whether or not you totally own that guy is going to be more dependent on your natural reaction time (as well as game skill) than whether you had a fancy TV lol. If you look online most TVs are around 40ms +- 10. Most reaction times are 260+-40. So which do you think matters more, the variance of display refresh rates, or just how fast your reflexes are?
You're confusing a number of things. First, it's not display refresh rates, it's the ability for the game+monitor to respond to your user actions. Second, how fast your reflexes are ONLY determine how good you are in the game. Not how comfortable the game is.

You've got the cart entirely before the horse here. For instance, in a first-person-shooter where the user reaction times are critical, a person with terrible reaction timing can have a great time battling another person with terrible reaction timing. You see this all the time---I used to set up specific noob matches for newcomers to UT99.
I'm not confusing them, reflex is like the "ping" for the body. It adds to the overall delay you'll experience. That's why 100ms response doesn't feel like 100x as laggy as 1ms (cumulative display lag applies to, but on a high fps PC with no frame buffering this can be below 30ms). So I guess it would be 30ms vs 130ms. Either way the 100ms game wouldn't feel 4x as slow.

If your thesis were true, we would see droves of people talking about how halo 3 had so much better (or worse I forget) response times compared to halo 4.

Input lag on a game-specific level varies a solid 50ms from the best to the worst.

On PC your input lag can be much lower (below 30 for everything in the chain easily) but on consoles there is a bit of lag built in so response times don't matter as much.

A console game would have more input lag than a random non-gaming IPS display running at 60 fps using a non-gamer mouse. V-sync, triple buffering, up scaling, varying sub 60 fps frame rate etc all add dramatically to the input lag of the game.

If you were to use an OLED TV for a monitor would you notice? Maybe. But I wouldn't recommend that in general. You're not going to notice in a console game, just like 0 people have talked about how terrible the input lag was on one halo, vs another.
Resiroth is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 11-12-2015, 11:22 AM
Member
 
thefranklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resiroth View Post

When I'm playing online FPS I switch my TV to game mode, but when I'm playing witcher 3 for ex. I use normal mode as the colors/processing is vastly superior.


If most people keep their TV in torch mode and not in "game mode" and still manage to play videogames with 100ms (standard for non-game mode) surely OP can manage with 50ms lol. This is a non-issue.

Wait, what? If 100 and 50 is a "non issue", then why are you switching your settings around? I agree that 50 is a lot better than 100. Whether the OP wants to pay extra or give up features to get 23 vs 40 is a up to them. And as already stated in the thread, if the OP is competitive enough or cares enough, get what TV you want and do serious gaming on a different monitor. Do the casual stuff on the big TV, which is basically what you are doing when changing your settings.
thefranklin is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General
Gear in this thread



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off