His video card must be from the last century judging by how Quake 3 looks on it.

I still prefer the CRT over LED and Plasma. I have yet to see the OLED yet. Kool post.

Dell 3007 here. No input lag.

i fail to see how a tft screen could lag more than its refrsh rate if u screen has a refresh of 8ms then it will lag that mutch i dont get "imput lag" as it is put ? becuse the screen is taking the image directly from the grfx card and on most tfts its a digital signall it shouldnot lag any more than a crt would. so all this person is doing is showing that he is using a tft screen that refreshes slow. u can get screens now that dont. + evan if it did lag the compleaty flat and far larger pixel perfect image is better for gameing tan the fish bowl crt image

CRTs still rule, but they are hard to find in local stores (not online since I want to see and try them in person) these days. I had to get a LCD monitor and I didn't want to.

you also have to take into account whether that's a DVI-LCD or a VGA-LCD... DVI is going to be quicker, because you don't have to convert it to an analog signal and back again, like you do with VGA.

i actually prefer the CRT image (on a flatscreen CRT design), because the grays and blacks are better defined. most LCD's are not true 32/24-bit color, due to the advantages of pixel dithering in LCD's.
but because i go to a lot of LAN parties, the LCD is obviously more advantageous...

westy, the data to display doesn't follow similar paths from the video card to a CRT compared to an LCD. Any component in those 2 paths could cause one to be much slower than the other. The image isn't taken directly from the gfx card.

It's also highly possible that in this comparison he used some things known to cause such delay. Either using a vga cable to connect the gfx card, or running it at a non-native resolution requiring the LCD to rescale each frame to fit the native LCD resolution. Both of these introduce lag, but there could be any number of other components processing the signal to get it onto the display that could also introduce lag.

Problems could be as simple as one of the cables he uses is longer than the other. Ever been to a concert with bad audio hookup and the speakers in the back are out of sync with the stage speakers? some thing pretty much.

krumzy, by my (admittedly very quick) calculations, you'd need ~10,000 Km of cable to introduce a 50ms delay--somehow this seems unlikely.

The speed of light in copper is ~200,000Km/sec.

I vote for the non-native resolution proposal. Some sets may by default do some additional scaling/smoothing between frames--at least on my DLP, you can turn that off with what is called "GAME" mode.

It's true- Dan says so.

"It's normal for LCD monitors, whether you're using DVI or VGA input, to have some tens of milliseconds of "input lag", as they buffer the incoming data in their panel driver hardware. This doesn't make the image blur, but it does make LCDs that much slower than a pure analogue monitor to get an image onto the screen. This can affect audio/video sync in movie playback, and make games feel slightly more sluggish too, but not everybody can notice the difference. I'm pretty good at spotting, and being annoyed by, minor lip-sync problems in video; most people don't seem to notice errors below 100ms."

quoted from http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00009.htm