That's funny, the OP asked if the monitor is good for gaming, not Quake 3. And Is that an average? Your graph doesn't indicate so - making it potentially a fairly weak graph. The average input lag VS CRT has been tested elsewhere to be much less (and I happen to trust more thorough sources as opposed to less thorough).
Also, there's a lot more to base "What's a good gaming monitor" than input lag. Does the U2412M have detectable input lag? 17ms is like, one frame of lag, which the vast majority wouldn't detect. If you get the ROG Swift or something as responsive or more, you'd be lucky to notice the slightest difference in input lag, but for anyone playing normal games it doesn't really have a measurable impact. Judging monitors by only input lag is a bit of a gimmick/farce/etc. - only demonstrating you're out of touch with most gamers on this forum. Not everybody is playing games where they need the most responsive monitor on the market. There are monitors that are indeed too slow for gaming and this simply isn't one.
"The input lag of the U2412M was very low with an average of only 9.4ms and a maximum of 20ms. This was a very good result and was even lower than the U2410 when using its 'game mode' to bypass a lot of the internal electronics (14.4ms). It was also ever so slightly better than the U2311H (10.6ms). A good performance and no issue for gaming from a lag point of view." (Tftcentral)
And something tells me Zaka isn't about to head into Quake 3 tourneys anytime soon. But if he is, he'd definitely benefit more from something with less lag.
On the other hand OP, if you aren't aiming to get the monitor with the least input lag but want to get one of the monitors that offer the best picture quality for the money (which is what people are usually concerned with when getting new monitors), the U2412M is a great monitor. It still has some of the best stats pertaining to color accuracy, contrast, viewing angles, and black levels on the market. To give you an idea: the stats are better than any low-input lag monitor Jiggly would recommend - so it comes to the point where if you decide if you want really good picture quality, or a very slight advantage in Quake 3.
@PredatorRules said:
It's says 8ms on the official site so no, if you're gettings IPS monitor, try to look for 5ms.
Anyone who knows anything about monitors (no offense) know thats official specs regarding response times are useless. You can easily pick up monitors rated at 5ms that have worse response times than a 8ms monitor. Don't get into the habit of looking at the official specs thinking they actually mean anything. Here you can plainly see that an 8ms Dell monitor, for example, is a lot more responsive than 5ms LG monitor.
I really miss the hardware forum. The answers typically were way more tech-savvy. Here we've got one guy who gives answers exclusively based on his own niche competitive-gamer priorities, and someone else who takes manufacturer-given specs on monitors seriously. Very dire state of affairs indeed. :P
I don't even play Q3, I have like 5 hours in the game. Quake Live is what I normally play, although I haven't even played in a while. I just play csgo, almost SMFC, then road to the global elite.
The OP didn't clarify what he meant by game.
Regardless, people at /r/globaloffensive will tell you the same thing, if you are want to play a game like CS, then get a 120/144hz display. The majority of eagle players, and definitely 99% of SMFCS/Globals will be using 120/144hz/crt.
Of course if the op has no interest in any of that stuff, then any monitor will work. It will make absolutely no difference if the monitor has 17ms of input lag or 50 if you are just playing sp games or some casual battlefield.
I don't even play Q3, I have like 5 hours in the game. Quake Live is what I normally play, although I haven't even played in a while. I just play csgo, almost SMFC, then road to the global elite.
The OP didn't clarify what he meant by game.
Regardless, people at /r/globaloffensive will tell you the same thing, if you are want to play a game like CS, then get a 120/144hz display. The majority of eagle players, and definitely 99% of SMFCS/Globals will be using 120/144hz/crt.
Well, common sense tells me when someone says "gaming", they aren't referring specifically to a niche sub-gaming culture pertaining to less than 1% of gamers out there. In the big picture, very few gamers take competitive gaming seriously. Usually people just play games to have fun, and they don't have to win competitions to have the entertainment they want.
I mean, there were 700,000 viewers at the csgo games on twitch just now, so it's really not that niche.
The viewer-base is one thing - I agree that competitive gaming draws a lot of viewers. But I'm referring to the people actually performing in these competitions and requiring the use of that gear. I'm going to guess it's a small fraction of that 700,000 number. I'm just saying the gamers who are performing and competing in front of these people are within a niche subculture of gaming. They use the gaming gear-equivalent to Air Jordans - and we all know you don't need Air Jordans to play basketball.
I love watching Street Fighter tournaments, but that doesn't necessarily mean I own a stick - etc.
I have had a U2412M for about the past 2 years and don't have problems gaming on it. Sure it probably isn't as responsive as a 144hz/1ms gaming monitor, but i'm not a professional CSGO player, and it has been fine for everything i play on it with.
I have had a U2412M for about the past 2 years and don't have problems gaming on it. Sure it probably isn't as responsive as a 144hz/1ms gaming monitor, but i'm not a professional CSGO player, and it has been fine for everything i play on it with.
My post is pretty much this, except I have three. They used to be my primary gaming monitors (eyefinity). For a 60hz IPS the gaming performance is adequate for games that don't necessitate faster response time like competative online FPS titles. As a monitor overall, it's an excellent monitor. It's a very solid IPS display.
Log in to comment