Results: Pixel Response And Input Lag
To perform these tests, we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100-percent white field.
The pattern generator is placed at the base of the monitor so our camera can capture the precise moment its front-panel LED lights up, indicating that a video signal is being received by the monitor. With this camera placement, we can easily see how long it takes to fully display a pattern after pressing the button on the generator’s remote. Our testing methodology allows for accurate and repeatable results when comparing panels.
Here’s a shot of our test setup. Click on the photo to enlarge.
The brighter section of the camera’s screen is what actually appears in the video. You can see the lights of the pattern generator in the bottom of the viewfinder. We flash the pattern on and off five times and average the results.
The best gaming monitors are able to refresh at rates above 60 Hz. The RL2460HT is not one of those. But it still has faster draw time than any IPS monitor we’ve tested. That performance translates to slightly lower motion blur and better resolution of fast-moving objects. While a 144 Hz screen is the best way to reduce motion artifacts, a speedy TN monitor is a solid second choice.
And the lag results:
The BenQ also beats our IPS group in the input lag test. It can’t put up the extreme numbers of a 144 Hz display, but it’s more than fast enough to improve the playability of high-speed titles. Thanks to its excellent clarity, contrast, and color quality, the RL2460HT should satisfy the vast majority of gaming enthusiasts.
I achieve first place in multiple games when playing multiplayer, on a regular basis.
60hz is not the problem, the problem is your system if it CAN'T sustain 60 fps.
I don't think competitive players win because they have 144Hz monitors and can react with all that information being fed to them. I think they win because they are proactive, and that there are many tells anyway to allow someone who's tuned in the game to react quickly.
I mean, StarCraft has choppy animation that is independent of refresh rates (they look like they move at 20FPS), but there's a lot of high level competition there.
You do have a point with newer games that have very nice graphics. Such as, BF, Metro LL, and Arma 3 you need a beefy GPU set up or some people turn down the settings. (Eye candy is nice but if it is going to be a slideshow it isn't worth it) However, older titles such as CS GO where having the higher FPS will give you an edge doesn't take much to get 200+ FPS. Basically computers with at least an i5 and a 6970 or 580 can hit FPS 100+ on older titles. Newer titles i5/i7 (depends on the game if it take advantage of the hyper threading) 7970(280)/290x or 680/780. Crossfire or SLI helps but I personally find the gaming experience smoother playing CS GO on one 7970 instead of two in crossfire. With one I am still well over 100 FPS. When I play BF4 I have crossfire enable and high settings with some things turned down I get over 100FPS on DX11 API. When I try mantle (When it works....) I get an extra 10fps if I am lucky and feels smoother. You also can check Toms GPU charts of even their recently released SMB. I own Asus 144hz and never can go back to playing FPS on something less. I just wish they will catch up to my golden days with the CRTs refresh rates .