Anychance...

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

...for the release of a high-end MVA just like benq's most popular one, except only with a glossy screen, instead of a matte one?

I know mva panels don't have the input lag problem like samsung's spva panels, but if tested in a benchmark would the avg mva be measured any worse than a good ips based panel? if so, approximately how much? I'm extremely sensitive to input response time. In fact, I always hated the controller input lag the gamecube had. and the n64 was even worse. and the ds lite (and the original one that i sold) have noticeable input lag. And I stay the hell away from intel processors since they don't have an imc yet, among many, many other reasons. I don't care about raw speed, I'm much more concerned about fluidity.

I notice s-ips are the absolute most responsive (2 different panels, my parent's lg l2000c and the p.o.s. nec 20wmgx2 I sold (both used with a razer tempest blue copperhead and a g3 which have extremely fast input time), compared to my fhd2400 which ain't too good other than it has a glossy screen. all of the different ones with the computers i used on campus in between classes are tns.

I can't stand matte coatings.

 

[Davros]

I bet your a hypocondriac in real life - you worry about absolutely everything

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

I bet your a hypocondriac in real life - you worry about absolutely everything

Not quite. People other than myself care about latency all the time. That's why they make razor copperhead mice with 1000khz polling rates for 1ms response time.

 

[Moloch]

Staying away from intel cpus because of the lack of a IMC? Have you seen the benchmarks? Core2D and C2Q totally blow anything amd has out of the water.
You're so misguided...

 

[Richard]

IMC, er.. integrated memory controller? What's the clock rate on the FSB again?

 

[Dooby]

I can't stand matte coatings.

Hypochondriac AND an egotist. All I can ever see in gloss coatings on monitors or laptops is me and the window behind me. I bought a monitor, not a mirror.

Less gloss coatings please.

 

[crystall]

Not quite. People other than myself care about latency all the time. That's why they make razor copperhead mice with 1000khz polling rates for 1ms response time.

It's 1000 Hz.

 

[digitalwanderer]

And "anychance" isn't a word.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Staying away from intel cpus because of the lack of a IMC? Have you seen the benchmarks? Core2D and C2Q totally blow anything amd has out of the water.
You're so misguided...

Intel's best is way faster than amd's best, but i don't really care about that. AMD's IMC makes for less lag. I stay away from intel cpu's since from my many experiences with both, AMD systems are much more responsive and don't have the general desktop lag i've experienced with intel systems.

It's 1000 Hz.

I meant to put 1 KHz, or 1000 Hz. Sorry.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

:thumbs down: to the responses in this thread

really poor showing, gentlemen

 

[Moloch]

Intel's best is way faster than amd's best, but i don't really care about that. AMD's IMC makes for less lag.

I meant to put 1 KHz, or 1000 Hz. Sorry.

Says who?

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Says who?

I've heard that's the reason why amd's systems are more responsive.

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

I've heard that's the reason why amd's systems are more responsive.

Uhh... no. "AMD systems are more responsive" is another "OpenGL has better colors" to quote Humus There are a ton of things that affect perceived input latencies, and an IMC is not one of them. Even if there are differences there, it completely disappears in the noise compared to the real things that matter (like asynchronous CPU/GPU execution, physics and other subsystem double-buffering, etc). Most of those are app-specific.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

There are a ton of things that affect perceived input latencies, and an IMC is not one of them.

This is not a provable statement, at least not until Nehalem's IMC-less derivatives are introduced. It seems rather counter-intuitive also.

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

This is not a provable statement, at least not until Nehalem's IMC-less derivatives are introduced. It seems rather counter-intuitive also.

Any latency introduced by the FSB or external memory controller is absolutely negligible compared to the other factors that I mentioned. That's kind of trivially true considering the order of magnitude differences in latencies between memory fetches and - say - frames

I'm not saying IMCs are not better (they almost certainly are), but just that for input lag in games, it's not going to make much of a difference by itself. It's more about what the app/drivers/GPU does with respect to asynchronous buffering. The was a recent article in Game Developer magazine IIRC that went over this stuff in a good amount of depth for those interested.

Perhaps I'm completely missing the argument here though... someone please explain to me in detail why one would expect an IMC to make any perceivable difference in latency for a game running on two systems at the same throughput (frame times in this case).

 

[Sc4freak]

I've heard that's the reason why amd's systems are more responsive.

Sure. If you're gaming at billions of frames per second. Memory access times are on the order of nanoseconds. Lower memory latencies will not directly impact responsiveness. But they can increase performance of the system, which can lead to higher framerates in CPU-bound games, which can lead to higher percieved responsiveness.

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Sure. If you're gaming at billions of frames per second. Memory access times are on the order of nanoseconds. Lower memory latencies will not directly impact responsiveness. But they can increase performance of the system, which can lead to higher framerates in CPU-bound games, which can lead to higher percieved responsiveness.

Yes precisely, that's what I was trying to get at. Your latency need will still be best served by choosing the CPU that gets you the lowest frame times; all else being equal, that will give you the lowest latency. If a CPU with an IMC gives you the best frame rate, awesome, but don't get one that's slower just because it has an IMC... the unit itself has no perceivable impact on the game responsiveness.

 

[silent_guy]

This is not a provable statement, at least not until Nehalem's IMC-less derivatives are introduced. It seems rather counter-intuitive also.

The only thing that matters is that total CPU time to calculate the next frame.

An IMC will obviously improve the performance of a CPU core compared to an identical core with IMC, but a slow CPU with IMC will be slower than a fast CPU without IMC.

I have the impression that 2008etc things IMC latency is in some ways relates to the screen lag of GPU's (Crossfire/SLI/LCD lag.) This is an entirely different problem: in a GPU, frames are pushed into a pipeline after which it's fire and forget. The deeper the pipeline, the longer the 'latency' between input and reaction on the screen, but that's completely unrelated to the latency of cpu MC accesses.

 

[Blazkowicz]

you should be much more concerned at getting a 120Hz LCD (I don't know about their - future - availability and especially VA models).

I often do a few minutes of 120Hz quake 3 gaming, kicking the bots' ass for a few arenas. (I'm waiting for quake live in order to get better bots, actually!). it's low-latency nirvana (and gives some delusional feeling of superiority)
my mouse being an old microsoft trekker, a PS/2 ball mouse! PS/2 set at 200Hz for a better psychological feeling.

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

you should be much more concerned at getting a 120Hz LCD (I don't know about their - future - availability and especially VA models).

I haven't been keeping up with the computer side of the LCD tech, but are you talking about true 120Hz LCDs that take a 120Hz input signal (do current video cards output 120Hz over DVI/HDMI? Is that even possible?)? Because if it's like the TVs that still only accept 60Hz inputs, then you're not improving input latency at all. In fact, the motion estimation hardware typically introduces a bit more latency.