Why is input lag still not taken seriously by TV manufacturers?

MartinBrentnall

Established Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
95
Reaction score
11
Points
20
Age
41
I'm looking for a new TV, and since 95% of my TV use is games, the market seems to be a minefield of poor input lag.

Only Samsung and LG seem to be taking this seriously; the latter seemingly only due to the backlash caused by high input latencies on their earlier OLED's (e.g. the B6, which got an update to partially solve the issue). The Samsung KS8000 seemed ideal until I discovered its HDMI-CEC and ARC functions are severely broken and Samsung don't seem interested in fixing them, which resulted in me returning that set for a refund.

So in continuing my search, I've been evaluating 55" OLED options and the only viable option seems to be LG's C7. Here's what I found:
  • The Sony A1 looks stunning in the shop, but apparently has 40 ms input lag (come on Sony, you make games consoles, you of all companies should know better).
  • Philips now offer an OLED display (the 901F), which I haven't seen in person, but it sounds amazing on paper: OLED screen, ambilight, Android-based, etc. I can't find specifics numbers, but the first review in my Google results has "Input lag slightly high" under "Cons" right at the top in the review summary. Big red flag right there.
  • Another option I discovered in a small local store was a brand called Loewe that I've never heard before. These screens are expensive; the cheapest 55" OLED option was €3,000; surely input lag shouldn't be a problem at a price like that... right!? Wrong. The salesman in the store didn't have numbers, but assured me that "it was a great TV for games", but Loewe confirmed 40 ms after I contacted them directly, and more baffling still, 66 ms for 4K games. Really!?
  • Panasonic is the only OLED option for which I couldn't find any information at all for regarding input lag (I haven't tried contacting them); there's no way I'm buying on faith given typical results I've seen from other manufacturers.
What gives?

Why the hell aren't the TV manufacturers taking input lag seriously? If LG can do it with the C7 and Samsung can do it with the KS8000, why can't everyone else get their input lag down to a respectable figure? Gaming is financially the biggest entertainment industry there is right now, not to mention probably one of the best reasons (if not the best) to own a decent TV. It seems like a no-brainer that this should be one of the first and most fundamental requirements when designing a new TV today, yet most manufacturers still seem to be messing it up, even in products that they're asking multiple thousands of pounds/euros for.

And it's not like this problem hasn't already been known for years, so when are the TV makers going to finally get their act together and start designing products that actually work properly for playing games?
 
It's a trade-off between image processing and delay getting the image to screen. TV manufacturers opt for the solution that they feel works best for most people. Sufficiently low input lag to not normally be noticeable in exchange for better picture then they could achieve with minimal input lag.

It seems likely that their market research has shown that there aren't enough people who feel as you do to make it worth releasing a model with a different balance.
 
I don't see how it's a trade-off when image processing features can be made optional. It's perfectly fine if the default settings aren't suitable for games, but isn't the point of "Game" mode on most TV's to switch off such image-processing features in order to reduce input lag? And if not, then why even bother having a "Game" mode in the first place?

It's not like LG or Samsung had to sacrifice image quality to achieve low input lags on their OLED C7 and KS8000 respectively either.
 
  • Panasonic is the only OLED option for which I couldn't find any information at all for regarding input lag (I haven't tried contacting them); there's no way I'm buying on faith given typical results I've seen from other manufacturers
If you had bothered to read the reviews on here they all quote the input lag, both Panasonic OLED TVs confirmed at 26ms :thumbsup:
 
My guess is they look at the market and listen to research and trade industry groups who's focus is not on gaming.

I suspect this is something that happens more frequently in TV industry, I recently had to replace a DVB-S set top box for a family member and holy smokes are current DVB boxes trapped in the stone age, it's as if the last 20 years never happened.

The engineers or marketing people at some of these companies simply don't register testing game consoles and things like input lag as on their to do list and only afterwords when enough customers complain does something change.

Sony are an excellent example given they own Playstation division, present day Sony is whats called a silo company which each part running individually but even when it wasn't Sony never really made Playstation optimized TV's which would seem super obvious with plug and play out of the box.

Samsung and Microsoft had a strategic partnership during the Xbox 360 era to promote Samsung LCD TV's so MS probably prodded them enough to make sure game mode works well enough and thats were that legacy may come from.

So your left with a scattershot approach across the industry.

[The solution I think would be for someone like Dolby to expand on Dolby Vision as an optimal out of the box preset for any supporting TV so you plug your game console in and it auto recognizes Dolby Vision game mode and just uses that, it would only ever be a niche/premium option. TV makers would have to pass certification tests to meet the Dolby Vision spec ensuring game mode & input lag is properly done.]
 
Last edited:
This is a spec I look at when choosing a TV and the not-so-great figures across the current 4K ranges is another reason why I have no interest in adopting 4K right now and replacing my W905.
 
If a game is at 60FPS then an input lag of ~35ms will be 2 frames. I think that is pretty acceptable for anyone who isn't a massive fighting game fan.

Anything under 33ms will be 1 frame. Unless you get below 16ms you're going to be a frame behind at 60FPS.

Clearly at 30FPS things are even better.

Ultimately people get hooked on the numbers, but really you need to work out how many frames behind you are.

Once you get to 50ms then you are 3 frames behind which begins to get more significant. Over 66 and it is 4 frames and basically useless unless you only play SP and don't mind brain numbing delay.

For all but the most competitive fighting game fans I think 40ms and below is ok.
 
High input lag can have a significant impact on first person shooters too, particularly fast paced ones like Titanfall and CoD.
 
I really don't know why people are so wrapped in a tizzy over this. It's something everyone has to deal with, people act like their TV is the only one with lag. If your running 200ms lag then fair enough, for the "pros" 120ms may bother them, but anything under 90ms really makes no difference. It's nice to say "My TV handles games with 26ms input lag" but 26ms - 90ms is barely noticable to us. Add in the fact players adapt to the feel of their games it's not an issue. Many people argue online is where it counts, but your Network lag will be more than your input lag so it all evens out in the end.

My old TV had 120ms input lag, I maxed out the Streetfighter 4 trials, completed Ninja Gaiden 2 on Master Ninja, and was still one of the higher scorers on my little group on Gears 2.

On todays improved sets with lag as low as 26ms, input lag has become an excuse for losses. Just have fun.
 
Once you get to 50ms then you are 3 frames behind which begins to get more significant. Over 66 and it is 4 frames and basically useless unless you only play SP and don't mind brain numbing delay.

For all but the most competitive fighting game fans I think 40ms and below is ok.

Um, the console itself is adding 100ms+ of delay between pressing the button and a result being output. For example the popular competative fighting game Tekken 7 has a 120ms delay:
Tekken 7's input delay has been tested, here's how it compares to other games and its predecessors

So we're not talking about 40ms vs. 60ms, but 160ms vs. 180ms.
 
For all but the most competitive fighting game fans I think 40ms and below is ok.
I disagree. How about a game like Thumper?

My current TV is pretty decent in most cases, yet there's no way I could've S-ranked the whole game on my TV vs. playing it in PSVR.

I think music rhythm games in general benefit greatly from a low input lag, and I play a lot of them.

Action games also benefit greatly too. A few years ago, I bought Bayonetta 2 while staying at my parents house over Christmas, so I started playing it on their cheap 37" LG TV. I didn't even think about input lag until I noticed a drastic improvement to my play performance after I got home and continued playing it on my own TV. People argue that it doesn't really make a difference, but all those Gold and Platinums awards I suddenly started getting ain't lying.
 
On response to OP, the manufacturers aren't bothered because the buying public don't even know what it is let alone bothered
 
On response to OP, the manufacturers aren't bothered because the buying public don't even know what it is let alone bothered
This is true, but most of the buying public don't really know much about TV's beyond size, "it's 3D", "it's 4K/HD" and "it's smart". Those are usually the same people who buy the cheapest Technika TV they can find in Tesco in the size they want.

For example, most people in my experience still don't understand what OLED is, and many don't understand why someone would want a TV that can have true black pixels even after it's explained to them.

So yeah, I can understand why input lag is ignored at the lower-end of the market. What I can't understand is why I could invest multiple thousands of euros/pounds and still end up with a product that's essentially broken in one of its core functions. Surely those who opt for OLED's and other high-end TV's are, on average, more discerning than the typical buying public?

I mean, there was sufficient pressure on LG to address the input lag issue in their OLED displays (via both firmware updates to older models and improved design in newer models), so at the very least it seems that enough LG OLED owners were aware of it? Shouldn't other manufacturers of high-end displays perhaps be taking that as a sign?
 
This is true, but most of the buying public don't really know much about TV's beyond size, "it's 3D", "it's 4K/HD" and "it's smart". Those are usually the same people who buy the cheapest Technika TV they can find in Tesco in the size they want.

For example, most people in my experience still don't understand what OLED is, and many don't understand why someone would want a TV that can have true black pixels even after it's explained to them.

So yeah, I can understand why input lag is ignored at the lower-end of the market. What I can't understand is why I could invest multiple thousands of euros/pounds and still end up with a product that's essentially broken in one of its core functions. Surely those who opt for OLED's and other high-end TV's are, on average, more discerning than the typical buying public?

I mean, there was sufficient pressure on LG to address the input lag issue in their OLED displays (via both firmware updates to older models and improved design in newer models), so at the very least it seems that enough LG OLED owners were aware of it? Shouldn't other manufacturers of high-end displays perhaps be taking that as a sign?
Sorry to disagree
Most who buy expensive high end TVs is because they usually have the expendable income and are willing to spend that much money on a TV.

Enthusiasts like those on forums are few and far between.

Even then I've never bought a TV for the lag times. Not even looked into it once.
Most don't know what lag time is or what misaligned 3D filter is etc

My point being LG aren't that fussed about lag times as much as some of us are at the expense of potentially other more important things.
 
My point being LG aren't that fussed about lag times as much as some of us are at the expense of potentially other more important things.
That seems like a strange point considering that LG seem to have done more recently than anyone to address demand for lower input lag, and currently have one of the best (if not the best) TV's for gaming on the market (the C7).

And I recognise that there are people who know very little about TV's buying at the high-end too, but my point still stands that enthusiasts are far more likely to choose higher-end TV's, and it's not unreasonable to expect a product at such a price range to not broken in one of its core functions.
 
That seems like a strange point considering that LG seem to have done more recently than anyone to address demand for lower input lag, and currently have one of the best (if not the best) TV's for gaming on the market (the C7).

And I recognise that there are people who know very little about TV's buying at the high-end too, but my point still stands that enthusiasts are far more likely to choose higher-end TV's, and it's not unreasonable to expect a product at such a price range to not broken in one of its core functions.

Enthusiasts may be far more likely to buy at the high end BUT they still make a small portion of the sales and of this even less are interested in gaming and lag times.

The other point I want to make is there is nothing broken. What do you feel is broken? Yes current firmware has upset gaming HDR but is anyone in any doubt it won't get fixed? We rarely lucky they have added HDR gaming and HLG HDR etc as they weren't part of the selling specification.

On the whole anything that can be fixed, they have fixed or are fixing or will fix. Anything else that remains form day one is the deficiency of the technology.
 
What do you feel is broken?
See the Bayonetta 2 example I posted above. If the TV is affecting my performance that much in a game, then the TV is broken as it is unfit for one of the primary purposes of a TV.

Let's also not forget that I was entirely unaware that the TV was having a detrimental impact on my performance until I played the game on a different TV. I simply assumed that the game was a lot more difficult than it actually was. You argue that most people don't know or care about input lag, but how many other gamers do you think are suffering from an inferior gaming experience due to their TV whilst being unaware of it? I don't think an "ignorance is bliss" argument is a good reason for letting TV manufacturers off the hook on this topic.

Consumers shouldn't ever need to be concerned with this kind of technical detail in the first place; one of the main purposes of a TV is gaming, and as such a TV should just work with any game as the game developers intended.
 
To stop us going round in circles I stand by my argument that the needs of what you describe are minimal for the market.

And if this need is so important to someone then they should research to buy the best one for their needs

Having said all of that I think the manufacturers have been listening and responding as evidence by FW updates that have improved things greatly
 
What I can't understand is why I could invest multiple thousands of euros/pounds and still end up with a product that's essentially broken in one of its core functions.

This is where we disagree. I simply don't regard input lag as a core function of a television. I myself never game, so I readily accept that I may be in the minority on this forum. And the argument that people buying a high-end television should expect a low input lag - well, if they can afford a high-end television, they can afford to buy a £200 (I'm guessing here) specifically gaming monitor from Currys, Maplin or Argos.
 
they can afford to buy a £200 (I'm guessing here) specifically gaming monitor from Currys, Maplin or Argos.

You can double your estimate there.

But that would only be a valid argument if high end TVs came in circa 30" sizes and gaming monitors came in 55"+ sizes. As it is they're not products that can be substituted for one another in a lot of cases.
 
And if this need is so important to someone then they should research to buy the best one for their needs
This is the basis of my entire point though. It should not be the responsibility of the consumer to research and know about technical details like input lag. If you paid a lot of money for a brand new TV and for some reason 10% of your DVD's, Blu-Rays or TV channels had lip-sync issues due to some technical issue you were unaware of, you'd probably return the TV reporting it as being faulty. And I'd do the exactly same thing if I noticed a degradation in my gaming performance after buying a new TV too, because the situation isn't really any different.


I simply don't regard input lag as a core function of a television.
Gaming IS a core function of a TV, as evidenced by the fact that pretty much every TV from the last decade has a "Game" mode. In fact I've never seen a TV during this period that doesn't.


if they can afford a high-end television, they can afford to buy a £200 (I'm guessing here) specifically gaming monitor from Currys, Maplin or Argos.
I know I'm pretty much repeating what EndlessWaves pointed out, but I just can't fathom how you somehow managed to equate the experience of a £200 (or even £400) gaming monitor to a 55" OLED TV.
 
Thanks for the links. My original TV choice was a Samsung KS8000, which has a very low input lag and is extremely highly rated for gaming over on a very big gaming forum. However, after buying the TV, I ended up returning it after just a few days due to the HDMI-CEC and ARC functions being broken on the TV.

I'm kind of made my choice now anyway, which is the LG OLED C7, but I'm going to wait for the price to drop a bit before taking the plunge, since €2,700 is a bit much for me and I can live with what I have for a few more months. I think by around January there is a decent chance the C7 will have dropped under the €2,000 mark, so I'll probably jump around then. I think it will be worth the wait.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom