Can Monitors Cause Lag?

PvtBones · October 2004

<div class="IPBDescription">I'm believing they can.</div> I've had this 12 inch (guessimate maybe a bit bigger) monitor for quite a while, how long you ask? well I can't exactly remember. it's the oldest thing in my system (it surived 2 computers amazing isn't it?). it has been showing the signs that it's on it's last breath (blurry text etc.)

when ever I load up a new game like BF'42 (well that one mostly since it's almost the only other game I play save NS) and I lag not too overly bad on base BF'42, now put me in almost any mod out there (except for EOD which runs well)
and I have to turn everythign off and everything to low.

my specs:
**** old monitor (refresh is at 100)
1.6 ghz P4
768 Ram (two different sticks )
54/32/54 CD rom
Geforce FX 5600 ultra 128
40 gig HDD (somehow I always end up low on space)
etc.

I ahve a friend who with a 64 MB intergrated video card and a never system (monitor included) out preforms more computer lag wise.
he has a AMD 3200(I believe)
512 ram
intergrated 64 MB video card
random company monitor

is my monitor really my bottle neck or is it something else?

Talesin · October 2004

No. He just has a lot more machine than you do. A LOT more machine. Even with an integrated video card... which is probably better than that FX5600. His processor is at LEAST twice as beefy as yours. And he's probably using faster RAM, too.

Your machine needs an overhaul. The monitor isn't the problem.

Dorian_Gray · October 2004

Erm... monitors can't cause "lag" per se, but if the refresh rate is low enough they can limit the FPS. Now you could be having lag compared to your friend's system due to the fact that <b>your processor is half the effective speed and your video card sucks</b> (GeForce FX < all).

I've also never heard of integrated graphics with 64MB of VRAM. They generally just use system RAM. Are you sure he has an integrated GPU? I ask because BF1942 requires hardware T&L and 32MB of dedicated VRAM. Integrated GPUs don't have hardware T&L (at least none I've heard of).

Also, how on EARTH can you live with a 12" monitor?!?!?! My absolute minimum that I'll buy is 19" visible <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Edit: Dammit Talesin beat me to it.

PvtBones · October 2004

ok that was a bad guessimate at what size it is, but it around that (15' max) and it's old very old.

and I know the FX series are the suxxor but this was all I was able to beg and plead out of my parents ( I was unemployed at the time aswell) so i was take it or leave it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>your processor is half the effective speed </b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bf'42's CPU requirement is a 9ghz processor (I believe thats teh recommanded don't hold me to that though).

I'll have to ask him again was his Video card is but I'm pretty sure that what is was.

anyways this discussion was a my computer vs a friends computer thread as much as is it possible my age old mintor (which is slowly dying btw) and the fact I have to basically turn off every setting to get a dicent frame rate for just base BF42 when I know I should be able to have it higher.

Dorian_Gray · October 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EAGames for BF1942)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>REQUIREMENTS

* Windows XP/Me/2000/98 (NT and 95 NOT supported)
* 500 MHz Intel Pentium III
* 128 MB RAM
* 4x CD-ROM drive
* 1.2 GB free hard disk space
* 32 MB hardware transform & lighting capable video card with DirectX 8.1 compatible driver
* DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
* Keyboard; Mouse </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Minimum system reqs are just that - minimum. Just because it CAN run doesn't mean it will run well. If you run a game on a minimum spec computer, it wont run as well as it would on a comp with a processor thats twice as fast, with what is likely a better video card as well.

ThE_HeRo · October 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PvtBones @ Oct 16 2004, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ok that was a bad guessimate at what size it is, but it around that (15' max) and it's old very old.

and I know the FX series are the suxxor but this was all I was able to beg and plead out of my parents ( I was unemployed at the time aswell) so i was take it or leave it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>your processor is half the effective speed </b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bf'42's CPU requirement is a 9ghz processor (I believe thats teh recommanded don't hold me to that though).

I'll have to ask him again was his Video card is but I'm pretty sure that what is was.

anyways this discussion was a my computer vs a friends computer thread as much as is it possible my age old mintor (which is slowly dying btw) and the fact I have to basically turn off every setting to get a dicent frame rate for just base BF42 when I know I should be able to have it higher.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Your post makes me chuckle.

I'm sorry.

Talesin · October 2004

I would agree that BF1942 wants a 9GHz processor, given how CPU-hoggish it is.

And again. Your video card sucks. You would have done better to buy a GF3 or 4. It would have been a lot faster, honestly.

Also... is your 1.6GHz P4 a Celeron? Not that it matters too much, but that'd be another reason it's so slow, if it is.
Also, what speed is the RAM? Old PC2100 will obviously slow things down, compared to PC4000. And what speed is the disk? A good (10Krpm), middling (7200rpm) or poor (5200rpm) will also have a marked effect on your gameplay.

panda_de_malheureux · October 2004

After hours of consideration, we have decided it is probably time to get a new monitor.

Soylent_green · October 2004

Many slightly older games are entirely CPU bound. Contrary to popular belief the graphics card is often NOT the limiting factor, but you can often make it the limiting factor(increase resolution, increase texture quality, increase AA and AF, that sort of thing.). For the processor there is usually very little you can do to releive the load, everything that decreases the number of polygons, particles and objects the CPU has to deal with will obviously help but there is little else.

The older you go the more CPU bound you get. Take half-life, it's running in IMMEDIATE MODE, it is using glBegin and glEnd and sending every single vertex, every single colour, every single texture coordinate for every single polygon in a model with an individual openGL call(This is a HORRIBLE way to do things(TODAY, along time ago this was a sensible thing to do) and no one would ever dream of doing things this way for anything serious today. Immediate mode is still usefull when you are dealing with only a small amount of calls and you can't find any way to stick it in a vertex array, VBO or display list(only good for static geometry) or otherwise batch it).

On ATi cards this has quite a bit higher driver overhead than on nVidia cards, which is why ATi cards run half-life so much worse than nvidia cards. Half-life is in the realm of utterly and totally and beyond all hope CPU bound. I can play the game at 2048x1536x32BPP with AA, AF cranked as high as it will go, it has litterally NO effect on my framerate and that's the situation with most newer cards. This is of course a situation VALVe could easily fix up, or at least somewhat relieve, they're just plain too lazy, malicious or busy(take your pick).

Older games tend to use smaller batch sizes, less shaders, less fillrate, less textures, all this adds up to make them more CPU heavy.

V_MAN · October 2004

FPS lag <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /> I get that a lot

2_of_Eight · October 2004

The only thing that you could call monitor lag is update latency (I think). It's how long it takes for all those pixels and pixies on your monitor to re-arrange themselves. This applies to LCD monitors mainly.

BaconTheory · October 2004

New CPU + Faster RAM = Increased Performance.

Also, I don't know why, buy my FX 5200 128mb runs a lot better than your 5600 from what you have told me. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

I would definately get a Athlon 64, as they're much more powerful then Intel chips. I would get one myself, but I have no job and only $80 (which I will use to buy Halo 2).

TheFrostmourne · October 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (2_of_8 @ Oct 17 2004, 09:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The only thing that you could call monitor lag is update latency (I think). It's how long it takes for all those pixels and pixies on your monitor to re-arrange themselves. This applies to LCD monitors mainly.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I have a 17' LCD Monitor and it works great for games.
The newer LCD monitors definatly don't lag.
Is it possible you have those Williamette Based P4s on the socket 423 interface that uses RAMBUS ? That was crappy as hell.

Your lagg might be attributed to a poor chipset. No matter how strong a Graphic card is if the Chipset blows your overall system will blow.

Drfuzzy · October 2004

Monitors themselfs lag, if you goto a store, you can notice a computer-to-display lag time is displayed under the price, which is usualy 17ish ms

TheFrostmourne · October 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DR_FUZZY @ Oct 17 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Monitors themselfs lag, if you goto a store, you can notice a computer-to-display lag time is displayed under the price, which is usualy 17ish ms  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Thats not lag thats response time and it's too fast to notice.

Dorian_Gray · October 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The-Frostmourne @ Oct 17 2004, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DR_FUZZY @ Oct 17 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Monitors themselfs lag, if you goto a store, you can notice a computer-to-display lag time is displayed under the price, which is usualy 17ish ms </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Thats not lag thats response time and it's too fast to notice.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Exactly. 17ms is the time it takes for sound to travel 6m. So if you can notice lag in say a classroom when the teacher is speaking, then you'll notice the lag created by the response time of the monitor. However, if you're like the other 6,394,723,132 (as of right now) people on the planet, you won't.

Can Monitors Cause Lag?

Comments