LG W1953T review: input lag and upscaling using the piLagTesterPRO

This 1366x768 TN PC monitor from 2010 is typical for a TN display: very fast, with nearly no input lag, and a pretty good response time.

Image quality

Good upscaling is critical for retro gaming. Ideally, all pixels should appear equally sharp and bright (no aliasing), and angled lines should appear smooth, with no jagged, irregular steps. Also important is that the display shows most or all of the pixels it is sent. Often, this is not the case, with some number of pixels cropped from the bottom or top edges. Shockingly, these tests are relevant for modern gaming as well, because even at their native resolution many TVs have aliasing and cropping. Monitors tend to show all pixels and never crop, and thus have fewer scaling options.

This monitor has no scaling or cropping options. All you can do is force 4:3, otherwise it always scales so that X and Y fill the screen completely.

resolution	aliasing/jaggies
480p	very minor jaggies, A- overall
720p	noticeable aliasing, B
1366x786	native resolution, pixel perfect
1080p	not supported

The display has 1 VGA and 1 DVI. I only tested DVI (over a passive HDMI converter).

Input Lag

I used a piLagTesterPRO to measure input lag. This device sends a frame of video over HDMI and measures how long it takes to display it. This display does not have a game mode; I toggled all the display quality settings and did not see a consistent effect on lag, however the tests reported are with every "enhancement" set to off.

I report two kinds of values. 1st response measures how long it takes for the TV to start responding (I use a 5% change in display brightness). This overly optimistic value doesn't tell how long it takes to see anything useful, but matches what other reviewers call input lag. full response is a more realistic measure of lag, and requires the display to reach 80% of full brightness. This combines both input lag and response time, and is closer to what you would actually experience in a game.

	top		bottom
Resolution	1st (average)	full response	1st response	full response	scan out
480i	N/A
480p	3.4	13.4	18.7	28.7	15.3
720p	2.6	12.6	18.7	28.7	16.1
1080p	N/A
1366x768@70	2.5	12.5	16.4	26.4	13.9
1366@768@75	2.5	12.5	15.5	25.5	13.0

This display does not support interlaced modes at all. It also doesn't support 1080p. But it does support 70hz and 75hz in addition to the standard 60hz we all know and love.

The first response at the top of the screen was slightly slower for 480p, otherwise it averaged 2.5ms across all resolutions and refresh rates. The 1st response at the bottom of the screen did not depend on resolution, but did depend on refresh rate, as you would expect. The scan out at 60hz was about 16ms, which is about 1/60th a second. Raising the refresh rate to 70hz shaves 1ms off that, and raising it to 75 shaves off another 1ms on top of that. So if you want the lowest input lag overall definitely run at 75hz.

Interestingly the display does not advertise supporting 75hz at the native resolution (only 60hz), so you have tell your video card to force that mode. I saw no problems running it in this mode, however, and the monitor redraw always stayed locked vsync, with no glitches or drifting lag.

The response time of the display averages 10ms. The spec sheet advertises 2ms, which is just a bald-face lie, but is true that you can get the response time down to about 5ms, depending on the transition the LCD has to make. Black to white is fast and fairly clean, whereas other transitions can happen in a 2-step process where the LCD gets close to the desired brightness, pauses for a couple ms, and then steps the rest of the way. I'm sure this two-step process causes some motion artifacts when viewed on a high speed camera, and probably results in moving stimuli looking more muddy to the human eye than they would otherwise. I'm not going to be too hard on the display, however, as this is a common issue.

Results compared to other displays

To allow quick comparison between many displays I've summarized the results across all the displays I've personally tested with the piLagTester Pro. Min lag is the time to the first response, measured where the screen starts drawing (typically, the top); real lag is the time to the full response, measured where drawing finishes (usually the screen bottom), i.e. input lag + scan out + response time. Numbers in red denote average values that can vary by up to 8ms between power cycles.

This list is sorted by real lag for each display's native resolution and max refresh rate (usually 1080p60 but some sets are 720p60, and other monitors like this one support > 60hz).

 

Display	Year made (TV?)	Native Res	native min lag	native real lag	480i real lag	480p real lag	720p real lag	1080p real lag	native response time	native scan out
Dell E198FPb	2008	1024p	2.7	20.4		39.0	35.0		5.00	12.70
Samsung 2494sw	2011	1080p	2.8	22.7		26.5	26.5	26.5	8.00	13.30
Vizio VO370M	2010	1080p	2.5	23.6	83.0	49.0	47.0	24.3	5.47	15.67
LG W1953T	2010	768p	2.6	25.6		28.7	28.7		10.00	13.00
Dell U2410 (game)	2010	1080p	4.0	26.2	62.2	28.3	26.5	26.5	6.00	16.20
TCL 40S325	2021	1080p	6.5	27.3	60.6	29.0	27.9	27.7	6.00	14.83
TCL 49s403	2018	4k	6.1	30.2	76.8	30.9	30.3	30.7	8.00	16.13
AOC/Envision G19LWK	2010	900p	3.1	31.2	39.5	38.7	38.4	37.8	15.50	12.60
Dell E2211H	2014	1080p	3.0	33.6	34.7	34.5	34.1	33.8	15.00	15.57
Dell 1907FPc	2008	1024p	3.0	34.0		35.9	34.8		15.00	16.00
Panasonic TH-58PE75U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Panasonic TH-42PX75U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Panasonic TH-50PZ80U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Corprit D157 (hdmi)	2021	1080p	3.1	34.5	34.9	34.8	34.6	33.9	16.25	15.13
Samsung S27C230	2014	1080p	2.9	36.0		36.6	36.1	36.1	18.10	14.97
Vizio E470VL (vga)	2011	1080p	22.0	39.0		39.0	39.0	39.0	9.00	8.00
Samsung LN32D403	2012	720p	20.9	41.2	58.9	42.4	40.7	40.7	5.50	14.83
TCL50s423	2021	4k	14.0	42.0	75.0	42.0	42.0	42.0	13.00	15.00
Dell U2410 (sRGB)	2010	1080p	20.5	42.8	62.4	45.0	43.1	43.1	6.13	16.13
ACER AT3265	2012	1080p	19.5	43.8	62.7	45.3	43.8	43.8	8.00	16.27
sony XBR 43X800D	2017	4k	24.5	44.3	46.5	46.0	44.6	44.7	5.00	14.83
RCA L40FHD41	2010	1080p	20.3	46.6	65.0	48.0	47.0	46.0	9.68	16.63
Sony 40VL130 (game)	2008	1080p	22.8	47.3	66.3	49.0	47.3	47.3	9.08	15.43
Polaroid FLM-373B	2007	720p	28.0	49.0	82.0	49.0	49.0	49.0	7.00	14.00
Philips 42PFL3603D/F7	2009	1080p	29.0	50.0	84.0	50.0	50.0	50.0	5.00	16.00
Sony KDL-40V3000	2008	1080p	22.2	50.1	68.4	50.6	50.5	49.8	11.00	16.93
LG 42LC2D	2006	720p	28.3	50.6	54.6	50.8	50.4		6.30	15.95
GPX TDE3245W	2016	720p	28.0	51.0	102.0	51.0	51.0	51.0	8.00	15.00
Sony KDL-46EX400	2010	1080p	28.0	52.0	87.0	52.0	52.0	52.0	8.00	16.00
Toshiba 40L2200U	2014	1080p	30.0	56.0	74.0	56.0	56.0	56.0	10.00	16.00
Vizio E261VA	2012	720p	19.3	59.0	61.1	60.4	59.2	58.9	25.00	14.67
Emprex HD 3202	2007	720p	27.0	66.0	126.0	51.0	50.0	62.0	24.00	15.00
Samsung LN32B360	2010	720p	37.6	60.0	62.1	61.8	60.5	60.1	8.00	14.40

Thus sorted this display finds itself near the top of my list, but that's largely because most of my list is TVs (in fact I've discarded the slowest 3rd of my list to keep the length manageable). Computer monitors (particularly TN) are known to be very fast, and this one is no exception. It would be more impressive if it were an IPS screen (such as the Dell U2410, which is nearly as fast, just one spot down on the list). The real take away is that any TN computer monitor will have great lag, and that any PC IPS display, while slower than TN, will still beat the pants off the TVs.

Similar models(?)

I tested the w1953T, which is the 19" version.  There does not appear to be a larger version that is precisely identical. The LG W2053TQ is also a TN display but has 1600x900 resolution. The W2253TQ  is full HD (1080p). But all 3 are TN displays from the same era, so at the least you can assume they have good input lag, and if the model number alone is meaningful, identical lag to this one. The W2453V is an IPS display and thus is almost certainly slower than these displays.