Tony Kalniev September 23, 2013 11:46 AM Thank for that. Time for the galaxy s 5 to destroy this achievement by bettering yet another aspect of phones... DR September 23, 2013 01:19 PM Does anyone really think that they can perceive a 60 ms. difference in response time? Keith Lamb September 23, 2013 01:56 PM I've never really noticed any significant lag when trying any of the phones on the list. Doesn't really seem to be as significant as the processor speed as glitches and lags caused by that will be far more significant. Silverbird September 23, 2013 02:37 PM DR, the benefit comes not from the initial response time but in the apps when the quality of control matters. Inf. Blade comes to mind. Fast response means better control in high performance apps.I don't have much to back that claim, but it seems the most logical. Also, spec hounds find it worthy of a gadget fight. Everytime I see a iFan and a DroidFan go at it, all I can think of is "My Daddy can beat your Daddy!. Mark C September 23, 2013 07:00 PM DR, yes people can. Not all, but some at least - people have logged sustained typing speeds (on iPhones) of 1 keystroke per 125ms. That's about the latency of the Android phones, so they will struggle.At least one speed record on a Galaxy S was beaten on an iPhone - try searching for 'iphone typing speed record'. Dave M September 23, 2013 11:57 PM Such a critical win for Apple... since everyone is all up in arms about the less than a 1/10th of a second difference in screen performance. Thank god that issue is settled. Maybe they should boost the sound range of their speakers to 100khz so they can win another meaningless competition; the dogs will all want iPhones then too. Simon Sammut September 24, 2013 01:13 AM I have an S4 and am happy with it, however, while I agree that you would never consciously perceive that sort of a lag, these things are often no conscious, we are talking about a 'feel' here... quite a subjective thing.. I think a blind test is warranted - if you could disguise rival phones to the point that you wouldn't know what device you were on and create an app one each OS to look identical on each then do a subjectivity test to see if there are statistical variances in the groups. ClubDoug September 24, 2013 07:43 AM Ok all you guys, stop thinking that cos something is measured in milliseconds it is has no discernable effect in the real world. Think about this - 125ms (around what the android phones are in this test) is 1/8 of a second, therefore your maximum reponse rate to inputs is 8 responses per second. If you think this lag wouldn't be noticable, then try watching your favourite movie at 8 frames per second and see how long you can last watching it before you get annoyed with it! Do the math people! dandrews1138 September 24, 2013 02:46 PM It's so foolish to bother measuring a phone's response time at these speeds. The average human eye is only capable of seeing at 16 frames per second. The human capacity for reaction is much slower than that.@ClubDoug, we're not talking about video frames per second, we're talking about touch screen response time. Your eye-hand coordination doesn't react anywhere near as quickly as your actual persistence of vision (the 16 frames per second I mentioned.) Even more, that's just the speed required to see a series of images flow as a moving image. The human eye can only actually see 10-12 images per second. Eye-hand coordination is even slower still. Human eye-hand coordination (reaction time) is around .15 to .3 seconds, meaning it takes that long for the finger to begin reacting to something the eye sees. 125ms is more than sufficient to handle even the fastest human eye-hand coordination times. kar September 24, 2013 06:29 PM i'm with club dog. even though physical response time is slower, i don't interact with it blindly. I need the visual cues to keep up with my physical inputs. On the other hand, these are such small variations that perhaps the brain would accommodate the lag without our even noticing it. maybe a hardcore gamer might notice a subtle difference, who knows.