Earlier quoted context omitted.
Networking isn't the bottleneck. As John Carmack quipped, "I can send an IP packet to Europe faster than I can send a pixel to the screen. How f’d up is that?" Usually if there is latency caused by networking in an application it's usually unneeded roundtrips caused by inefficient programmers or inefficient layers in the software stack. It's insane how much overhead there is.
I am completely baffled by this quip. At speed of light in a vacuum, from New York to London is 19ms. That's the physical limit of what a network could ever hope to accomplish, but in reality in fiber it's apparently about 28ms. At 60fps we need to present a new set of pixels to the screen every 16ms. So in the time that a packet goes in one direction to Europe we could have presented almost two full frames of pixels…
If you have a completely black screen and want to draw a tiny white circle in the middle of it, it will take your processor or GPU less than a microsecond to change the bytes. Less than 16 milliseconds later (an average of 8ms, actually) the updated bytes will be flowing through the HDMI wires and into the monitor. There they will be stored into a local buffer. If there is a mismatch between the image format and the LCD panel then it will probably be copied to a second buffer. Some DMA hardware will then send the bytes to the drivers for the LCD and the light going through those pixels will change. All that can easily add up to 50ms or more.