Significance of response times of LCD monitors?
- Thread starter korrupt
- Start date
- Status
nickslick74
Posts: 550 +4
From what I can remember anything 8ms and faster is considered sufficient for gaming purposes. While faster is usually better, you do need to figure in the cost (which you seem to have already considered). 2ms would be overkill, especially for the cost.
N3051M
Posts: 2,094 +3
At best you'd probably notice a smoother motion picture but the difference is minimal..
However looking at a 24ms screen like my old toshiba laptop (and attempting to play oldskool CS on it) to a 14ms screen right now on my main rig, and playing the same game or movie does prove much nicer here than the laptop.. but thats on the basis of comparing old tech with new (improved) tech.
The real test is this:
-Go to the shop, and see if they have an active display model out. Get them to play a movie on one, then play the exact movie on the other as well.
If you can notice the difference then you can weigh up the necesity of buying it or not, if you dont notice the difference, then get the cheaper between the two.
However looking at a 24ms screen like my old toshiba laptop (and attempting to play oldskool CS on it) to a 14ms screen right now on my main rig, and playing the same game or movie does prove much nicer here than the laptop.. but thats on the basis of comparing old tech with new (improved) tech.
The real test is this:
-Go to the shop, and see if they have an active display model out. Get them to play a movie on one, then play the exact movie on the other as well.
If you can notice the difference then you can weigh up the necesity of buying it or not, if you dont notice the difference, then get the cheaper between the two.
I pretty much just ignore the ms ratings as they are truly just marketing tactics and generally have no real tie to reality.
Example:
An "8ms response" LCD would suggest no ghosting or motion artifacting up to 125 fps, yet you will be hard pressed to find *any* 8ms LCD that doesn't exhibit some degree of ghosting as low as 60fps with higher contrast images in motion.
Moreover, up until recently, there have been no "industry standard" methods of measuring an LCD's response time, contrast ratio or brightness. So while these specifications might be viable for comparing products from a single manufacturer, they are often times unreliable when comparing products from competing vendors. All it takes is one vendor that is measuring these things differently to throw off any kind of comparison.
In general, consumer reports and end-user testimonials are much more reliable than looking at spec-sheets or product stats. One company's "700:1" may yield less contrast than anothers "500:1".. or vice-versa. Response times can also be misleading as some manufacturers measure this in higher contrast conditions, whereas others appear to measure this with the backlamp totally off .. or something similarly ludicrous.
Hit NewEgg and read any customer reviews.. or visit a local showroom if you're looking for the best picture, contrast, color and response times. I've found this to be the most reliable form of comparing LCD's given how industry standards are still in their infancy for comparing competing products in this realm of technology.
Example:
An "8ms response" LCD would suggest no ghosting or motion artifacting up to 125 fps, yet you will be hard pressed to find *any* 8ms LCD that doesn't exhibit some degree of ghosting as low as 60fps with higher contrast images in motion.
Moreover, up until recently, there have been no "industry standard" methods of measuring an LCD's response time, contrast ratio or brightness. So while these specifications might be viable for comparing products from a single manufacturer, they are often times unreliable when comparing products from competing vendors. All it takes is one vendor that is measuring these things differently to throw off any kind of comparison.
In general, consumer reports and end-user testimonials are much more reliable than looking at spec-sheets or product stats. One company's "700:1" may yield less contrast than anothers "500:1".. or vice-versa. Response times can also be misleading as some manufacturers measure this in higher contrast conditions, whereas others appear to measure this with the backlamp totally off .. or something similarly ludicrous.
Hit NewEgg and read any customer reviews.. or visit a local showroom if you're looking for the best picture, contrast, color and response times. I've found this to be the most reliable form of comparing LCD's given how industry standards are still in their infancy for comparing competing products in this realm of technology.
korrupt
Posts: 666 +2
Thanks for your replys,
Will I notice a difference in picture quality between my CRT and an 8ms LCD? I often play soldier of fortune on 90fps (with a fx5200)... My real question is; Will my path of carnage be affected by slower response times? 8ms, can that make a real difference?
I was thinking about going with a samsung syncmaster 940n, anyone have any experience with this monitor?
Regards,
Korrupt
Will I notice a difference in picture quality between my CRT and an 8ms LCD? I often play soldier of fortune on 90fps (with a fx5200)... My real question is; Will my path of carnage be affected by slower response times? 8ms, can that make a real difference?
I was thinking about going with a samsung syncmaster 940n, anyone have any experience with this monitor?
Regards,
Korrupt
Image quality will be vastly different. Whether it's to your liking or not will be a different question though lol.korrupt said:
Hrmm, you are aware that LCD's only have like one(1) native resolution, correct?
They aren't like CRT's where they can sync 1:1 to various resolutions, like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
For example, many 17 or 19" LCD's have a "native resolution" of 1280x1024. This means any game or display ran at lower resolution will be scaled/stretched to fill the native resolution. This scaling makes the pixels in the display appear a bit.. unusual.
I'm not sure how you'll like this. If you play games on your FX5200 at, say, 800x600, you might want to try hitting a showroom with LCD's with the same native resolution (guessing 1280x1024) and set them to 800x600 to compare how the scaling looks/works.
To put it simply, if you set a game or your desktop to 800x600 on a "native resolution" 1280x1024 LCD, it'll still be displayed on the LCD as 1280x1024, but it will be scaled-up/blown-up to fit, even if it's only an 800x600 or 1024x768 image. This can make text look funky or a bit fat/thin to read in places.
Response times are pretty good these days, but high-contrast, fast motion will have occasional ghosting even on the best LCD's.
As this is with an FX5200, I'm not so sure "fast motion" will be much of an issue. And the ghosting is mainly seeing a slight "trail" when, for example, a bright white object zips across a solid black screen. It'll be followed a bit by a faded ghost in it's motion trail.
korrupt
Posts: 666 +2
Thanks for your in depth reply, the LCD monitor would actually be for my new pc which has the following specs:
Intel Core 2 duo processor e6400 (overclocked to 3.3GHZ)
Intel BLKDP965LTCK Motherboard
2gb (2 x 1gb) pc6400 RAM
Antec Sonata II case
Antec Smartpower 450Watt PSU
Gigabyte 7600gt Silent Pipe II
2 x 250gb SATAII 7200RPM 8mb Cache Western Digital Caviar
2 x Dual layer 16x DVD burner
Regards,
Korrupt
Intel Core 2 duo processor e6400 (overclocked to 3.3GHZ)
Intel BLKDP965LTCK Motherboard
2gb (2 x 1gb) pc6400 RAM
Antec Sonata II case
Antec Smartpower 450Watt PSU
Gigabyte 7600gt Silent Pipe II
2 x 250gb SATAII 7200RPM 8mb Cache Western Digital Caviar
2 x Dual layer 16x DVD burner
Regards,
Korrupt
That system should be very good for that LCD, depending upon how many games will play reasonably well at the native LCD resolution. Some you may have to scale down.
F1NEST is absolutely correct about the motherboard. Many Intel's do not have very flexible BIOS support for overclocking, so if you plan to overclock, you may want to consider a 3rd party motherboard (such as Abit, Asus, etc.etc.)
F1NEST is absolutely correct about the motherboard. Many Intel's do not have very flexible BIOS support for overclocking, so if you plan to overclock, you may want to consider a 3rd party motherboard (such as Abit, Asus, etc.etc.)
Face of LA
Posts: 152 +1
well it wudnt make any difference as long as U Got a 8ms LCD, i agree with Sharkfood!
one
one
Mictlantecuhtli
Posts: 4,049 +13
I guess that's an 5:4 aspect ratio display? In other words, 1280x1024?korrupt said:I am going with the samsung 940n 19"
Well, I guess one can get used to that, but personally I prefer 4:3 or 16:9.
Mictlantecuhtli
Posts: 4,049 +13
No and yes. 4:3 is "normal", like my monitor at 1600x1200. 16:9 is widescreen.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Nintendo DMCA lawyers shut down everything Mario on Garry's Mod- Uncle Al replied
-
BlizzGone: Blizzard cancels 2024 convention but promises an eventual return- GodisanAtheist replied
