LCD Response Time 2ms vs 5ms?(Gaming)

[Avan]

I'm going to be buying my first LCD monitor soon here and I do plan on playing quite a few games on it. So my big question is, is it worth it to shell out the extra $ for a 2ms lcd over a 5ms one? I do plan on playing some first person shooters along with some RTS games. Checking newegg for a 1920x1200 one(the res I want), you get alot less choices and higher prices when you select 2ms over the 5ms one. So any help or advice on this would be awesome, thanks.

[IronWarrior]

If you going to be playing at them low resolutions, I guess getting the 2ms would be good, in my view, I honestly do not think it makes much difference, 8ms is like 2-3 FPS, but when you getting FPS over 80 or something, I don't see it making make much difference.

My view through. :P

[ewitte]

?? 1000/8 is 125

[Bertross]

ok i think we need to step back and realy look at what we are buying.

In most cases 2ms is grey to grey, 5ms is more han likely it's true reproduction. It's not until you buy an 8bit panel where we start to see why they are worth alot more.

Grab a Benq E2400HD or V2400HD and your laughing, it's a good medium between price and quality.

Or link us with your desired screen and i'll let you know what is good or not. steer clear of Acer & LG screen stick to Samsung/BenQ

[Soulburner]

Sometimes I feel like I need to set up macro responses...

Do not look at response time when purchasing an LCD!!. It means nothing. Actual total response numbers are much higher than advertised.

[WRC]

ecatly, my samsung 206BW is advertised at 2ms response time yet xbit labs did a review and it is actually ~4.3ms. I wish I knew this back then but oh well it's still a good monitor.

[Avan]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

[Freonor]

?? 1000/8 is 125

ms = miliseconds = 10^-3

so 8 ms = 8*10^-3 = 8/1000

so 80 fps gives is 80*0,008 = 0,64

so theoretical loss of 0,64 frames. But monitors often only run 60Hz so it doesn't matter as much. And like said above. Response time is a misleading sales gimmick. And the human eye only sees like 25 fps anyway.

Reviews and first hand experience is the way to go. So many subjective opinions considering colours and such.

[JustRob]

you won't even notice the difference!

[ewitte]

What will really throw you is if you look at charts from people testing the monitors you still get certain instances where latency is as high as 40ms. Frenor your trying to make it more complicated than it should be ;)

[Freonor]

Yes, but only to correct misgivings. 1000/8 is massively different from 8/1000. As is 2-3 fps from 0,64 fps. I could have just posted the correct values, but showing how you get there is useful for any further calculations. And people could actually risk learning something! o.0

[ewitte]

Yes, but only to correct misgivings. 1000/8 is massively different from 8/1000. As is 2-3 fps from 0,64 fps. I could have just posted the correct values, but showing how you get there is useful for any further calculations. And people could actually risk learning something! o.0

if you say so. Last I checked there were 1000ms in 1 second. Even 8/1000 is .008 of a second. 1s/.008 = 125 as well ;)

[Freonor]

if you say so. Last I checked there were 1000ms in 1 second. Even 8/1000 is .008 of a second. 1s/.008 = 125 as well ;)

We agree. My mistake. Still. In what relation is 125 to the OP? I fail to see the relation. Without putting it in context or giving units for all I know it could be 125 flying sheep. It might just be me being slow again, sorry if that's the case.

[Soulburner]

Response time is a misleading sales gimmick.
True.
And the human eye only sees like 25 fps anyway.
False. I really wish people would stop spreading these lies. First, we don't even see frames so to say we can see x frames per second makes no sense.

Most monitors rated around 5ms have an actual total average response time between 20-40ms.

[Tsaroth]

you won't even notice the difference!

+1 :up:

And the human eye only sees like 25 fps anyway.


True.

False. I really wish people would stop spreading these lies. First, we don't even see frames so to say we can see x frames per second makes no sense.

Most monitors rated around 5ms have an actual total average response time between 20-40ms.

Soulburner, I'm not calling you a liar but everywhere I've seen says that the human eye doesn't see in frames per-say but anything over 40 (if it stays constant) makes no difference when you can see the lagging/flickering/whatever at sub-40. Is that not true?

[IronWarrior]

True.

False. I really wish people would stop spreading these lies. First, we don't even see frames so to say we can see x frames per second makes no sense.

Most monitors rated around 5ms have an actual total average response time between 20-40ms.

If this is true, then how are they showing such things as 4ms or 8ms, anything else would be breaking false add laws.

[B.E.E.F.]

And the human eye only sees like 25 fps anyway.

No.

Explain how some people can see a light bulb operating at 60hz flicker. The eye can see upwards of 30 frames per second. If you introduce blur into the movie/game you can lower the frames significantly and still get the feeling of 'fluidity'. This is why movies are comfortable at 24fps and a game is not.

[Avan]

Thanks for all the input and discussion everyone.

This is the one I'm looking at now, what do you all think?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001309

[Sparky]

Soulburner, I'm not calling you a liar but everywhere I've seen says that the human eye doesn't see in frames per-say but anything over 40 (if it stays constant) makes no difference when you can see the lagging/flickering/whatever at sub-40. Is that not true?

I've heard it was 60 or thereabouts. Who knows.

My friend claims he can see a difference between 60 and 100 even though I remind him that his LCD can't show more than 60fps anyway :lol2:

[Tsaroth]

How so Spark?

My LCD shows more than 60fps. I turn vsync off of games and I get up to 140fps in some games.

I've heard that game makers want their game makers want their games running at 60 so that when a bunch of explosions and fires and smoke are going off then it won't dip below the 40 that is comfortable.

I've heard it was 60 or thereabouts. Who knows.

My friend claims he can see a difference between 60 and 100 even though I remind him that his LCD can't show more than 60fps anyway :lol2:

[babalouj]

How so Spark?

My LCD shows more than 60fps. I turn vsync off of games and I get up to 140fps in some games.

I've heard that game makers want their game makers want their games running at 60 so that when a bunch of explosions and fires and smoke are going off then it won't dip below the 40 that is comfortable.

The refresh rate of your LCD is 60hz meaning it can only refresh its image 60 times a second. Vsync makes your video card only generate 60 fps which matches your LCD and gets rid of tearing. With vsync off your video card is sending more than 60 fps but your LCD is still only displaying at 60hz sooooo your monitor is still only showing 60 fps.

Anyways, human eyes can see a range of FPS differences usually between 30 and 60 fps. Some people can tell the difference between fps even faster than that. Human eyes also detect faster motion in your periphery which aids in detecting incoming objects like baseballs, cars, watermelons, shoes, etc. So if you look out of the corner of your eyes you can detect fps differences of faster fps then looking straight on which leads to people being able to see 60hz fluorescent bulb flickering and even fps in video games of 60+. To say everyone has a limit of 25-30 fps is like saying everyone sees colors the same or eveyone has the same eye sight.

[Tsaroth]

My bad. At least if the game is running at 100 and the monitor is showing 60, i won't see any difference until my in-game frames drop below 60 ;)

The refresh rate of your LCD is 60hz meaning it can only refresh its image 60 times a second. Vsync makes your video card only generate 60 fps which matches your LCD and gets rid of tearing. With vsync off your video card is sending more than 60 fps but your LCD is still only displaying at 60hz sooooo your monitor is still only showing 60 fps.

Anyways, human eyes can see a range of FPS differences usually between 30 and 60 fps. Some people can tell the difference between fps even faster than that. Human eyes also detect faster motion in your periphery which aids in detecting incoming objects like baseballs, cars, watermelons, shoes, etc. So if you look out of the corner of your eyes you can detect fps differences of faster fps then looking straight on which leads to people being able to see 60hz fluorescent bulb flickering and even fps in video games of 60+.

[B.E.E.F.]

shoes, etc.

:ROTF:


To say everyone has a limit of 25-30 fps is like saying everyone sees colors the same or eveyone has the same eye sight.

Yes. I think though, the limitation is the brain, and not the eye. The eye works like a fluid camera, it doesn't really have 'FPS'. There are no frames.

Now to answer the OP's question. 2ms vs 5ms is not a big deal, but it will give you less lag. Combine this with a good low-lag mouse and keyboard and its going to make a noticeable difference in fast-paced games.

[rintamarotta]

If this is true, then how are they showing such things as 4ms or 8ms, anything else would be breaking false add laws.

They tell the pixel responce time, what time it takes pixel to switch Grey->Off->Grey or On-off-On.
Also there is responce times for panel (not the pixels) witch also adds up Input-lag and yes there is imput lag in every single lcd its just not noticeable in most of cases.

I just love my HP LP2475w 24" LCD, its rated at 6ms (i belive G to G) but i dont see the difference anyway, also it got low input lag (around 15-20ms).

[WillC]

There is a monitor on newegg (LG L227WTG) and supposedly has 0 input lag, but I somehow doubt that. It was top of the list for gaming in the lcd thread over at anadtech. I find their list helpful, because it is one of the few sites that offer a comprehensive list of input lag for monitors.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206

Thread may help you decide on a suitable monitor I suppose.

[STEvil]

Two points to make.

The faster pixel response time for the LCD the faster it can update pixels which are showing incorrect (outdated or untimed due to vsync)/juttered information commonly called "tearing". Ghosting will also be much less of an issue.

Second point is that even though your LCD may only display 60fps while your game is running at 125fps you may still be able to perceive a difference in performance depending on how the gaming engine is designed. For example Quake 3 when run at 125fps has "errors" which allow certain things to be done easier than at 30, 60, 90, etc...

[AndrewL1950]

I have done a lot of reading, from reviews to specs for a good, affordable 1900X1200 gaming monitor recently.

Everything I have seen comes to the same conclusion. BenQ G2400WD is currently the best 1900X1200 monitor for gaming, and it just so happens to be sold at an affordable price.

It is a TN panel, but the colour reproduction is supposedly quite good. It has very little input lag, 1:1 pixel mapping and a host of various connections to be used.

If you would like to read more about it, Anandtech's thread on LCD monitors has lots of information.

[sjg0]

Okay guys:
Technically your eyes and "see" about 400fps. The problem is, your brain can only process the information recieved from the retina at about 30fps. This is why fast moving objects blur, your eyes are capturing the info at 400fps, but your mind does not have time to process each one so you end up seeing a garbled mess of those 400 frames mixed together. Obviosly this is a broad generalization, and can vary greatly depending on your state of mind/when mind is stimulated, such as on drugs or adrenaline pumped etc... While it is true people's irises don't actually register in frames per second, its a pretty good universal medium for determining visual capabilites.

On that not I would like to just add my 2 cents.
If comparing apples-to-apples display types and specs but only 2ms vs 5ms, I can assure you you will see NO PERCEPTABLE DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Even if you are cracked out on speed or something (dont do drugs.)
However, as others have stated, 2ms is generally a marketing gimmick, especially if coming from a no-name brand. Trust me, I would pay more money for a 13" Samsung or LG than for a 28" Chinaco Noname.

So basically just ignore the response time (they are all pretty much <10ms now anyway) and focus on seeking out a quality panel.

[Soulburner]

I have done a lot of reading, from reviews to specs for a good, affordable 1900X1200 gaming monitor recently.

Everything I have seen comes to the same conclusion. BenQ G2400WD is currently the best 1900X1200 monitor for gaming, and it just so happens to be sold at an affordable price.

It is a TN panel, but the colour reproduction is supposedly quite good. It has very little input lag, 1:1 pixel mapping and a host of various connections to be used.

If you would like to read more about it, Anandtech's thread on LCD monitors has lots of information.
But the viewing angle is still a big problem like all TN's. You have to sit in the exact right spot to see it normal and even then the top of the screen goes dark on you unless you tilt it forward. If you've ever use a laptop in the last 5 years you'll know what I mean. Trust me, been there, done that...and it's why I am still using my BenQ FP241W. They still haven't made a better computer LCD.

[B.E.E.F.]

Okay guys:
Technically your eyes and "see" about 400fps. The problem is, your brain can only process the information recieved from the retina at about 30fps.

I'm not sure where you got 400fps but I agree. Its a very high number.



If comparing apples-to-apples display types and specs but only 2ms vs 5ms, I can assure you you will see NO PERCEPTABLE DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Even if you are cracked out on speed or something (dont do drugs.)

If its from the same company and model series, chances are there will be a difference. We've got to compare apples to apples.

[Bradan]

False. I really wish people would stop spreading these lies. First, we don't even see frames so to say we can see x frames per second makes no sense.

Most monitors rated around 5ms have an actual total average response time between 20-40ms.

if every frame is equally spaced, I think 24fps is the defacto standard for smooth. Movies are shot in 24fps.

We need high framerates to compensate for the uneven spacing of frames, aka, uh ohs, microstuttering. In realtime renders you can't avoid it unless you render something that is static.
Try playing some old game on low settings and low res. Use vsync and cap fps at 30. you'll find it's pretty smooth because there are no large gaps between any two frames.
Also, the perceived smoothness has allot to do with the input(mouse)/output(monitor/what-we-see).

But the viewing angle is still a big problem like all TN's. You have to sit in the exact right spot to see it normal and even then the top of the screen goes dark on you unless you tilt it forward. If you've ever use a laptop in the last 5 years you'll know what I mean. Trust me, been there, done that...and it's why I am still using my BenQ FP241W. They still haven't made a better computer LCD.

Wooooooo! SPVA!

[STEvil]

if every frame is equally spaced, I think 24fps is the defacto standard for smooth. Movies are shot in 24fps.

Movies are shown on a large screen in a dark room and have lots of motion blur.

We need high framerates to compensate for the uneven spacing of frames, aka, uh ohs, microstuttering. In realtime renders you can't avoid it unless you render something that is static.
Try playing some old game on low settings and low res. Use vsync and cap fps at 30. you'll find it's pretty smooth because there are no large gaps between any two frames.
Also, the perceived smoothness has allot to do with the input(mouse)/output(monitor/what-we-see).



Wooooooo! SPVA!

Yes, but also some things just never run "smooth" below a certain point.

[hiiyah777]

I personally paid more money for a quicker response. But I have mental reservations for things that I sometimes cannot get over. I have to feel like the purchase I made was the absolute best one and I can't afford to regret it at all within 3-4 months. So I know if I would have gone with the 5ms screen, I would have always looked at it as though it was inferior and wondered what it would have been like if I had sprung just a little bit more for the 2ms screen. In the end, I am happy with my decision to spend the extra money, and I don't regret it at all.

As for Soulburner's comments, I believe he is 100% right, and if you're not overly OCD like me (to a dangerous degree), then you would be well-suited to save the money and go with the 5ms LCD.

[AndrewL1950]

But the viewing angle is still a big problem like all TN's. You have to sit in the exact right spot to see it normal and even then the top of the screen goes dark on you unless you tilt it forward. If you've ever use a laptop in the last 5 years you'll know what I mean. Trust me, been there, done that...and it's why I am still using my BenQ FP241W. They still haven't made a better computer LCD.

I know what you are saying about the viewing angel, and it can be an issue for people who use multiple monitors or won't be sitting right in front of it.

However if he is using this for games, and I assume sitting at a desk he will be right in front of it 100 percent of the time.

It's also slightly exaggerating about having to tilt it forward or the edges will be darker. Outside of my Aquos I use a Samsung 22 inch LCD monitor (TN panel). It sits perfectly vertical on it's stand, and when I am in front of it the picture doesn't darken around the edges.

[Soulburner]

I speak from personal experience and am not exaggerating. I'm not talking about around the edges - the way a TN panel works, the picture is not uniform from top to bottom. The top half is darker than the bottom half, period. This is very highly dependant on exactly where you sit too and I've always had to compromise and tilt the monitor forward a bit.

[sjg0]

I speak from personal experience and am not exaggerating. I'm not talking about around the edges - the way a TN panel works, the picture is not uniform from top to bottom. The top half is darker than the bottom half, period. This is very highly dependant on exactly where you sit too and I've always had to compromise and tilt the monitor forward a bit.

While its good to seek the best panel you can, nobody is going to be in the middle of an intense CSS game and say, "Oh my god, I think the pixel on the top of the screen is 1/16 of a lumen darker than the one on the bottom!"

For gaming, imo you just need an overall decent screen, no ghosting, decent blacks, good color reproduction, etc....

Save being picky for if you are Photoshopping.

[Soulburner]

Did I say the top pixel? I'm talking the top inch or two of your screen. It varies by LCD obviously, but these are my personal experiences with TN panels.

[Tsaroth]

While it's true that TN viewing angles are garbage, I didn't mind when I bought mine because the way I sit is dead center of my screen and I don't have 5 people huddled around watching me play TF2 :yepp:

[Soulburner]

While it's true that TN viewing angles are garbage, I didn't mind when I bought mine because the way I sit is dead center of my screen and I don't have 5 people huddled around watching me play TF2 :yepp:
The issue is not really horizontal - its vertical. Most people don't think of it this way but if you move up and down you will notice a shift in brightness from top to bottom, some panels enough to crush blacks or blow out whites. If you have a laptop this is easy to test, just tilt the screen back and forward. Most have TN panels (low power use and cost compared to other types) so most will do this. The ones I have used personally were enough to actually see a forum post get lighter or darker as I scrolled up or down the page...especially annoying in threads with lots of pictures.

[andrzr]

I love my Sony Trinitron Multiscan G520 21". yes it is CRT, 120W power consumption. I play CS and Fortress Forever @ 140hz in 1024x768, 200fps.

I've played CS competitively and i can say there's a LOT of difference between ANY CRT @ 100hz+ and the best LCD @75hz. and even if they make a 100hz LCD the input lag is still a problem. input lag can reach more than 30ms. now imagine this: 12ms response time of your LCD(2 or 5ms is just for gtg. the other color take more time) plus a 25ms input lag plus the keyboard and mouse delay.. let's say 1 to 8 ms depending of what equipment you have.. plus your ping latency let's say 40.

now sum it all. you will be playing with at least 78ms to 85ms | 12 + 25 + (1 or 8) + 40

so your response time online have just doubled!

[Tsaroth]

Soul,

I have the Gateway FHD2400 and I don't have that problem.

If I tilt the panel back then the color at the top will shift but when I sit here and play games and look at the forums I see no color shifting.

But then again, maybe it's cause I have a head the size of a watermelon.

The issue is not really horizontal - its vertical. Most people don't think of it this way but if you move up and down you will
notice a shift in brightness from top to bottom, some panels enough to crush blacks or blow out whites. If you have a laptop this is easy to test, just tilt the screen back and forward. Most have TN panels (low power use and cost compared to other types) so most will do this. The ones I have used personally were enough to actually see a forum post get lighter or darker as I scrolled up or down the page...especially annoying in threads with lots of pictures.

[Soulburner]

Like I said some are better than others. You have a quality monitor.

But it's still a fact of the TN technology ;).

[loften]

But the viewing angle is still a big problem like all TN's. You have to sit in the exact right spot to see it normal and even then the top of the screen goes dark on you unless you tilt it forward. If you've ever use a laptop in the last 5 years you'll know what I mean. Trust me, been there, done that...and it's why I am still using my BenQ FP241W. They still haven't made a better computer LCD.

like when watching movies laying down on my bed a few feet away. i have to turm my monitor sideways to face me and tilt it down so i can see the movie.. samsung 226bw 2ms..

[Freonor]

I'm using the BenQ 24" mentioned. Viewing angle is not a problem. If i'm lying in bed watching stuff, yes I need to tilt the screen then. But when at roughly the same level its fine.

[Freonor]

Oh and Soul, I do recognize that we see 50 fps at least because of the phenomenon where we see a wheel spinning backwards when only lit by street lights. The electricity changes 100 times a second... Didn't think my statement through :P but like mentioned before it's how they're spaced out that gives the experience. Everyone would be happy gaming at probably 40fps if it was constant and perfectly spaced, like a film.