2ms + 5ms response times, is there really much difference in game?

Flare

Flare

Flare

Soldato
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Posts
3,549
Location
Aus
Which monitor for gaming?

As above...
Im literally about to order a new monitor, either 22" or 23" but would just like to know if 5ms response time is noticable compaired to 2ms when gaming?

If its of any use the spec i have is:
BFG GTX 280 OC Q6600
Biostar Tpower i45

Oh and could anyone recommend one of these please:
Asus VH226H 22" Widescreen True HD LCD Monitor
Contrast Ratio: DC 12,000:1(3000:1)(Typ.)
Response Time: 2ms
Resolution: 1920x1080
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-013-AS&groupid=17&catid=949&subcat=


Samsung T220 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor
Contrast Ratio: DC 20,000:1(1000:1)(Typ.)
Response Time: 2ms
Resolution: 1680x1050
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-084-SA&groupid=17&catid=949&subcat=


Samsung SM2333SW 23" Widescreen LCD Monitor
Contrast Ratio: DC 20000:1(1000:1) (Typ.)
Response Time: 5ms
Resolution: 1920x1080
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-108-SA&groupid=17&catid=949&subcat=

Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Most TN panels are generally rated at 5ms typical (black to black) and at the same time 2ms (gray to gray). If you check the spec it'll likely say one or the other so basically 5ms and 2ms is the same and the manufacturer will quote whatever depending on which market segment they are targetting. The other difference is with overdrive technology which can reduce the pixel response further.

Are you sure you want to consider the older 1680x1050 panel especially when 1920x1080 is so widely available now?

I had previously ordered a SP2309W from a competitor but they had no stock and I got impatient so cancelled it and today I ordered two of the Asus 22" VH226H. I originally intended buying a bigger monitor (24"+) or two because until today I hadn't considered the newer 22" monitors. I realised they were 1920x1080 resolution so it was a no brainer for such a low price. They have dispatched so should be here tomorrow.
 
I never noticed it back when 16ms was the norm.

Remember that the human reaction time (ie a reflex) is 0.1 seconds. That's 1/10th of 1 second, or 100ms. Now, the eye can notice things slightly faster than this, but you still aren't likely to notice the difference below 10ms (1/100th of a second).

Most people who think they notice it are actually imagining it. Show 1000 people a 5ms monitor and 2ms monitor doing the same thing and you'd get pretty close to a 50% split.

That's not to say it CAN'T be noticed. Some people really can just see faster, especially if it's something they're used to and focusing on. But it's not really something to worry about.
 
Consider the context of why TFT pixel response times are generally inadequate. Our initial reaction time isn't what makes it inadequate it's our seeing motion for multiple images which makes it obvious that the response times are inadequate. We see the ghosting that occurs due to the inadequate pixel response time. Overdrive technology makes it even more noticable due to being a brute force technique with varying degrees of error compensation which again is very noticable.

Of course we can become "used" to it causing us to not notice it anymore or even be unaware of it for various reasons suggesting it doesn't exist but even so I don't think it's right to say others are imagining noticing it. :)
 
Good choice! :D

Mine arrived today and they are excellent monitors! Quite lucky too as both are in perfect condition with no dead pixels/very little backlight bleed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom