Anyone here prefer TN to IPS? Just me being weird?

Gimpymoo · 21 Jan 2016 at 16:58

After the failing of IPS to impress me, am I the only one mad enough to say that TN panels are better for gaming?

We have a £70 BenQ in the house and games look more fluid, I think, I cannot put my finger on it.

Everything I read tells me I must be mad to even think such a thing, but can it be true?

PCM2 · 21 Jan 2016 at 17:04

It would help if you reinforced your opinion with some model numbers. 'TN' vs. 'IPS' is a fairly broad statement as there is considerable variety between different models for both panel type.

andybird123 · 21 Jan 2016 at 17:05

As with most things on these forums (and the internet in general) people feel the need to justify what they purchased and to be "right" about things.

Monitor choice is highly personal, every monitor tech currently available (including oled) is a series of tradeoffs.

I have both IPS and TN, and for me the TN is much nicer to game on, particularly at night or with the curtains drawn. The IPS is better for bright environments or where you need more than one person to be able to look at the same screen (e.g. it does quote well in TV's or in offices).

But yeah, for me, my TN is my preferred choice for gaming and that is my PC's primary use.

Nasher · 21 Jan 2016 at 17:14

TN is good up until 25" I think. After that the gamma shift is to much and you notice it a lot more. TN isn't good when you need colour accuracy either. Their response times are quicker which is why some prefer them for gaming on.

Gimpymoo · 21 Jan 2016 at 17:21

PCM2 said:
It would help if you reinforced your opinion with some model numbers. 'TN' vs. 'IPS' is a fairly broad statement as there is considerable variety between different models for both panel type.

ACER XF270HU Vs BenQ XL2730Z to be precise.

PCM2 · 21 Jan 2016 at 17:31

Right. Well your observations are certainly reflected by wider user consensus where similar models to the XF270HU are involved. On paper (and by accurate measurement) the XL2730Z is a fair bit faster during some pixel transitions than those 144Hz AHVA models. And given he refresh rate, that does actually matter. Just how much it matters is quite subjective - most do not find the difference to be all that profound, but many do notice there being a difference of sorts.

I must also ask, did you make any observations using the XF270HU with and without FreeSync? One thing that FreeSync does on that model is to disable the pixel overdrive, so that many pixel transitions are actually rather slow. Not great for the high refresh rate action.

Gimpymoo · 21 Jan 2016 at 20:38

PCM2 said:
One thing that FreeSync does on that model is to disable the pixel overdrive

Incorrect.

A firmware bug in the monitor prevents access to the Overdrive menu while using display port unless in the BIOS or WIndows boot screen.

OD defaults to "Normal" in this instance thus is not disabled. You simply cannot adjust/disable it.

PCM2 · 21 Jan 2016 at 21:02

I was under the impression that regardless of what the OSD reports, OD is disabled. User observations using websites like TestUFO certainly support this and it's something I've seen on several other FreeSync models as well. So is this something you've specifically tested or are you just relying on what the OSD is telling you?

Gimpymoo · 21 Jan 2016 at 21:07

I can only relate to the Acer, but there is a firmware bug while using display port with Freesync disabled or enabled.

PCM2 · 21 Jan 2016 at 22:05

Right, so it would seem the issue persists regardless of FreeSync in that case. However; it has also been observed that regardless of the OSD reporting 'Normal' as the setting in Windows, the overdrive would actually seem to be disabled. Hence responsiveness is poorer than correctly configured models using the same panel. This is based on information from a user who has compared this model to the XB270HU and sees a clear difference in performance, with the XF270HU performing like the XB270HU with OD disabled. And further from users who have compared using different inputs.

I did think the user mentioned FreeSync causing an issue here, but the issue is specific to DisplayPort as you said. But obviously you are restricted to using that input if you also want to use FreeSync. Therefore it can only be circumvented if you wish to use the monitor at its normal static refresh rate - if you have only tested the monitor using DP, you've only seen performance with OD disabled.

Minstadave · 21 Jan 2016 at 22:09

I swapped out a 144Hz Benq TN screen for a Dell IPS screen. Yes the Benq was more fluid but it was washed out and had poor black levels. The IPS looks far more lush.

smilertoo · 22 Jan 2016 at 01:34

For games i'm pretty sure a good TN is better compared to an IPS in the same price bracket,especially if TN is what you're used to.

andybird123 · 22 Jan 2016 at 07:45

Minstadave said:
I swapped out a 144Hz Benq TN screen for a Dell IPS screen. Yes the Benq was more fluid but it was washed out and had poor black levels. The IPS looks far more lush.

What setup steps did you try, did you adjust the gamma?

Squink · 22 Jan 2016 at 08:57

Nasher said:
TN is good up until 25" I think. After that the gamma shift is to much and you notice it a lot more. TN isn't good when you need colour accuracy either.

Yeah, if you'd asked me about colour shift on my very old Samsung 22" TN I'd have wondered what you were on about. I moved on to a ROG Swift and it was massively apparent and off putting. The colour difference between it and my next monitor, which was IPS, was far less of an issue.

james.miller · 22 Jan 2016 at 09:09

TN has always been the preferred choice for gaming.

Harl0 · 22 Jan 2016 at 09:20

TN for me. Not a fan of the IPS glow.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 22 Jan 2016 at 09:39

Been TN all my gaming life, just recently went IPS and I could never go back, it was liking being colour blind (TN) and then seeing normal again (IPS)

Arcane · 22 Jan 2016 at 09:45

I've owned and used various IPS, VA and TN panels over the years. None are perfect but the Swift for me has been the best for gaming, without a doubt. I was considering moving to one of the G-Sync 144hz IPS models when they first came out but couldn't be bothered going through the whole panel lottery thing for nothing more than slightly improved colours with slightly worse motion clarity.

144hz 8 Bit TN with G-Sync is more than good enough for me until something truly better arrives, by that I mean OLED or some sort of 200+ hz Monster.

DrBombcrater · 22 Jan 2016 at 11:56

Harl0 said:
TN for me. Not a fan of the IPS glow.

Yeah, this. All LCD technologies have major issues, it's a case of picking which defects you can live with most easily. And I've always found the colour shifting on a good quality TN (not the crappy, cheap ones though) to be less distracting than IPS glow. Particularly now that panel manufacturers seems to have given up trying to minimise glow using polarisers.

That said, I find both TN and IPS woefully inferior to VA. Deep blacks and high contrast make such a huge difference to the image quality.

Davanius · 22 Jan 2016 at 12:13

I don't have a single complaint about the colors, black level and contrast on my Benq 2730Z. I still have a Samsung pls that I adore which is so rich in color and sheen.

Thought that I wouldn't have been able to live with the tn but the Benq is miles ahead of the Asus 278H that I also have.

With both the tn displays being 1ms and 2ms respectively and the pls being 5ms, the difference was noticeable while gaming but not a game breaker.

I would assume that a 4ms ips would be acceptable for gaming depending on brand and model. It was the 60hz limit on the pls that was hard to game with in my case.