Few questions regarding fast VA vs. TN monitors

[John471]

Hi all,

I'm looking for a new LCD monitor, and I'm trying to decide between the fast VA monitors (S-PVA and P-MVA) and the (apparently) very fast TN monitors. I use my computer for office work, so it is essential for the monitor to be very clear and easy on the eyes for extended periods of time. I also use the computer for quite a few fast-paced games (including FPS games and flight sims), and I would like to keep any possible blurring or ghosting to an absolute minimum. I don't perform any sort of graphical work/editing, so in theory I don't really need the full 16.7m colors that the VA monitors would provide. At this point, I'm leaning towards TN style monitors, but I do have a few questions.

First, how 'bad' do the colors look on a TN monitor? If I understand correctly, these 6-bit monitors use a technique known as dithering to give the illusion of greater color depth, but, for some users, this can give images a 'looking through a screen door' like appearance and/or the colors look 'off' compared with 8 bit alternatives. I saw a Samsung 930b monitor a few days ago on display in a store, and I didn't really see anything noticeable. Then again, the display was cycling through a set number of images and there wasn't any way to actually test the monitor.

Second, how much slower (in terms of blurring/ghosting being evident on the screen) are the fast VA monitors (Viewsonic VP930b, Samsung 970P) when compared to the fastest TN monitors (Viewsonic VX922, Hyundai Q90U, Benq FP93GX)? I've heard the 970P has an issue with a 'halo' or some such on moving objects, any truth to that?

Also, I was reading through this monitor review at Behardware:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/602-11/19-lcd-survey-2-3-4-6-8-ms-and-above.html

Maybe it's just me, but looking at the left image on the reaction time tests, it almost looked as though the vx924 and fp91v (3-4ms monitors) outpeformed the vx922 (2ms) slightly. It just looked like the second or 'ghost image' was a little bit easier to detect on the vx922 than on the vx924 and fp91v. I don't know, I guess that just struck me as odd since the panels for those monitors
were all made by AUO. Maybe the slightly different background color makes it more visible or maybe its just a random limitation associated with using the camera to take those pictures.

Any comments or recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Baddass]

I also use the computer for quite a few fast-paced games (including FPS games and flight sims), and I would like to keep any possible blurring or ghosting to an absolute minimum.

While the fast overdriven PVA and P-MVA panels are pretty responsive, in comparisons, the fastest TN Film panels still offer some improved responsiveness in real application and thanks to aggressive overdrive, these offer some of the best gaming performance in the market today. Models like the Samsung 930BF and Viewsonic VX924 / VX922 are prime examples

First, how 'bad' do the colors look on a TN monitor? If I understand correctly, these 6-bit monitors use a technique known as dithering to give the illusion of greater color depth, but, for some users, this can give images a 'looking through a screen door' like appearance and/or the colors look 'off' compared with 8 bit alternatives.

not bad at all. modern TN panels offer excellent colour reproduction, and even some pretty decent black depth which was always a problem with older panels. dithering successfully manages to produce a wide range of colours and i would say that modern screens offer very good colour levels, and it would be pretty hard to tell the difference between them and an 8 bit screen (PVA / MVA / IPS) for most users.

Second, how much slower (in terms of blurring/ghosting being evident on the screen) are the fast VA monitors (Viewsonic VP930b, Samsung 970P) when compared to the fastest TN monitors (Viewsonic VX922, Hyundai Q90U, Benq FP93GX)? I've heard the 970P has an issue with a 'halo' or some such on moving objects, any truth to that?

well they are still fast, but the "fast" TN monitors like the Samsung 930BF and Viewsonic VX924 offer some improvement, and also "Feel" more responsive for gaming because the TN Film technology is inherently more responsive than VA varients. BeHardware is a good place to look for comparisons. They rate the 8ms and 6ms P-MVA and PVA as comparable to the 8ms TN generation, but that the 4ms, 3ms and 2ms TN models are a bit faster and more suited to gaming

Maybe it's just me, but looking at the left image on the reaction time tests, it almost looked as though the vx924 and fp91v (3-4ms monitors) outpeformed the vx922 (2ms) slightly.

i dont think you can place too much confidence in the images taken from pix-per-an, i dont think it is the most reliable way of comparing ghosting, or lack thereof. It's about as good as you can get on a paper review, but dont rely on them too much. The VX922 is only really a slight extension of the VX924 and ive have said often that the new response time is quite likely to be partly down to exageration and in reality not really offering much, if any, real difference over the 4ms / 3ms rated VX924. Its a lot of marketing, and the quoted G2G response time is still only the best case response time. Maybe at one point it does reach as low as 2ms, but overall i doubt it's much different from what the panel was offering before.

hth

 

[John471]

Thanks for the great reply, Baddass, its much appreciated. I'm going to go for a TN monitor.

 

[Baddass]

no worries mate. Let us know how you find it