Reponse time comparison LCD vs CRT

Kyo · 1 Jun 2006 at 14:59

Hi

Was thinking about finally getting a TFT/LCD. Was just wondering as a comparison to a standard CRT, using the same scale in ms. What do most monitor have as a response time in MS. I do know that depends on refresh rate set in hz but it really to give me a idea what reponse time i would like.

Idealling looking for gaming screen which badass was kind enough to advise and i think i will probably go for the Viewsonic VX922 19 but can see samsung now got a 2ms screen as well. - Samsung SM-940BF 19

Managed to test gaming on tft 16ms screen and although visually looks good i must admit on competitive play on online gaming via CS. It was pants as the screen just couldn't match response/reactions. That my excuse anyway for playing pants

Just wanted to make sure before i bought. As I was concerned that the last thing i wanted was despite a 2ms screen, there would still bel a huge difference in performance compared to my current crt.

Cheers

Kyo

Zefan · 1 Jun 2006 at 15:00

Anything under 12ms should be fine, there really is no way of converting it into CRT terms as it's just totally different.

Baddass · 1 Jun 2006 at 18:01

you can't really judge the "response time" of a CRT. Technically it is 0ms. However, CRT's refresh their image by drawing the image on the screen using a cathode ray gun. As such, the whole image is drawn as one, and the rate at which this drawing occurs is determined by the refresh rate you set for your graphics card / monitor to operate at. Setting the refresh rate at 60Hz for example tells the gun to redraw the image on the screen 60 times a second.

With a TFT, there is no redrawing done. Instead, the graphics card sends an image to the monitor and requests that the pixels change as and when they need to on an individual basis. The response time is the time taken to do this change (this is all in very crude terms btw). If they can't respond fast enough, the can show ghosting since they are trying to change too quickly and leave a trailing image behind. Equally, blurring of textures can be an issue, but is down to how the pixels are refreshing. Ghosting is not really a major issue on modern fast and heavily overdrive panels. However, blurring can be off putting to some people.

I dont think even the fastest TFT's will satisfy some really hard core gamers, but they certainly offer big improvements over the older 16ms generation. While you can't really compare the monitors response times between a TFT and a CRT, BeHardware did some practical tests using Pixperan (not sure if you're familiar with this? - see here for how they use it / record it). Comparison of a CRT and a TFT:

ViewSonic P227FB CRT

ViewSonic VX922, TN 2 ms panel

not necessarily the definitive coparison, but might help. I think you really would need to try a fast overdriven panel to be 100% sure of whether it will suit your gaming needs, hopefully you will be ok though

Kyo · 1 Jun 2006 at 22:47

hehe nice one badass. Explained that very well as always

Btw How do u think the Samsung SM-940BF 19 pars with the Viewsonic VX922. Thinking to go Viewsonic cause your spot on the reviews on it but i don't know much about the samsung despite them both being 2ms. As always it not consistant.

Viewsonic to be safe me thinks.

Cheers

Layzan · 2 Jun 2006 at 16:48

That looks poor in comparison.

I was thinking about a TFT with 6ms, if 2ms is like the above then I’ll seriously reconsider.

Please, someone who is really into their games tell me this isn’t so….

geeza · 2 Jun 2006 at 17:01

Layzan said:
That looks poor in comparison.

I was thinking about a TFT with 6ms, if 2ms is like the above then I’ll seriously reconsider.

Please, someone who is really into their games tell me this isn’t so….

on my new acer 19" tft screen that only cost me £165 delivered i can play dod source so much better, the colours look so much brighter. I went back to my crt and it looks black and white in comparison. I had my dell p992 set at 120hz for many years and did a fair bit of gaming. The new tft seems faster and more colorful to me (and its a cheap one compaired to some)

wellibob · 2 Jun 2006 at 17:01

One would have to have a rather poo LCD/TFT screen to notice bad ghosting. I dont know what all the fuss is about thesedays as most decent LCD/TFT screens offer amazing quality for gamers and their likes. Ive not noticed any bad ghosting on any LCD offering 12ms response times or less, and i can assure you i would notice. Thing is, is not to get to obsessive about it. CRT tubes still offer an overall better image quality if you dont mine a big rock sitting on your desk !

geeza · 2 Jun 2006 at 17:04

wellibob said:
CRT tubes still offer an overall better image quality if you dont mine a big rock sitting on your desk !

how come plasma and LCD dick all over traditional tvs then?

when will we see a plasma computer screen (although i know at smaller sizes lcd is better) im talking about a 38" plasma with a massive resolution

wellibob · 2 Jun 2006 at 18:13

LCD/TFT & plasma screens are good dont get me wrong, im was soley on about a reasonable size monitor for a PC, not to display Star Wars so it takes up my whole living room wall.

Baddass · 2 Jun 2006 at 19:03

Layzan said:
That looks poor in comparison.

I was thinking about a TFT with 6ms, if 2ms is like the above then I’ll seriously reconsider.

Please, someone who is really into their games tell me this isn’t so….

the pic on the left hand side of each image is the "best case" and the right is the "worst case". Read how they take those images at BH for the full story. Remember, this is only a fairly crude way of showing the responsiveness of a screen. It is handy for sure, and helps to demonstrate preceived perception. TFT's dont compare with CRT's in fast moving screnes, it's just the way the technologies work. However, i would suggest that in real use, for an average user, you would have no major issues with many of the newer fast models out there. They are suitable for many many people and even die hard gamers often find them perfectly fine for their uses. The only way you will know if it will be ok for YOU, is by trying one for yourself though i'm afraid. Don't be too put off with the above pictures, I was merely posting them to help the OP

Baddass · 2 Jun 2006 at 19:07

Kyo said:
hehe nice one badass. Explained that very well as always

Btw How do u think the Samsung SM-940BF 19 pars with the Viewsonic VX922. Thinking to go Viewsonic cause your spot on the reviews on it but i don't know much about the samsung despite them both being 2ms. As always it not consistant.

Viewsonic to be safe me thinks.

Cheers

no problems Kyo

With regards to the Samsung 940BF vs Viewsonic VX922, take a read of this article. The 940BF is basically just a slight extension of the 930BF which is covered in that article. It's a big dose of marketing really to rate it at 2ms, mainly to keep up with the Viewsonic model which was outdoing it

In reality, i doubt you would notice any difference between the 930BF and 940BF. The Viewsonic VX922 is arguably the fastest model in the market right now, certainly one fo the best gaming TFT's out there. The overdrive application is more evenly controlled than on the Samsung (see that article for more) and so there are much fewer problems with white halos / overdrive trailing and also noise in movie playback. Both are very good, but the Viewsonic tends to be rated a little higher thanks to the very well controlled overdrive application

Layzan · 3 Jun 2006 at 01:18

Cheers lads, I'm really thinking of picking up the lastest Dell if I hear good things from those hardcore gamers out there.

rayb74 · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:44

geeza said:
how come plasma and LCD dick all over traditional tvs then?

Traditional tv`s run at 640x480 over a fairly large area and are not meant for close up viewing or high res gaming.

Clarkey · 3 Jun 2006 at 14:02

traditional PAL CRT's actually run at 720x576, and will offer better PQ than any flat panel.