Response times?

Kuhan · 14 Apr 2007 at 18:48

Seen a few montiers a like but some say 2 MS timer and some say 8 MS timers
was just wondering whats the differnce between them? i know the lower the better but do u really see the difference?

thanks!

Zefan · 14 Apr 2007 at 18:57

Anything under 16ms is fine, and normally you can't notice the difference much if at all between 12ms and 4ms etc.

I'd make sure the manufacturers specs are accurate though, as this monitor I'm using now was advertised as a 16ms, but it's far far more blurry than other 16ms's I've seen.

Kreeeee · 14 Apr 2007 at 19:16

8ms is still far far too slow for me

I can clearly see the blurring on all LCD monitors and to be honest they still don't come close to CRT in that regard.

fish99 · 14 Apr 2007 at 21:34

Kreeeee said:
I can clearly see the blurring on all LCD monitors and to be honest they still don't come close to CRT in that regard.

Nice to meet someone else who isn't blind

The number of posts I've read from people who insist their 16 ms screen "doesn't blur at all". People even used to say it about 25 ms screens. I can see the blur on my 8 ms GTG Dell 2007WFP (which is rated 6 ms when sold by NEC, and is apparently very nearly as quick as the 2 ms VX922 in practical use).

Thankfully LCDs have reached a speed where they are useable for gaming IMO, but they are still a compromise when it comes to speed and even more so black depth.

drak3 · 14 Apr 2007 at 22:13

Same here, sensitive eyes (well thats good in other cases

)

I can just see it. And once I see it once its over, cant get it out of my head

I really cant wait to see what 1ms panels will have to offer!

Btw, try a 16ms panel and open close some windows in XP/Vista. Then try the same with 4ms panel. You definatly "feel" the response.

Kreeeee · 14 Apr 2007 at 22:31

The dell 2007 and NEC 20WGX2 use completely different panels.

mrk · 14 Apr 2007 at 23:16

Kreeeee said:
The dell 2007 and NEC 20WGX2 use completely different panels.

They're very similar, the NEC uses a LG Philips AS-IPS panel rated at 6ms, the Dell uses a 8ms LG Philips S-IPS panel. In performance terms they are very close and you'd be hard pressed to find any performance differences between them side by side. I've used both and own the Dell. The NEC has slightly smoother colour saturation due to the opticlear coating the front lens uses whilst the Dell is sharper and is able to resolve slightly more detail in all scenarios from what I have used it with (game/photo editing)

fish99 · 15 Apr 2007 at 00:36

I stand corrected. I thought I remember seeing on some site they both had the same panel but I guess not.

It is very similar though, as mrk says above the Dell is S-IPS and the NEC is AS-IPS, which is just what LG Philips call their latest generation of IPS panels. So not exactly 'completely different' then, more like the next generation of the same panel technology. According to tftcentral.co.uk, AS-IPS allows higher brightness and improved colour reproducibility, so I would guess the response time difference (8ms GTG for the Dell vs 6 ms GTG for the NEC) is just down to either measurement technique or NEC using more agressive overdrive.

Kreeeee · 15 Apr 2007 at 07:54

mrk said:
the Dell is sharper and is able to resolve slightly more detail in all scenarios from what I have used it with (game/photo editing)

Really? I definitely did not find this when comparing the 2.

Baddass · 15 Apr 2007 at 08:59

yep, the Dell 2007WFP and NEC 20WGX2 use slightly different panels, with the NEC using the LM201WE2 and the Dell using the LM201W01. They are both pretty similar i practice though as said above. The "A" suffx for the NEC is just a naming scheme added by NEC themselves, for panels which are supposedly made exclusively for NEC. This is what reps at NEC told me some time back, which is maybe why that panel is not used elsewhere. Same thing with the new 2690WUXi.

Inazuma · 15 Apr 2007 at 11:56

I'd rather have an LCD which *barely* you can see the blur than a CRT with its constant flickering!

Kreeeee · 15 Apr 2007 at 13:06

SebC said:
I'd rather have an LCD which *barely* you can see the blur than a CRT with its constant flickering!

Oh I prefer LCDs overall by far but the blur is still glaringly obvious imo

mrk · 15 Apr 2007 at 13:25

Kreeeee said:
Oh I prefer LCDs overall by far but the blur is still glaringly obvious imo

Only if you're cycling between a high end CRT and a high end TFT on a daily basis because to be frank after you've used a good TFT for a solid month you're never going to look back and the heat/energy saving costs alone should turn anyone

I know what it was like having a 19" CRT back in the day in summer!!!