Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-09-2010, 05:58 AM   #1
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,883
Default Any difference between 2ms & 5ms response time for gaming?

Hey all, im holding back from purchasing a monitor i really want cause it has a 5ms response time (Samsung P2770HD, has a built in TV tuner). The 2ms variant isn't available where i live (Samsung P2770H, no built in TV tuner), so im debating whether i should get the P2770HD and call it a day. The thing is nothing else in that size & price is available (except an LG, but it has similar specs & i'd prefer Samsung).

If i recall ghosting occurs @ 8ms and above, correct? I've read 1 user review where the dude said its "fine" for gaming, whatever that means.:p Is 5ms good for gaming or will i notice some ghosting?

Also, the "dynamic" contrast ratio for the P2770H is 70 000:1, whereas the P2770HD is 50 000:1, although the normal contrast ratio for both is 1000:1, what does that mean exactly? Will pictures be sharper on the P2770H?

Thanks in advance for any feedback on those 2 questions.
__________________
Desktop: 2500k @ 4.4ghz @ 1.35v on Noctua NH-D14, 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9-9-9-24, Gigabyte Z68 UD4 B3, Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI, 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition & 2TB WD Black, Auzentech Forte 7.1, Seasonic 760wt Platinum, DELL U2711 @ 1440p, Corsair 300R, Win7
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN, i5 4200u, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 840m, IPS Matte @ 1080p, 256GB SSD, Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 07:15 AM   #2
Kuzi
Senior Member
 
Kuzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 572
Default

Do you know if that is 5ms GTG? If that is the case, the color response may be higher, and you might notice some ghosting.

I believe for most people, 6ms or lower response time is good enough, they won't notice any ghosting. Also, you might want to check the input lag of the LCD, as many have pretty high input lag, over 2 frames (+33ms), which can affect gameplay, especially fast FPS games.
Kuzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 07:25 AM   #3
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,464
Default

For me, I went from an 8ms to a 5ms to a 2ms and never noticed any difference in gaming.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
SlowSpyder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 07:28 AM   #4
Yuriman
Platinum Member
 
Yuriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,469
Default

Considering one frame is displayed every 16.66ms, I doubt you'll notice a difference of 3ms.
Yuriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 07:44 AM   #5
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuzi View Post
Do you know if that is 5ms GTG? If that is the case, the color response may be higher, and you might notice some ghosting.

I believe for most people, 6ms or lower response time is good enough, they won't notice any ghosting. Also, you might want to check the input lag of the LCD, as many have pretty high input lag, over 2 frames (+33ms), which can affect gameplay, especially fast FPS games.
i've been searching everywhere to see if its 5ms GTG but it doesnt say anywhere, even in the product manual, just says "response time typical". so im guessing that's not GTG otherwise they would've advertised it as such. How would i find out if its 5ms GTG or BTB?
__________________
Desktop: 2500k @ 4.4ghz @ 1.35v on Noctua NH-D14, 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9-9-9-24, Gigabyte Z68 UD4 B3, Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI, 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition & 2TB WD Black, Auzentech Forte 7.1, Seasonic 760wt Platinum, DELL U2711 @ 1440p, Corsair 300R, Win7
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN, i5 4200u, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 840m, IPS Matte @ 1080p, 256GB SSD, Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 09:23 AM   #6
dguy6789
Diamond Member
 
dguy6789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,383
Default

When people read 8ms, 5ms, 2ms on monitor info, that is usually the very quickest and best case scenario that the monitor is capable of. In no circumstance does a monitor perform that well on a regular basis and especially not for games. Changing from white to black and to other colors takes much much much longer than the gray to gray measurement. Most monitor manufacturers do not tell you how long more common transitions take, but the quicker your GTG, the quicker these other changes will be. The quicker your monitor, the better the chance that really extreme color changes won't take longer than the 16ms magical number.
dguy6789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 11:46 AM   #7
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,883
Default

so how do i find out if the Samsung P2770HD is 5ms GTG or BTG? i've read their online manual and checked the specs on their official site, but there's no mention of it, just "5ms typical response time". Is it safe to assume its 5ms GTG? thanks in advance.
__________________
Desktop: 2500k @ 4.4ghz @ 1.35v on Noctua NH-D14, 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9-9-9-24, Gigabyte Z68 UD4 B3, Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI, 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition & 2TB WD Black, Auzentech Forte 7.1, Seasonic 760wt Platinum, DELL U2711 @ 1440p, Corsair 300R, Win7
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN, i5 4200u, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 840m, IPS Matte @ 1080p, 256GB SSD, Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 11:48 AM   #8
dguy6789
Diamond Member
 
dguy6789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,383
Default

GTG is what should be assumed if it isn't stated otherwise. GTG is the most impressive looking number(also the most meaningless but they don't tell you that), so that is what they use.
dguy6789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 12:01 PM   #9
Kuzi
Senior Member
 
Kuzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 572
Default

I think it is GTG too.

You can check a CNET review of your monitor here:

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...g=content;col1

One thing I didn't like about it is the resolution, only 1920x1080 for a relatively large LCD, 1920x1200 would have been better. But they mention there that during gameplay there was no noticeable ghosting or input lag.

Last edited by Kuzi; 03-09-2010 at 12:19 PM.
Kuzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 12:26 PM   #10
severus
Senior Member
 
severus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Default

I think it really depends on the person. I went from a 19" NEC CRT to a 19" LG Flat tron with 2ms, but I notice ghosting on the LCD. Granted I've been using the CRT for so long, and I'm an extremely hard core cs 1.6 player so yeah.
__________________
i5 2500k, tz68a+, 8 gigs kingston, gtx470, antec 620w, antec 1100
classic: duron 1.1 nf7-s ti4200 1gig ddr xaser ii 500, antec 550w
severus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 12:44 PM   #11
formulav8
Diamond Member
 
formulav8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 6,155
Default

A few years ago I bought a 19" Samsung with 1280x1024 resolution and 8MB response time. Although I don't have it anymore I recall absolutely no ghosting playing some fps based games. But I don't have a very precise visual perspective.



Jason
formulav8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 01:16 PM   #12
NoQuarter
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,004
Default

I would suggest you read xbitlabs new LCD buyers guide:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mon...pring2010.html

In the gaming section it addresses the 5ms question pretty specifically. But it does seem like it's 5ms GTG, which may not bother you, I don't have a problem with ghosting on any TN panel these days.

Last edited by NoQuarter; 03-09-2010 at 01:22 PM.
NoQuarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 03:32 PM   #13
Pantlegz
Diamond Member
 
Pantlegz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KS
Posts: 4,196
Default

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the difference it 3ms.

seriously though, GTG 5ms should be fine. Check something like cnet for a review... It also kinda depends on the person, some people are more sensitive to ghosting. Or they just want something to complain about.
__________________
“If what you did yesterday seems big, you haven't done anything today.” - Lou Holtz

Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated
Pantlegz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 03:45 PM   #14
GlacierFreeze
Golden Member
 
GlacierFreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,055
Default

dguy6768 is spot on and explained it better than I tried to the other day. They advertise the lowest response time between colors, usually GrayToGray. Other color transitions will take longer and is usually why ghosting happens (IE: GTG = 2ms but RedToWhite may = 16ms or worse). The best monitors are rated at 2ms GTG but also benchmarked to show fairly reasonable response times with ALL other color changes. "2ms" monitor is very deceiving when it comes to gaming and doesn't exactly tell you how it will perform.

And the best way to see how a monitor will perform is check sites that have benchmarked their various pixel color change response times. Some monitors won't have any benchmarks and you'll just have to try it out yourself to see.
GlacierFreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2010, 04:24 PM   #15
NoQuarter
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlacierFreeze View Post
dguy6768 is spot on and explained it better than I tried to the other day. They advertise the lowest response time between colors, usually GrayToGray. Other color transitions will take longer and is usually why ghosting happens (IE: GTG = 2ms but RedToWhite may = 16ms or worse). The best monitors are rated at 2ms GTG but also benchmarked to show fairly reasonable response times with ALL other color changes. "2ms" monitor is very deceiving when it comes to gaming and doesn't exactly tell you how it will perform.

And the best way to see how a monitor will perform is check sites that have benchmarked their various pixel color change response times. Some monitors won't have any benchmarks and you'll just have to try it out yourself to see.
Right, the article I linked points out that a 2ms GTG monitor is actually quite a bit quicker response than a 5ms GTG, because the 2ms may be 3 times slower (6ms) in BTG while the 5ms being 3 times slower is 15ms BTG.

But still, myself I haven't seen a panel that bothers me in a long time, they all seem decent enough to me now response time wise.
NoQuarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 02:50 AM   #16
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,883
Default

wow thanks for all the info guys!! very much appreciated! I'll check out the P2770HD again in the stores to see if i really like the color & picture quality, but good to know the 5ms isnt anything to worry about for gaming. Cheers.
__________________
Desktop: 2500k @ 4.4ghz @ 1.35v on Noctua NH-D14, 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9-9-9-24, Gigabyte Z68 UD4 B3, Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI, 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition & 2TB WD Black, Auzentech Forte 7.1, Seasonic 760wt Platinum, DELL U2711 @ 1440p, Corsair 300R, Win7
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN, i5 4200u, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 840m, IPS Matte @ 1080p, 256GB SSD, Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 04:33 AM   #17
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,456
Default

As others suggested, except the guy out on a limb, I saw an article that 5ms uses a different measure than 2ms and is much slower than the 2ms.
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2010, 06:31 AM   #18
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
 
DominionSeraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Equestria
Posts: 7,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuzi View Post
One thing I didn't like about it is the resolution, only 1920x1080 for a relatively large LCD, 1920x1200 would have been better.
Why would a 16:10 resolution be better on a 16:9 screen?
DominionSeraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2010, 06:50 AM   #19
Phil1977
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Default

xbitlabs does really good tests on response time. All the 2ms models us RTC (Responce Time Compensation). They are a lot faster than 5ms LCDs.

Best are 120 Hz panels however. They have the lowest response times while keeping RTC artifacts also very low.
Phil1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2010, 02:51 PM   #20
Sheninat0r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominionSeraph View Post
Why would a 16:10 resolution be better on a 16:9 screen?
A 16:10 screen is better than a 16:9 screen
__________________
...with a crowbar.
Sheninat0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.