Benq's new 5ms and 6ms lcds.

[Silversierra]

Benq is making new lcd screens with 5ms and 6ms response times. The 17 inch model, the FP71V+, has a 5ms response time, while the 19 inch model, the FP91V, has a 6ms response time.
19"
Benq's site

I don't think there will be ghosting on an lcd that fast.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

8ms is plenty fast, I'd rather companies start to work on beefing up other aspects on fast panels such as contrast and viewing angles.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Is this a real 5ms panel or just a "marketing" 5ms? I tend to think it's the latter.

 

[imported_humey]

How is 8ms fast enough, if 20ms = 50fps so 8ms = approx 110 fps, hmm so 5ms would be 200fps so id say its getting bit better pity i still bench at 400+ fps although on older 3dmark 2001 se

 

[Insomniak]

This is low enough - let's start working on contrast now.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
Is this a real 5ms panel or just a "marketing" 5ms? I tend to think it's the latter.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[BlindBartimaeus]

You really can't see above 85-100

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: BlindBartimaeus
You really can't see above 85-100

Does real life run at 85-100 FPS? Is time discrete?

Well, actually, we don't know. But certainly it is not at steps of 85-100 FPS! And to the extent I can control, I for one do not want my world approximated for me!

/Dude, what the f*ck am I talking about?

 

[chinkgai]

its a typo! they forgot the "1" in front of both!

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: humey
How is 8ms fast enough, if 20ms = 50fps so 8ms = approx 110 fps, hmm so 5ms would be 200fps so id say its getting bit better pity i still bench at 400+ fps although on older 3dmark 2001 se

:roll:

i thought response time had NOTHING to do with FPS . . .

 

[MrMiyagi]

Originally posted by: BlindBartimaeus
You really can't see above 85-100

I don't think the "x"ms ="x" fps argument means anything...or "you can't see above x fps"...etc.

I can see plenty of ghosting on my "12ms" 2005fpw. Refresh rates mean nothing to me until I personally see the monitor in action.

 

[cryptonomicon]

can we not have this arguement again thanks

anyways, this sounds like great news to migrate to lcd (eventually)

 

[MrMiyagi]

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon
can we not have this arguement again thanks

anyways, this sounds like great news to migrate to lcd (eventually)

I'm not trying to start anything again (yah I know it seems that way). But trust me nobody should migrate to anything unless they see it for themself in person.

 

[VIAN]

You really can't see above 85-100

That's incorrect, you really can't see past 1fps. Too many of these stupid claims get annoying after a while.

I think 8ms is fine as the slowest response time in the entire pixel switching spectrum.

 

[Jeff7181]

A year ago people were saying 16ms was low enough not to notice ghosting... so why are we seeing 12, 8, 6, and 5 now?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
This is low enough - let's start working on contrast now.

Agreed. 12ms should have been a good stopping point to start working on contrast if not 16ms.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
A year ago people were saying 16ms was low enough not to notice ghosting... so why are we seeing 12, 8, 6, and 5 now?

That's a very good point (I sort of touched on this with my earlier response to this thread). I still see ghosting on my "12ms" 2005FPW - it's not really that bad, but I'd just be kidding myself if I said it wasn't there.

The problem is manufacturers claiming a certain response time when in reality, the average is much higher. I agree with what VIAN said above:

I think 8ms is fine as the slowest response time in the entire pixel switching spectrum.

Emphasis was added, of course. They're just not to that point yet with LCD's.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
A year ago people were saying 16ms was low enough not to notice ghosting... so why are we seeing 12, 8, 6, and 5 now?

Because people vary. There are some that don't see ghosting at 25ms, there are others who would most likely see it at 1ms.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: humey
How is 8ms fast enough, if 20ms = 50fps so 8ms = approx 110 fps, hmm so 5ms would be 200fps so id say its getting bit better pity i still bench at 400+ fps although on older 3dmark 2001 se

:roll:

i thought response time had NOTHING to do with FPS . . .

If the screen refreshes every 5ms, that's 200 times in 1 second, so it is essentially displaying 200 "frames" per second. @ 8 ms, you're over 100 (1000/8 = 125), which is plenty fast enough.

Although I'd like to see some higher IQ LCDs instead of faster ones, it almost seems futile now, as its almost too late for a "perfect" LCD as other technologies that don't have the weaknesses LCD's do will probably be available on the market before a "perfect" LCD.

 

[Goi]

Are these even 8bit LCD panels?

 

[Deslok]

Actually both Viewsonic and BenQ are getting set to release 4ms lcds

ViewSonic and BenQ roll out LCD monitors with 4ms response times

 

[imported_humey]

Amol YES it does, google it and you will prob find it, 20ms on a lcd means you can get upto 50fps, how can 8ms be enough today, you cant win arguement sayin today lcd game as good as crt, that why its good the response time is getting lower, that 5ms may be marketing but why you all so sceptical it could be true and there will be lower than 8ms anyhow someday if its aint true.

All this info is easy to google for.

I will stay put on my CRT, is anyone else doing this and hoping to see the shallow crt.'s in 2006 from samsung ?

99.9% the threads here are crt v lcd flamed, pity msot that comment dont have a clue wtf they talking about, im no expert but i dont throw lcd lcd down peeps throats, they can go look in stores and read reviews and make own decision.

 

[Jeff7181]

I may have to get an LCD before prices are what I would consider reasonable... my eyes are getting worse all the time. I may have to "suffer" with some minor ghosting in games in order to save my eyes.

 

[imported_humey]

Get nice superbright flatsreen crt and use high res and highest refresh it will support at that res, and msot importantly for any peeps using any pc dont look at monitor all day, take time out.

Thats if you are really reluctant to get lcd but if you want one good go for it, but just as your comments make me think you ideally wouldnt if you though your eye be ok on crt.

 

[jenneth]

For the FP91V+, I think it's a 6-bit LCD. If you look at the specification ( http://www.benq-eu.com/Products/LCD/index.cfm?product=516&page=specifications ), under COLOR, it listed 16.2 million instead of the usual 16.7 million. I'm guessing that it's a 6-bit LCD.