Gaming monitor: Hz or response time?

[Charlie98]

I'll be getting a new monitor to replace my nearly 10 year old Sony 15" TFT pretty soon. When we replaced our ancient TV a few years ago, we went to 120Hz and loved it, and I'm wondering where to go now that it's monitor time.

I'd like a monitor geared toward gaming, but I have to be able to read text and other documents without making my eyes bug out... I don't know what difference there might be in that regard.

What's better for gaming... A 2ms response time, or faster refresh/120Hz? I'm very close to pulling the trigger on the Asus VS248H-P (on sale right now!) or something like the Asus VG236HE, which is both 120Hz and 2ms, but costs almost twice as much...

Real world... What's the difference?

 

[Ben90]

Real world? The difference is a 120Hz monitor will be smooth, and a 2ms monitor will have a spec that doesn't matter anymore.

Response time still does matter. The response time printed on the box and manual doesn't mean anything. Using a much loved car example:

Imagine a race between two cars, an Ultima GTR vs a Honda Civic. The objective is to go from a speed, to another speed, and then back to the first speed. The speeds are not defined. The Ultima GTR does it in 12 seconds while the Civic does it in a blistering 2 seconds. You tell me which is faster.

 

[sunny4691]

Not much real world difference between them, but I will prefer the 120hz.

 

[Karstein]

Depends. If you play a lot of fast-paced games, you probably want to go for 120hz. I actually can't stand playing FPS on 60hz any more having used 120hz for many years. Bear in mind that this only really applies to games that aren't capped in the FPS department (read: lazy console ports).

If you want rich, vibrant images without overall response time being the be-all-and-end-all, you'd be better off going for an IPS panel.

Also, just a footnote - 120hz on a TV is not the same as 120hz on a monitor. Search around this forum for some explanations.

 

[Charlie98]

Depends. If you play a lot of fast-paced games, you probably want to go for 120hz. I actually can't stand playing FPS on 60hz any more having used 120hz for many years. Bear in mind that this only really applies to games that aren't capped in the FPS department (read: lazy console ports).

Also, just a footnote - 120hz on a TV is not the same as 120hz on a monitor. Search around this forum for some explanations.

I can't stand watching a 60Hz TV anymore... ...I guess I've ruined myself.

I will research it some more, thanks!

Response time still does matter. The response time printed on the box and manual doesn't mean anything.

Your analogy is completely over my head. Break it down into n00b english, please. Is that kind of like benchmarks vs real world use?

How about: Is there much difference, real world, in a 5ms vs 2ms response?

 

[Remobz]

Depends. If you play a lot of fast-paced games, you probably want to go for 120hz. I actually can't stand playing FPS on 60hz any more having used 120hz for many years. Bear in mind that this only really applies to games that aren't capped in the FPS department (read: lazy console ports).

If you want rich, vibrant images without overall response time being the be-all-and-end-all, you'd be better off going for an IPS panel.

Also, just a footnote - 120hz on a TV is not the same as 120hz on a monitor. Search around this forum for some explanations.

My I have an eye condition and it will get worse as I get older. Whether I like it or not, an IPS panel will always have to be my only option to lessen eye strain.

With that said, I like the occasional FPS shooter (although I play more RTS games these days).

Maybe I have to wait a year or two for an IPS panel to come out that can handle FPS games like a 120hz tn panel.

 

[Throckmorton]

What does the type of screen have to do with eye strain?

 

[Ben90]

Your analogy is completely over my head. Break it down into n00b english, please. Is that kind of like benchmarks vs real world use?

How about: Is there much difference, real world, in a 5ms vs 2ms response

Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to change from one state to another and then back to the first. Its a measurement of how long pixels transitions take. The longer it takes the more blurry movement becomes.

The problem with the specification is how vague it actually is. Early LCD monitors used a standard ISO transition. The pixel went from completely off, to on, to off. This value while still not giving us the entire picture, does a pretty good job of comparing two monitors. Eventually manufactures switched to a GtG (grey to grey) system in which it goes from one grey state to another to the first. The problem is the grey colors can be extremely close to each other since there is no regulation. A full ISO transition might take a panel 20ms, but going from #808080 to #818181 to #808080 might take 1ms. Would you rather label your monitor as having a 20ms response time or 1ms?

There are a couple of things in addition to this. The first is that some color changes are even slower than a full ISO change. Brown to orangeish red took my first LCD panel up to 40ms despite having an 8ms BtW time.

Another thing to look out for is the addition of response compensation artifacts. Nearly all sub 5ms monitors today use a form of response time compensation. In short what this technology does is overshoot the required change temporarily and then stabilize when the color is correct. In much the same way as you put your foot on the pedal harder to accelerate a car to 40Mph then back off to keep going at 40Mph. The advantage to this is the pixel changes faster. It can create artifacts however.

Below is a comparison of two monitors using the best and worst images captured for a response time test. The first (2233RZ) was the first 120Hz LCD monitor available to us. It was raited as having a 5ms response time on release. The second is of the BenQ XL2410T, despite being labeled as a super speedy 2ms monitor, response time artifacts are much more observable.

*trivia edit*
An interesting fact is that the 2233RZ was released rated as a 5ms monitor. Its immediate competitor from Viewsonic rated their panel as having only 3ms response times. Samsung then ninja edited their specs down to 3ms to match.

 

[Charlie98]

Thank you, Ben90... that makes more sense now. Now I know what that '2ms (GTG)' in the ads means...

OK, following that post, does 120Hz sort of trump response time? I would assume with the cost of the 120Hz monitor, they would be using components capable of better response time... but we are back to the circular argument of BvsW or grey vs grey.

Is there a specific brand of monitor that has shown to be a decent panel? Newegg has the Asus, Samsung and Acer monitors on sale quite a bit... and you know how NE reviews are...

 

[Ben90]

Thank you, Ben90... that makes more sense now. Now I know what that '2ms (GTG)' in the ads means...

OK, following that post, does 120Hz sort of trump response time? I would assume with the cost of the 120Hz monitor, they would be using components capable of better response time... but we are back to the circular argument of BvsW or grey vs grey.

Is there a specific brand of monitor that has shown to be a decent panel? Newegg has the Asus, Samsung and Acer monitors on sale quite a bit... and you know how NE reviews are...

To be completely honest, I can't remember seeing any difference between the half dozen of LCDs I've come across since 2005ish. Especially not my current monitors that are sitting side by side (XL2420T vs 2233RZ). I am definitely ignorant with regards to image quality. Someone else would be better to explain the current state of affairs.

Even if you are only interested in 120Hz for a speedy refresh rate, we can still learn a lot of information about our monitors from those using active shutter 3D glasses.

Since the monitor has to show two entirely different frames to each eye every 8.3ms, any remaining ghosting or response time artifacts become obvious. Checking out some 3D forums wouldn't be a bad idea as they might have a monitor they herald as having no "crosstalk": The term they will most likely use to describe slow pixels.

 

[jacktesterson]

I'd personally get a Dell Ultrasharp and call it a day

 

[AdamK47]

I'd avoid anything Dell and continue looking.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

To avoid ghosting on a 60Hz display you need a blistering 16ms response time (sarcasm intended ), so all the 1-5ms panels you see out there are overkill for 60Hz.

Of course that's assuming the response times are honest, which they are not.

Even the fastest TN panels will have some pixel to pixel response time transitions that are too slow for flawless 120Hz (its not always going to be the best gray to gray case scenario), so we're kind of stuck in-between, but I will vouch that 120Hz LCDs are a major step up from 60Hz LCDs. Still not as good as CRT's motion clarity, or Plasma even, as its all an inherent weakness of the LCD pixel response time being an order of magnitude slower, no ammount of technological innovation will be able to cure that problem for LCD. But until we get something new like OLED, you have to make a compromise somewhere.

 

[Charlie98]

I'd personally get a Dell Ultrasharp and call it a day

I'd avoid anything Dell and continue looking.

Welllll... alrighty, then.

I don't know about Dell anything... I have 2 Dell laptops and 1 desktop that have performed better than anything else I've ever owned.

 

[Charlie98]

Even if you are only interested in 120Hz for a speedy refresh rate, we can still learn a lot of information about our monitors from those using active shutter 3D glasses.

I have zero interest in 3D, but you make a good point... more good stuff to research!