-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
HOLY MOLLY! 3ms! Response 19" Monitor $400.05
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mrSHEiK124
Lifer
:laugh:
AMDZen
Lifer
I notice a lot of people who have no idea what they're talking about in this thread. You can definetely notice 16ms and even 12ms when your gaming. Namely FPS's online, I can hope that with these quicker response times they've gotten rid of it, and now maybe I can consider buying an LCD
Suspicious-Teach8788
Lifer
THG never reviewed 90nm Athlons. They never covered dual core opterons and waited till X2s to hit. Never mentioned San Diegos or Venices either.... They have an NVidia bias too.
In either case, THG reviewed BOTH the VP191b and the VX924. 924 isn't as good as the 191. You might as well grab a Samsung 930B. I think that would be better than the 924.
Oakenfold
Diamond Member
This month's maxium pc covered a nice selection of LCD's, they were also smart to point out that response time can be measured differently from manufacture to manufacture.
In other words your sole purchase of buying an LCD based on response time alone would be a poor one.
😉
In other words your sole purchase of buying an LCD based on response time alone would be a poor one.
😉
In a perfect world.
4ms thats capable of 250FPS
8ms thats capable of 125FPS
12ms thats capable of 83FPS
in fact, this is not accurate. a 12ms monitor can in fact display 150+ fps, BUT, it takes an average of 10ms to fade, while only 2ms to come on so ends up blurring to many frames together to perceive the true frame rate.
at 60Hz, each frame is 16.7ms. the problem is that the frame is displayed for 16.7ms and then is turned off. now the pixel has to fade out, which can take 90% of the response time, so the next 15ms is spent fading out, while the new signal is laid over the top.
so a 16ms/60Hz pannel will seem like a 30Hz pannel because the pixels stay lit for too long.
now an 8ms pannel will provide a 60Hz image, which is still below the visual threshold of many people. the difference between an 8ms and a 4ms is that humans can typically perceive 90 or so frames per second(Hz). so an 8ms is worth 60fps(Hz) and a 4ms can run up to 120fps(Hz)
anytime a panel drifts above 6ms, most people could notice.
now anything below 6ms is great. as long as the worst case response time is less than 6ms, few people could notice a difference. and below 4ms is well beyond 99% of humans visual abilities.
4ms thats capable of 250FPS
8ms thats capable of 125FPS
12ms thats capable of 83FPS
in fact, this is not accurate. a 12ms monitor can in fact display 150+ fps, BUT, it takes an average of 10ms to fade, while only 2ms to come on so ends up blurring to many frames together to perceive the true frame rate.
at 60Hz, each frame is 16.7ms. the problem is that the frame is displayed for 16.7ms and then is turned off. now the pixel has to fade out, which can take 90% of the response time, so the next 15ms is spent fading out, while the new signal is laid over the top.
so a 16ms/60Hz pannel will seem like a 30Hz pannel because the pixels stay lit for too long.
now an 8ms pannel will provide a 60Hz image, which is still below the visual threshold of many people. the difference between an 8ms and a 4ms is that humans can typically perceive 90 or so frames per second(Hz). so an 8ms is worth 60fps(Hz) and a 4ms can run up to 120fps(Hz)
anytime a panel drifts above 6ms, most people could notice.
now anything below 6ms is great. as long as the worst case response time is less than 6ms, few people could notice a difference. and below 4ms is well beyond 99% of humans visual abilities.
Inappropriate4AT
Banned
Baha, these companies have all you people by the nuts.
KristopherKubicki
Golden Member
Um....
OK I don't like to rant that often. But if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it large. Bookmark this thread:
First of all, I requested a sample; so we will see where that leads. I already have a VP191B for a roundup, I'll get this in there too... ViewSonic hasn't exactly been honest with their claims in the past. A review that I wrote in conjunction with a review Vincent - the only other display reviewer who I really trusted - resulted in a lawsuit between NEC and ViewSonic due to a claim of false specifications on ViewSonic's behalf. You might have noticed that since Vincent left THG, their display reviews have gone very very downhill. Anyways...
So if there really was a 3ms display right now (there isn't) it would be on the front page of every display manufacturer's home page. I am guessing ViewSonic did something like measure 3ms up and 13ms down; something I alluded to in previous reviews (too many to number). I noticed none of those "reviews" mentioned any specifications about the DSP or the panel. A few of the other tests were sorely lacking in the accuracy department as well, but I digress...
pxc: OLED is not going to be a very viable display technology. It's too hard to produce accurate colors, the colors fade and it's extremely expensive. Look instead for LED in LCD technology that will basically place a tiny LED behind each pixel of the LCD substrate. Moving on...
remagavon: You get that effect due to the number of pixels on the screen. If you downgrade your display from a 2001FP to a 19" 1280x1024 display, the effect will go away in part. More recent displays like the Dell 2005FPW combat this slightly but the effect is still noticeable on any high resolution (greater than 1280x1024) display. Usually manufacturers increase the backlight to soften the "screen". Also, "ghosting" as documented by VESA is the effect you get from artifcats coming over a dirty signal, like an analog cable. "motion blur" (as I guess it's called) is the effect you get when slow pixels transitions are catching up to each other.
Unfortunately the huge lie is that sub 16ms displays *exist*. Some panels are tweaked to get slightly better gray to gray or slightly better TrTf times, and other panels (specifically TN displays) actually use 6-bit panels to shave a few ms off transient times -- less states for the crystal to twist, less electronics, lower response time. The PR companies twist these numbers however they want; like in the case of some manufacturers that only give you the *average* gray to gray time that might only be for a certain spectrum; or a company that measures average response time (true on to off to back on again) under some unusual condition. Since most of these numbers are composite averages, saying a display is "12ms" or whatever is kind of silly; it could be 25ms for a specific spectrum and 10ms for a large portion of generally unused hues bringing the average down to 12ms. It all depends on how the display maker wants to spin the test. Panel manufacturers are kind of controlled by VESA as to what they can claim on their display, which is why at AnandTech we always take a thorough look at the panel. LG.Philips, Samsung, AUO, CMO, NEC, etc aren't going to lie to their customers, but their customers (the display manufacturers) don't mind lying to you! Moving on...
Syadnom kind of got it right with his debunking of ms to FPS; which means at least some of my work is getting through to people. I can show you a display that can do 1000FPS; but its just going to be a single pixel twisting from #FFFFFF to #FFFFFE and back. There are two main points to consider; the transient response time is per pixel, you'll have some pixels moving at 2ms, some at 10ms, some at 30ms.
Unfortunately syadmon, i think you confused some other things. 16.7M is the number of pixel states in an 8-bit LCD. There are three subpixels each capable of 256 states. 256^3 gets you 16.7M states. Only LG.Philips manages to take a 16.7M 8-bit display down to a true 16ms gray to gray (as in measured over a large majority of the color spectrum) response time (these are Super IPS panels). TN displays, like the ones used in low response time Samsung, AUO and 1 or two LG.Philips displays use 6-bit displays only capable of 64^3 states; 262,000 in total. Fewer states, lower response time, but the color spectrum is reduced significantly. The digital signal processors (DSPs) attempt to combat this by "interpolating" the pixels in unusual patterns. A typical display uses three subpixels lined up to generate a pixel; an interpolated 6-bit display will generate a pixel from three or six subpixels in various configurations. I hate the effect but some people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality, it just makes the display cost less, which is why PR manufacturers like to spin "low response time"! THAT is a different rant.
In closing, response time, even when the display manufacturers don't lie to you, is not a translation of FPS, Hz, or any other measurement other than response time.
Hope that helps,
Kristopher
OK I don't like to rant that often. But if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it large. Bookmark this thread:
First of all, I requested a sample; so we will see where that leads. I already have a VP191B for a roundup, I'll get this in there too... ViewSonic hasn't exactly been honest with their claims in the past. A review that I wrote in conjunction with a review Vincent - the only other display reviewer who I really trusted - resulted in a lawsuit between NEC and ViewSonic due to a claim of false specifications on ViewSonic's behalf. You might have noticed that since Vincent left THG, their display reviews have gone very very downhill. Anyways...
So if there really was a 3ms display right now (there isn't) it would be on the front page of every display manufacturer's home page. I am guessing ViewSonic did something like measure 3ms up and 13ms down; something I alluded to in previous reviews (too many to number). I noticed none of those "reviews" mentioned any specifications about the DSP or the panel. A few of the other tests were sorely lacking in the accuracy department as well, but I digress...
pxc: OLED is not going to be a very viable display technology. It's too hard to produce accurate colors, the colors fade and it's extremely expensive. Look instead for LED in LCD technology that will basically place a tiny LED behind each pixel of the LCD substrate. Moving on...
remagavon: You get that effect due to the number of pixels on the screen. If you downgrade your display from a 2001FP to a 19" 1280x1024 display, the effect will go away in part. More recent displays like the Dell 2005FPW combat this slightly but the effect is still noticeable on any high resolution (greater than 1280x1024) display. Usually manufacturers increase the backlight to soften the "screen". Also, "ghosting" as documented by VESA is the effect you get from artifcats coming over a dirty signal, like an analog cable. "motion blur" (as I guess it's called) is the effect you get when slow pixels transitions are catching up to each other.
Unfortunately the huge lie is that sub 16ms displays *exist*. Some panels are tweaked to get slightly better gray to gray or slightly better TrTf times, and other panels (specifically TN displays) actually use 6-bit panels to shave a few ms off transient times -- less states for the crystal to twist, less electronics, lower response time. The PR companies twist these numbers however they want; like in the case of some manufacturers that only give you the *average* gray to gray time that might only be for a certain spectrum; or a company that measures average response time (true on to off to back on again) under some unusual condition. Since most of these numbers are composite averages, saying a display is "12ms" or whatever is kind of silly; it could be 25ms for a specific spectrum and 10ms for a large portion of generally unused hues bringing the average down to 12ms. It all depends on how the display maker wants to spin the test. Panel manufacturers are kind of controlled by VESA as to what they can claim on their display, which is why at AnandTech we always take a thorough look at the panel. LG.Philips, Samsung, AUO, CMO, NEC, etc aren't going to lie to their customers, but their customers (the display manufacturers) don't mind lying to you! Moving on...
Syadnom kind of got it right with his debunking of ms to FPS; which means at least some of my work is getting through to people. I can show you a display that can do 1000FPS; but its just going to be a single pixel twisting from #FFFFFF to #FFFFFE and back. There are two main points to consider; the transient response time is per pixel, you'll have some pixels moving at 2ms, some at 10ms, some at 30ms.
Unfortunately syadmon, i think you confused some other things. 16.7M is the number of pixel states in an 8-bit LCD. There are three subpixels each capable of 256 states. 256^3 gets you 16.7M states. Only LG.Philips manages to take a 16.7M 8-bit display down to a true 16ms gray to gray (as in measured over a large majority of the color spectrum) response time (these are Super IPS panels). TN displays, like the ones used in low response time Samsung, AUO and 1 or two LG.Philips displays use 6-bit displays only capable of 64^3 states; 262,000 in total. Fewer states, lower response time, but the color spectrum is reduced significantly. The digital signal processors (DSPs) attempt to combat this by "interpolating" the pixels in unusual patterns. A typical display uses three subpixels lined up to generate a pixel; an interpolated 6-bit display will generate a pixel from three or six subpixels in various configurations. I hate the effect but some people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality, it just makes the display cost less, which is why PR manufacturers like to spin "low response time"! THAT is a different rant.
In closing, response time, even when the display manufacturers don't lie to you, is not a translation of FPS, Hz, or any other measurement other than response time.
Hope that helps,
Kristopher
Thanks for correcting me I was using the simple 1/x formula from the old electronics days and assumed it would apply.
That explain a lot because I run my montor at 75Hz because 60Hz bothers me after a while. So 4ms is the right choice for someone like me and my Bionic vision. Na Na Na Na Na na na na.
Thanks again for that information makes me prouder of my purchase.
I jusr read Benq is coming out with panels rated at 4,5,6ms. 17" and 19"
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Artic...datePublish=2005/03/08&pages=A4&seq=20
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Artic...datePublish=2005/03/08&pages=A4&seq=20
imported_Reflex
Junior Member
Excellent post, Kristopher, you might consider an editorial on the main site about manufacturers and how these things are measured, which you could refer to in your reviews. I personally do not consider any LCD that has less than 8 bit color, which means 16ms is as fast as it gets for me. I refuse to compromise on image quality.
dealseaker
Diamond Member
when will it be free after mir?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
