How better is a 16ms response time LCD monitor compare to 40ms response time LCD monitor as in tearing problem , performance , and ghosting problems?
How better is a 16ms response time LCD compare to a 40ms response time LCD?
- Thread starter Jincuteguy
- Start date
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
Its going to be better overall but also look at what you plan to do with the monitor because if you don't watch movies all the time on it, either will be fine, if you don't play games very often, same as previously said.
What do you plan on doing with the monitor?
What do you plan on doing with the monitor?
Playing games duh. I play a lot of games like UT2003, Counter Strike, D2...
But what I was asking is the differences between a 16ms response time LCD monitor and a 40ms one as in tearing problems and performance, if u dont have a 16ms monitor , then I guess you dont know the answer.
But what I was asking is the differences between a 16ms response time LCD monitor and a 40ms one as in tearing problems and performance, if u dont have a 16ms monitor , then I guess you dont know the answer.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
A 16ms response rate means that it can hit 62.5 seperate images in one second, whereas a 40ms rate means 25 seperate images. This directly corralates in to "ghosting" and other artifacts in an image, since the slower monitor will take longer shift its pixels. Because of that, you're probably going to want the 16ms monitor, since it's basically going make for a 60fps machine.
40 ms is horrible and nowhere near acceptable for gaming. I didn't think 40ms panels were still available. Those are usually first generation units from....about 2 years ago. Don't even consider anything above 25ms if you want decent gaming.
16ms, such as those in the Hitachi CML174 panel, is an excellent response rate with minimal blurring/ghosting. It should be acceptable for all but the pickiest of people. Generally it's hard to see a lot of ghosting when you are moving quickly anyway.
16ms, such as those in the Hitachi CML174 panel, is an excellent response rate with minimal blurring/ghosting. It should be acceptable for all but the pickiest of people. Generally it's hard to see a lot of ghosting when you are moving quickly anyway.
Take it easy, he was trying to find out so he could help you.
Don't have to get an attutide considering you didnt know the answer either.
I've been wanting to get an LCD for a very long time and I nearly bought one a few days back. Just couldn't stand the heat emitted from my 19". Anyway, how much better is a 20-25ms LCD compared to the 16ms?
If I'm just a more than normal user for a PC (mostly watching movies, surfing and occasional gaming), is a 20-25ms LCD sufficient? Will DVI make a lot of difference?
If I'm just a more than normal user for a PC (mostly watching movies, surfing and occasional gaming), is a 20-25ms LCD sufficient? Will DVI make a lot of difference?
It's not. The 16ms is better. How much better? Hard to quantify really, unless you see them side by side.
Whops... Misphrased the sentence
Under what circumstances is the 16ms worth the price compared to 20-25ms models besides gaming?
I was in Circuit City and they had a couple of 50 ms units. Only one was reasonable of the ones they had displayed, it was 35 ms. I have a 25 ms 19", and yes you can see some ghosting, but it has to be really flying when it does it. Compare that to the LCD TV monitors they sell, they ghost horribly. It all comes back to what premium you want to pay. Resolution and contrast ratio playes as much a role in my decision as response, plus someone recommending this unit.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
16ms. if i'm running aruond in a fps and i see a very artificial texture, like say a big black X on a big white box. when u turn u can see a kinda tearing or something, its icky. its less noticable with irregular textures. its still not kewl. lack of contrast between dark colors is bad.
I think reducing the frame rates helps reduce the blurring/ghosting effect. I try to crank up the details to slow down frame rates if needed.
If you turned on the V-sync, there will be no ghosting o r tearing problem, but your fps will be limited to the refresh rate.
So you said a 16ms LCD can have a good fps withouth tearing problem and withouth V-sync on right?
there are 1000 ms in one second.
so, if the response time is given in ms, 1000/(time in ms) = fps.
1000/16 = 62.5
1000/40 = 25
OIC
Thanks for the equation. Using the equation, a 25ms LCD can have a max of 40 FPS. I suppose that's sufficient for DVDs/movies and gaming?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
well those response times are misleading. from what i remember its going from black to white. going from color to color takes longer, which is why 25ms doesn't do games that well, and even 16ms isn't perfect. if it were really simply 16ms lcds would have no game problems at all.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter