How better is a 16ms response time LCD compare to a 40ms response time LCD?

[anomaly]

They do have "refresh rates", but they are different in principle compared to CRT's. LCD's refresh rate is the amount of time it takes a pixel to render the next full color. With LCD's "transition time" would probibly be more appropriate.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
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.

i'm quotin myself, but i think anandtech or was it tomshardware had an article about lcds and what the response time really ment. it would confirm my 25ms means only black to white pixel change which is bogus and would make your "40fps" etc calculations bogus or just wishful.

Whoa. Is this true? If you vSync no ghosting??? Cause I'm thinking pretty hard about buying a 19" TFT with 25ms response time (PX191) and I don't care if I'm limited to say 40 fps if ghosting can be eliminated that way.

um, no, ghosting is hardware related. if it were so easy to fix lcd limitations no one would complain. vsync is default on anyways you know. it only stops tearing if you turn it on. it possibly lowers your fps but not that it matters for many fast video cards esp on a slow lcd

 

[sharkeeper]

Unfortunately those specification are subjective. Purchasing an LCD on reponse time is akin to shopping for loudspeakers by frequency response! I know it's difficult with online vendors, but it's best to have the monitor in YOUR environment so YOU can judge for yourself whether or not the response time is fast enough...

-DAK-

 

[MercenaryForHire]

1) Go to shop.
2) Ask to see a DVD movie and play a quick game on an LCD monitor of your choice.
3) Observe results and look for ghosting.
4) Ditch the elitist snobby attitude. You don't know enough to do that yet.

- M4H

 

[ndee]

I've read that there are "different" tests for the response rate, so that sometimes 16ms aren't really THAT good.

 

[Ilmater]

I want to clear some things up here. Response time is an average from color to color. The fastest change is from white to black, or vice versa, because what the cells are doing is going from no voltage to full voltage. The abrupt change in voltage causes the cells to change colors quickly. The slowest changes are from, for instance, red to magenta, or one shade of gray to another. The change in voltage isn't large enough to push the cells into their new color. However, you won't see ghosting in something like this, usually, because if the pixel was changing from red to magenta, the pixel that hasn't changed fast enough is on a (probably) red or magenta background. So, the ghosting is not noticable. However, when black is on white, while it's the fastest chage of all, it will be more noticable because of the stark contrast.

Another thing you have to understand is, since response rate is the average time it takes to change from one color to another, you can't get rid of ghosting no matter how low your fps are. If you are loading only two fps, you migt still have ghosting because even though you're only seeing two, distinct frames every second, the screen still has to change colors. That takes time. If your eye perceives ghosting during the 25ms it takes for one cell to change color, then it's going to perceive it no matter what your fps are.

That's why people "in the know" won't say that the equation works. That equation is no good. Response time on an LCD and fps in a fps game (frames per second and first-person shooter, respectively) aren't easily equatable.

THERE'S NO EASY ANSWER, YOU JUST HAVE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.

 

[ugh]

With all that said about off the shelf LCDs, I was wondering if anyone knows how the LCD of an iMac compares with those Samsung, ViewSonic and Hitachi alike. Reason being I have an iMac sitting right next to me and I would like to use that as a benchmark while shopping around.

IMO, the iMac LCD is really a step up from the 17" monitor I'm using (Dell, not Trinitron tube though). One major factor is its non reflective surface. I don't have to dodge light sources when using the LCD

Thanks!

 

[peter7921]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Jincuteguy
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.

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.