IPS 4ms vs TN 1ms Displays for gaming?

[z1ggy]

Monitors in question are the Acer 276HL & ASUS VG278HV respectively. The Acer is about $80 cheaper, and both are 27'' monitors. Games would be mostly FPS although sometimes I play non FPS like The Walking Dead, DoTA, etc.

I'm getting conflicting information online where some people say the response time will make a noticeable difference, and others say there won't be. FWIW the game I play the most is CS:GO but I do plan on dabbling in BF 1 and probably the latest Hitman game.

 

[mnewsham]

unless you're on a CSGO pro team you will notice very little if any difference between the two. It simply wont matter for the majority of players. And even then, 4ms vs 1ms is nothing crazy, plenty of IPS panels have 8-12ms+ latency, which would be more noticeable, but still playable.

 

[Arachnotronic]

IPS. All day, every day.

 

[z1ggy]

What are you thoughts specifically on the Acer then?

 

[Arachnotronic]

What are you thoughts specifically on the Acer then?

I recommend this one: https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-MX279H-...ie=UTF8&qid=1476125724&sr=1-1&keywords=Mx279h

Gaming on it is quite smooth from my experience. A little pricier than the Acer, but well worth it IMO.

 

[z1ggy]

Worth in terms of what? Quality, support, aesthetics, etc?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Worth in terms of what? Quality, support, aesthetics, etc?

I've found the display to be very good for gaming, even relatively fast-paced shooters.

 

[moonbogg]

I went from an Asus VG278H to an IPS panel with a few more MS response time. I didn't notice any increased blurriness at all personally, and I'm pretty picky. Also, its important to note, that any small differences will disappear pretty quickly. Your brain will adjust to any differences and you literally won't know the difference, if there even was one anyway.
All that said, I'd go with an IPS panel. The image is nice when it doesn't shift colors on you if you bend down to pick something up and move left to right. IPS image stability and nice colors are well worth a measly 3ms latency or so.

 

[Headfoot]

Those numbers are complete crap. I would put exactly 0 faith in them. Go to TFT Central or someplace similar and look up actual measured input latency and GTG latency. For most monitors it's nowhere near the numbers they tell you.

 

[Rifter]

Those numbers are complete crap. I would put exactly 0 faith in them. Go to TFT Central or someplace similar and look up actual measured input latency and GTG latency. For most monitors it's nowhere near the numbers they tell you.

exactly this, my monitor claims i think 6ms but in reality is around 12-15ms of input latency, which is actually very good i hsve had no issues gaming with it, some monitors claim 1-4ms but in reality are over 40ms. You really need to check this out with a good review site like tft central or you could end up dissapointed.

 

[z1ggy]

Based on what I want, it recommends me Acer Predator or ASUS ROG. I no has dat monnies. :/

Also TFT didn't have the ACER GN276HL monitor listed.

 

[Rifter]

Based on what I want, it recommends me Acer Predator or ASUS ROG. I no has dat monnies. :/

Also TFT didn't have the ACER GN276HL monitor listed.

you can look into the particular brand/model/panel being used in that monitor, and look up reviews of other monitors that use the same panel, to get an idea of its performance. For example my monitor uses a LG LM250WQ1-SSA1 AH-IPS panel, any monitor reviewed with that panel would give me an idea of what performance to expect from it.

 

[z1ggy]

Well, the Pred is the top rated monitor it seems on TFT for IPS panels right now. I'd assume the non GSYNC 1440p (the one I want is 1080p non gsync) would still be pretty good.

Now the bigger questions: For playing games like BF1 and others in the future, is it worth waiting and saving up for 1440p with gsync if I will be using the 1060 or 1050Ti ? I'm assuming that if I'm running on 144hz, that yes it would be.

 

[Rifter]

Well, the Pred is the top rated monitor it seems on TFT for IPS panels right now. I'd assume the non GSYNC 1440p (the one I want is 1080p non gsync) would still be pretty good.

Now the bigger questions: For playing games like BF1 and others in the future, is it worth waiting and saving up for 1440p with gsync if I will be using the 1060 or 1050Ti ? I'm assuming that if I'm running on 144hz, that yes it would be.

I wouldnt expect a 1060 or 1050ti to push 144FPS so perhaps not as much of a big deal to go for 144hz.

 

[z1ggy]

I wouldnt expect a 1060 or 1050ti to push 144FPS so perhaps not as much of a big deal to go for 144hz.

Right, but all the monitors in question are 144hz. The question really is, is it worth me waiting and saving up more money to buy a gsync capable monitor, and/or 1440p? I don't even know how well a 1050ti will be able to push 1440 res on mid to high settings. From the benches I just saw today, it seems like it's synthetic scores are good for the price point, but still not as good as the 1060 is.

 

[Rifter]

Right, but all the monitors in question are 144hz. The question really is, is it worth me waiting and saving up more money to buy a gsync capable monitor, and/or 1440p? I don't even know how well a 1050ti will be able to push 1440 res on mid to high settings. From the benches I just saw today, it seems like it's synthetic scores are good for the price point, but still not as good as the 1060 is.

my rx480 struggles with 1440p in some games at high settings, and its around as fast as a 1060. Its fine if you turn down settings though.

I had this debate as well when i purchased my u2515h, i decided to go no any sync and focus on display image quality and input response times to get a good looking monitor thats also ok for gaming.

Then wait out till next GPU generations are released next year and perhaps then go for freesync or gsync depending on which GPU is best at that time as i need to upgrade to stay at 1440p anyways, and i want to go VR.

Honestly this gen of GPU's i found to be terribly disappointing.

 

[JTDSR]

I currently only play BF4 ( no other games played ), and will be playing BF1 moving forward. I used the Asus PG278Q for 3 weeks at 1ms/1440p powered by a GTX 1070. Last week, I returned it for the PG279Q IPS variation. Beautiful colors, and to be honest, I cannot tell the difference between the 1ms and 4ms. My gaming has not suffered, and while it has very minimal IPS glow, I am extremely happy with the IPS model. I am half tempted to now return this one and go with the 4K model ( Asus PG279AQ ), but I am a bit concerned with losing some brightness. I could run it at 2K for now, until I grab another GTX 1070 and SLI for better frames I suppose.

 

[z1ggy]

my rx480 struggles with 1440p in some games at high settings, and its around as fast as a 1060. Its fine if you turn down settings though.

I had this debate as well when i purchased my u2515h, i decided to go no any sync and focus on display image quality and input response times to get a good looking monitor thats also ok for gaming.

Then wait out till next GPU generations are released next year and perhaps then go for freesync or gsync depending on which GPU is best at that time as i need to upgrade to stay at 1440p anyways, and i want to go VR.

Honestly this gen of GPU's i found to be terribly disappointing.

I'm leaning at this point, due to budget reasons, on the cheaper FHD version that's non gsync. It's still 144hz and displays 1080p, which should be fine for me honestly. If I find that I come into extra money or that the games coming out really are much nicer looking on 1440p, I can sell the FHD once for the 1440p w/ gsync model, and probably (have to) upgrade to whatever the next gen GPU is.

I spend way too much $$ on golf and spending like $1500 on computer stuff just isn't in the budget right now..

 

[Yakk]

Online varying ping times and Wi-Fi (if wireless) will affect lag, the 3ms difference in the monitors won't unless the manufactures are lying about the specs.

 

[z1ggy]

Online varying ping times and Wi-Fi (if wireless) will affect lag, the 3ms difference in the monitors won't unless the manufactures are lying about the specs.

I went on TFT central. The Acer Pred is not 1ms like advertised, but it's close at ~3ms total lag time, which is negligible. I would assume the FHD version would be similar, if not the same.

 

[Headfoot]

In reality the best monitors actually come in around the 4-5ms total mark, average monitors in the 12-16ms mark and poor monitors 30+ms. Think of it in terms of 16ms increments, because each frame at 60 FPS will take 16ms. TFT Central calls this their "class" of latency.

0 - 16 ms latency = 1 frame behind the game, 16- 31ms = 2 frames behind, 32 - 47 = 3 frames behind etc.

Latency is not always fixed, so as long as the monitor is averaging around the 10ms mark or lower you're usually going to be in the 1 frame of latency category which is great.

 

[Headfoot]

Another factor is if you have an AMD card you can get quite inexpensive FreeSync monitors these days. The smoothness and responsiveness from FreeSync is worth as much or more than the lowest latency monitors in my experience having used both FreeSync and low latency monitors.

In terms of real gaming performance, my personal hierarchy is this:
Refresh Rate > FreeSync/Gsync > Resolution > Contrast Ratio > Blacklight Bleed + Display Uniformity > Color Space > Color Reproduction > Off-angle viewing > all other features.

I'd rank Hardware calibration very high (right behind resolution) if you have the equipment for that or can get access to equipment like that.

 

[z1ggy]

Another factor is if you have an AMD card you can get quite inexpensive FreeSync monitors these days. The smoothness and responsiveness from FreeSync is worth as much or more than the lowest latency monitors in my experience having used both FreeSync and low latency monitors.

In terms of real gaming performance, my personal hierarchy is this:
Refresh Rate > FreeSync/Gsync > Resolution > Contrast Ratio > Blacklight Bleed + Display Uniformity > Color Space > Color Reproduction > Off-angle viewing > all other features.

I'd rank Hardware calibration very high (right behind resolution) if you have the equipment for that or can get access to equipment like that.

Well it seems like if I go for a cheaper card like the 1050Ti, I'll almost certainly want Gsync. I still don't know if I want to save $50 and go with the 1050 or spend the $50 for more clocks in the 1060 3GB.

 

[Rifter]

I'd rank Hardware calibration very high (right behind resolution) if you have the equipment for that or can get access to equipment like that.

I think this will depend on the monitor you buy, the dell ultrasharps come pre calibrated and mine only improved a few percent when i used a calibrator on it. So if yours comes pre calibrated this will have less of a effect for you than a non calibrated monitor.

 

[Thinker_145]

I don't think you should even be considering a 1440p monitor given your GPU budget.

You should absolutely not be looking at G-Sync either. Does input lag bother you with V-Sync? Nvidia has a mode called fast sync which works better than V-Sync but I can't say how much better it will be for you.

If you really want A-Sync then buy an AMD card and a free sync monitor. There is literally no reason to buy a 1060 over an RX 480 unless someone already owns a G-Sync monitor which you don't. G-Sync is a premium feature and is a waste of money for budget gamers.