• 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.

Response Time

hooman79108

hooman79108

Member
Hi guys
is there any significant difference between 2ms and 5ms response time in LCD/LED monitors ?
i want a 20" or 22" LCD/LED for gaming.
 
If you play fast action FPS's (Q3A) you may notice it. But in my experience, 5ms is fine. I have used a 1ms ViewSonic before, and it was super smooth though. I could tell the difference from my normal 5ms gaming monitor.
 
The fps people will probably say... lower is better, get that one.

However if you google "5ms vs 2ms for gameing", you run into stuff like:


Do not look at response time when purchasing an LCD!!. It means nothing. Actual total response numbers are much higher than advertised
Click to expand...
Response time is a misleading sales gimmick.
Click to expand...
ms = miliseconds = 10^-3

so 8 ms = 8*10^-3 = 8/1000

so 80 fps gives is 80*0,008 = 0,64

so theoretical loss of 0,64 frames. But monitors often only run 60Hz so it doesn't matter as much. And like said above. Response time is a misleading sales gimmick.

Reviews and first hand experience is the way to go. So many subjective opinions considering colours and such.
Click to expand...
Most monitors rated around 5ms have an actual total average response time between 20-40ms.
Click to expand...
Remember total respone time is what matters, not its 2 or 5ms responce time. Find a monitor with low lag input (usually this part isnt advertised by people selling the monitors, but its more important overall).

here review site for monitors:
http://www.prad.de/en/index.html


Go read up on the monitors within your pricerange, and pick one with the best review/bench whatever.





If you play fast action FPS's (Q3A) you may notice it. But in my experience, 5ms is fine. I have used a 1ms ViewSonic before, and it was super smooth though. I could tell the difference from my normal 5ms gaming monitor.
Click to expand...
5ms while playing at 80fps means a loss of ~0.4 frames pr sec.
If you noticed any differnce, it probably wasnt because of the responce time, but something thats more noticeable like lag input.
 
Last edited:
There’s absolutely no standardized method to measure response time. Depending no how things are measured a 5ms display might do better than a 2ms display, for example.
 
Response time isn't about loss of frames, it's about motion blur caused by slow pixel response. It's very good on today's LCD's compared to a decade ago, but it still cannot compare to a CRT or plasma.

I have a 2ms monitor and a pair of 5ms monitors all right next to each other. I can detect the motion blur when playing FPS's and blurred text while moving in MMO's on all of them. 2ms really isn't much of an improvement over 5ms.
 
Monitors with close to no lag-input: (okay for gameing)

ViewSonic VX922 (19") (very fast monitor)
SAMSUNG 2493HM (24")
NEC LCD2690WUXi (25.5")

IF you want anything thats has less input-lag or lower response times, you ll need to find a good CRT monitor.

Im not sure if this matters at all to normal people, but maybe for like professional video gamers, that do tournaments in first-person-shooters ect, its probably nice to have a screen thats good in this reguard.
 
NoQuarter said:
Response time isn't about loss of frames, it's about motion blur caused by slow pixel response. It's very good on today's LCD's compared to a decade ago, but it still cannot compare to a CRT or plasma.
Click to expand...

True, I will hold on to my FW900 till it is unrepairable.
 
IMO, FPS gaming is best on a 120Hz pc monitor.

My first pc monitor was the Viewsonic VX922 and it was nice, then I switched to this Viewsonic VX2265wm Fuzion which is fantastic for playing UT3 - if there are any current betters, i'd be interested to know 🙂
 
BFG10K said:
There’s absolutely no standardized method to measure response time. Depending no how things are measured a 5ms display might do better than a 2ms display, for example.
Click to expand...
This is the first part of the answer.
Arkadrel said:
Find a monitor with low lag input (usually this part isnt advertised by people selling the monitors, but its more important overall).
Click to expand...
And the second...

120Hz monitors have an inherited 8.3ms advantage over their 60Hz counterparts as well. There are always tradeoffs however. There is no such thing as a monitor that does everything perfectly.
 
I remember my CRT monitor..... im glad im not useing it anymore.



The main advantages of a CRT:
Faster response times (not by huge amounts anymore, as LCDs have gotten better with time).
Higher Refresh rates (but you can get LCDs now with 120hz).



Advantages of LCD monitors over CRT monitors




  • Higher brightness: You don’t have to dim the lights to use your monitor. If your LCD monitor is too bright, it can be dimmed.
  • Better contrast in high ambient illumination: CRT monitors reflect more room light which will cause blacks to look gray and vivid colors to appear dull.
  • Reduced footprint: LCD’s use much less desk space. This makes it much easier to use multiple monitors at the same time.
  • Reduced weight: Save your back when moving your monitor to a different desk.
  • Longer lifetime: An LCD can be used 30-50 thousand hours before it reaches half-brightness, while a CRT will last 10-20 thousand hours. LCD monitors do not require a high voltage (≥25KV) power supply and therefore have a longer MTBF.
  • Flicker-free: An LCD monitors holds an image on the display. A CRT flashes one pixel at a time, sometimes resulting in screen flicker. The flicker can cause eyestrain and headaches.
  • Lower power consumption: The environmentally conscious will appreciate that an LCD monitor uses approximately one-third of the power of a similar sized CRT.
  • Less heat output: An LCD saves money on power and cooling. This is especially beneficial in a room with many monitors.
  • Sharper image quality: Each LCD pixel is clearly separated from its neighboring pixels while a CRT pixel is less distinguished.
  • No distortion: CRT monitors exhibit geometrical distortion due to their curved screen and electron beam scanning over some distance. LCD’s have direct pixel mapping which gives more precise imaging.
  • Lack of image retention: When a portion of a display has the same image exhibited over a period of time, it can develop image retention or “burn-in”. This is caused by phosphors degradation in CRT’s and is usually irreversible. Because the backlight of an LCD monitor ages uniformly, it is less likely to exhibit image retention.
  • Ruggedness: The vacuum envelope of CRT picture tubes is relatively fragile while LCDs are more resistant to shake, shock and vibration.
  • Electromagnetic radiation: Unlike CRTs, AMLCDs have no sensitivity to all but the most extreme magnetic fields. CRT monitors also emit electromagnetic radiation that can interfere with other electronic devices.
  • Capability for higher resolution (9 megapixel AMLCD monitor)
  • AMLCDs are commercially available in screen sizes over 60-inch diagonal. Prototypes over 80-inch diagonal have been demonstrated. It is impractical to manufacture a CRT with over 40-inch screen diagonal and even then the tube weighs >200 lbs.
  • Availability: The number of LCD monitors sold passed up CRTs in 2004. In 2006, LCD monitors had about 80% market share. Most prominent CRT manufacturers have discontinued their manufacturing.
  • Less hazardous waste: The lead, cadmium, phosphor, barium and mercury used in CRT monitors present a disposal issue. This is a large source of hazardous waste in landfills. LCD monitors are not off the hook since their backlights usually contain trace amounts of mercury; however, they are a step in the right direction and efforts are being made to improve their environmental friendliness.



THIS IS WHY I DONT MISS MY CRT:

Flicker-free: An LCD monitors holds an image on the display. A CRT flashes one pixel at a time, sometimes resulting in screen flicker. The flicker can cause eyestrain and headaches.

Sharper image quality:
Each LCD pixel is clearly separated from its neighboring pixels while a CRT pixel is less distinguished.


The "Flicker-free" thingy is not to under-estimated, nore the sharper image quality part (huge differnces).
 
Last edited:
Any possible headaches or eyestrain was from the monitor flickering due to a very low refresh rate. Highend CRTs could refresh 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 at 100Hz.

Image sharpness can also go both ways depending on you application. While square pixels are generally easier to read text from, certain fonts and rendering techniques in real world situations look insanely better on a CRT.
 
A lower response time give you less blur on moving images but the difference betwen a 5ms model and 2ms model may not be easy to tell. Going from 60hz to 120hz will be far more noticeable. Smoother and sharper while aiming in an fps game. The 3ms Samsung @ 120hz is actually better at response time than the best 2ms monitors @ 60hz.
 
I still do not get the whole 60 to 120hz thing. the response time is what sucks on LCDs not the refresh rate. with both an LCD at 60hz and my CRT at 60hz, the LCD is blurry when looking around but the CRT is not. why would 120hz change that? and if it does change that then why does an LCD need twice the refresh rate of a CRT to look smoother?
 
hooman79108 said:
Hi guys
is there any significant difference between 2ms and 5ms response time in LCD/LED monitors ?
i want a 20" or 22" LCD/LED for gaming.
Click to expand...
Be very aware that specifications for LCDs are total nonsense and there is no way to relate the specs of one manufacturer to another.

This is worth reading:
http://www.maximumtech.com/display-myths-shattered-how-monitor-hdtv-companies-cook-their-specs
and especially:
http://www.maximumtech.com/display-...itor-hdtv-companies-cook-their-specs?page=2,2

That said, i am impressed with the 120Hz LCDs for fast paced shooters
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
I still do not get the whole 60 to 120hz thing. the response time is what sucks on LCDs not the refresh rate. with both an LCD at 60hz and my CRT at 60hz, the LCD is blurry when looking around but the CRT is not. why would 120hz change that? and if it does change that then why does an LCD need twice the refresh rate of a CRT to look smoother?
Click to expand...

Yes the reason 60Hz on LCD is much worse than CRT is partly because of response time but more importantly the sample and hold effect. On a CRT each frame appears only for a brief period before it fades to black and the next frame arrives. This flickering actually allow our brain to clear out the last image faster than on LCD where the image is retained until the next one arrives worsening the effect of ghosting. Some LCD actually use a technique call black frame insertion to improve ghosting. This is explained here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-parameters_3.html

Subjective impression of BFI in practice: http://www.behardware.com/articles/646-3/benq-fp241wz-1rst-lcd-with-screening.html

It works at getting rid of blurring but at a low refresh rate, will introduce flicker just like a slow refresh CRT.

On a 120Hz LCD the sample and hold effect is obviously reduced even without BFI since the holding time is halved. But I suspect the results will be even better at 240Hz with BFI.
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
I still do not get the whole 60 to 120hz thing. the response time is what sucks on LCDs not the refresh rate. with both an LCD at 60hz and my CRT at 60hz, the LCD is blurry when looking around but the CRT is not. why would 120hz change that? and if it does change that then why does an LCD need twice the refresh rate of a CRT to look smoother?
Click to expand...
It’s blurry because of the display technology used. On an LCD the entire image persists while on a CRT only one line at a time persists.

The response time is not the problem on modern LCDs. If you have a real 8 ms pixel response time then it’s obviously going to bottlenecked by an interface that only allows one update every ~16ms (60 Hz).

The two biggest problems on LCDs are input lag and image persistence. Both are reduced by increasing the sampling rate (AKA refresh rate) because the updates arrive faster.

Other benefits include reduced RTC artifacts (since they persist for less time), more full frames per second without vsync, less tearing without vsync, and no need for 3:2 pulldown.
 
well my issue is finding one that does not blur so bad. my previous Acer H233H did not do it badly at all. in fact it is considered a decent gaming monitor. http://www.digitalversus.com/acer-h233h-p357_8761_38.html funny they list it as a 2ms when it says 5ms on the box though.

I guess all I can do is keep trying until I find one thats not so bad. luckily we have lots of good stores here with multiple locations. not keen on trying too many from Best Buy though as they scan your drivers license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top