How important is 2ms response time vs. 5ms in reality?

[Sylar0]

Help me pick from 3 options. My basic requirements are DVI,1920x1080, LED backlighting/ 2ms or 5ms response time. I will be using thesystem for SOME gaming but it?s not its primary use. So I ask how important isthat 2ms response time against 5ms people seem to swear by it. What would theNeowin community pick out of these 3 see the technical details for full information.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-H223HQEbmid-Monitor-21-5inch-widescreen/dp/tech-data/B002PSXAZC/ref=de_a_smtd

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-VE228H-Widescreen-Monitor-10000000/dp/tech-data/B0043VPC0K/ref=de_a_smtd

Seems to be a trade-off between led backlighting and a 2ms responsefor these 2. Also considering this but the local guy building my system seemed to think HDMI was some new crazy thing? so he?s saying I should just useDVI but I don?t see why DVI to HDMI wouldn?t work.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/ASUS-ML228H-21-5-Full-Screen/dp/B00568IMW4/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1314958845&sr=1-3

Well views please.

[HawkMan]

Not at all, in fact 2ms will likely give you weaker colors and generally poorer quality than a 2ms screen. and the 2ms screen most likely isn't 2ms anyway, but then again, neither is the 5ms, 5ms. anything true 16ms and below is good enough for you not to notice.

[Hum]

The 3 ms difference might be noticable on high speed games, but it won't make any major difference.

2 ms is only a spec to 'brag' about.

[Blackhearted]

Not at all, in fact 2ms will likely give you weaker colors and generally poorer quality than a 2ms screen. and the 2ms screen most likely isn't 2ms anyway, but then again, neither is the 5ms, 5ms. anything true 16ms and below is good enough for you not to notice.

Haha @ "16 ms is good enough to not notice anything". One may not need a 2ms panel for a good performing monitor, but to say a 16ms panel of any kind is "good enough to not notice anything" is just so horribly wrong i can't help but laugh.

[HawkMan]

that's because you don't know what you're talking about.

as I said a "true 16ms". and non on a proper 16 ms you won't notice. problem is you're thinking about old 16ms tn monitors back when monitors where still 25 and more., back when 16 ms monitors where doing what they do to 2 and 5 ms monitors now. cheat on a measuring method. instead of measuring the time from full white black white, it just measure white to grey. meaning yeah, sure you can get a 2 or 5 ms monitor, but only with half way or less saturated colors and crap contrast.

Meanwhile a 12 ms IPS panel will give you full quality contrast and color saturation and a speed that's not noticeable. you will not notice true 12 or 16 ms delay in the picture. and it's not even a delay. , it's the time from the signal it's sent to the pixels is fully saturated, well actually that would be half the time.

in a blind test, you would not be able to tell the 1 2 or 16 ms display from the 5, well except for the fact that ones of them has a clearer cripser image with much better color and contrast.

[bigmehdi]

but to say a 16ms panel of any kind is "good enough to not notice anything" is just so horribly wrong i can't help but laugh.

It depends of the panel technology used, and how the response time is measured.

I was happy with my old pva based monitor which was rated 25 ms (samsung 173p) , and is was actually faster at this time than some tft rated 12 ms,

and with much better contrast/ colors.

Also , if you are a gamer , I think "input lag" is much more important, and this one is rarely specified.

I would personally only bother with the panel technology, and E-IPS is enough cheap.

A video illustrating the input lag on an e-ips panel, that I liked:

[HawkMan]

I know it depends o the method used, which was whatMi said :)

[bigmehdi]

I know it depends o the method used, which was whatMi said :)

EDIT: oops I take probably too much time to edit my post, I should have checked.

[David Timothy]

hawkman hit the nail on the head. They cheat. Sometimes they even use different gray levels depending on the numbers they want. In short, the only way to be sure you're getting a good panel is to see it in real life, tweak the settings yourself and play your own demo material yourself. In the absence of a real-life demo, it takes a judicious review of the users' reviews of the product. Look through reviews for users that know what they are talking about... Maybe even look at the user's reviews of other products before making a buying decision based on their advice.

As for the three monitors you pointed out, none of them look like a bad choice except maybe for the last one. They slipped that "3D" buzzword into the description without mentioning what 3D technologies it would work with. The product title doesn't even include 3D, which makes me think they mixed up the product description with something else.

As for your system-builder buddy, the comment about HDMI would be a red flag for me. HDMI is not some new-fangled thing, and it's really the only assurance you can get that a monitor supports HDCP encryption, which is a pre-requisite for Blu-ray playback. That said, DVI connections can support HDCP (my parents even have a Sony TV from 2003 in their basement that supports HDCP over DVI from before Blu-ray and HDMI existed) but you better make sure it says HDCP in writing if you think you might at all want to play back Blu-ray discs on it. Also, HDMI supports audio over the same cable.

I use HDMI because it greatly simplifies things. Smaller cable, audio included, HDCP guaranteed (if it has the HDMI logo). I go HDMI into my Onkyo receiver, which extracts the 7.1 surround sound and forwards the video to my monitor (over HDMI as well).

That being said, as far as video goes, there is no quality difference between HDMI and DVI, because most DVI nowadays is HDMI video in a DVI connector. There's just no guarantee of audio support or HDCP. I've used DVI to HDMI to come out of the DVI ports on my nVidia GTX460 into HDTVs. It works. HDMI was made to be compatible with DVI-D for the video portion of the signal. Recent nVidia cards will put out a full HDMI signal from the DVI connectors (audio and HDCP included) so that you can use a DVI cable or DVI to HDMI for flexibility.

Of course, if you don't care about music and movies, he sounds like the guy to build your system. Always choose a system builder that uses his computers in the way that you want to use yours. If you want a gaming machine, ask a gamer to build it- he'll know which video cards are best, etc. Ask an audiophile if you love listening to music and that's important. Ask the old guy who's been doing it for 30 years if you want an email box for your grandma... You get my point.

And the most important thing... Read.

[Sylar0]

So what would you guys all go for? Backlit LED or 2ms response time?

[giantpotato]

Haha @ "16 ms is good enough to not notice anything". One may not need a 2ms panel for a good performing monitor, but to say a 16ms panel of any kind is "good enough to not notice anything" is just so horribly wrong i can't help but laugh.

Haha @ everything you said.

The vast majority of monitors update the image at 60hz, ie. 60 times a second. So, 1000ms / 60 = 16.67ms. The screen won't even be updated more than every 16ms, so why would a monitor have to go from black to white to black any faster than that? Even at 120hz, where the image changes every 8.3 ms, 16ms is more than enough to go from black --> (8ms) --white-->(8ms) --black.

Monitors nowadays use grey-to-grey to measure the response time, so 2ms nowadays is not even a useful measurement IMO.

[Sylar0]

Sorted people thanks monitors on way.

[Scraggles]

Didn't read through this whole thread, but I've got 2 Dell 2405fpw's that I've had for 6 years now. They have a 12ms response time from grey-grey, 16 from black to white. I haven't ever seen any ghosting or negative effects on these monitors. I use them primarily for gaming.

So, quite frankly if I was replacing these, I wouldn't care much for the response time provided it was below 15ms.

[ThaCrip]

Well i got a ASUS VW246H (it's LCD) (bought back in early 2010) and it's a massive upgrade over my old Samsung 19" CRT monitor.

so i imagine the same ASUS but with LED are pretty much better due to even less power use.

i play some games to and the monitor i got is not a issue. it's definitely better than those OLD LCD's where the ghosting was quite noticeable and annoying. comparing my current ASUS to my old 19" CRT there might be some delay but it's not really a issue at the end of the day as like i was saying it's not bad like those old LCD's where 5-10 years ago which where horrible as the ghosting was to the point of a showstopper when playing games.

p.s. i recommend you use the DVI anyways as the speakers on the monitor are a joke as even though sounds comes out of them it's to the point i can guarantee you won't like it as it's quiet even on full blast.