LCD Monitor 1

[gobleza]

Hi all,

I am looking a buying a LCD screen 19" for my gaming PC.
I have been warned that I should look for a 2millisecond refresh rate as a 5milliseconf refresh rate will cause staggerd response.

Is this true,
Obviously the 2ms will be beter, but will the 5ms be impossible to play on,

I like playing first person shooter games so graphics and refresh rate is quite important

 

[Nelviticus]

No, 5ms won't be impossible to play on at all. That figure is the response rate by the way, not the refresh rate, and what it represents is how quickly the monitor updates its display after it receives the signal - so with a 5ms monitor, what you see on screen will be what was happening 5 milliseconds ago.

I play games on a 5ms monitor and I don't notice any lag although I don't play first person shooters - partly because they give me motion sickness and partly because I'm rubbish at them!

Some people claim to notice lag on 5ms displays so if you can get a 2ms one that would be better, but if there's a big price difference I'd go for a 5ms display as personally I doubt you'd notice any lag. 5 milliseconds is only a 200th of a second after all!

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

Either will work fine. Response times used to be much worse on LCD's (12 to 16ms was common just a few years ago). 5ms should be low enough.

Here's a brief discussion on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_time_(technology)#LCD_monitors

This one has a lot more info:

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_8.html

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[wahnula]

Another tip...some of the lower-price 22" or so widescreen models are only 6-bit vs. 8-bit for better monitors. There IS a difference!

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[Nelviticus]

There is a difference, yes, but unless you're after high colour accuracy for serious image editing then it's not something worth bothering with. If you just want to play games, watch the odd movie and browse the internet then 6-bit is probably fine.

If money is no object, get a highly-rated 2ms 8-bit panel, and go for 22" rather than 19". If money is tight then a 19", 5ms 6-bit panel will still be good.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[gobleza]

Thanks all,

This has been a great help.

Probably look at the 8 bit, 22" rather than the 19"

John

 

[wahnula]

John,

Samsung rates very highly in this market. I have the SyncMaster 225BW and really like it. 8-bit, 5ms, second Samsung display I've owned, totally happy with both.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I42QO6?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=cnet-pc-20&linkCode=asn

Here's the latest iteration:

http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-225...-x-1050-2-ms/q/loc/101/206900407.html#cRevSec

I think this one has the shiny screen or at least the bezel. This latest fashion, the "piano finish", really looks shoddy after a while, with smudgy fingerprints everywhere. Give me the old matte finish anyday!

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[felixc]

If a game refreshes its screen at 120Hz, it means 8mS. 120Hz is about the max for display monitors. And you will start to get a comfortable feel in a game at about 30Hz.

All this to say that 8mS or less will not really make a difference. Actually, some quicker monitors will show a worse image, as many of them are using some sort of boost circuitry to show a better response time but making tradeoffs with the quality of the image.

"bad" models are more an exception than a rule. It was a different story two years ago. I suggest that you check what is available in your local stores, and then verify on internet for reviews of the models that are on sale. Toms Hardware does very good reviews of monitors, for example.

 

[Nelviticus]

That's not quite accurate Felix - monitors have a refresh rate (which under Windows XP you can set under Display Properties/Settings/Advanced/Monitor), which is how many times per second the screen gets refreshed, and also a response time, which is the length of time it taxes for a pixel to respond (usually the time it takes to go from grey to black to grey again).

Essentially refresh rate determines how flickery the display is and response rate determines how laggy it is.

With most LCD monitors the refresh rate is 60Hz, no matter what their response time is.

Refresh rate used to be very important with CRT monitors as if it was set too low it would be hard on your eyes. Due to the way LCDs work this isn't a problem for them.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[felixc]

I was just trying to say that to a certain point the response time of a monitor ceases to be important. 2mS versus 5mS should not be a deciding factor in selecting one monitor over another, because both figures will handle very well any speed issue.

Seeing a monitor in action is the ideal way to decide if the feeling is good or not. Quite the same as it used to be with CRTs. An "eye-to-click" reaction will not get better than some 100mS.

When the system is powerful enough, games will try to synchronize their memory refresh to the refresh rate of the monitor to avoid image shear.

To do some math, a vertical sync (refresh) at 60Hz means that a given pixel is refreshed to a new value (if an object moves) every 16mS. With a 5mS monitor it will take about a third of the refresh time for the LCD to display it at the proper intensity. This is very acceptable. One eight of the time with a 2mS display is theoretically better, if all other things are equal. But they are not. Equalizer and boost circuits may be detrimental to image quality. This is why a "test drive" of a monitor is recommended, especially if the monitor is at a bargain price. There's no free lunch.