2ms Vs. 5ms LCD monitors

[Noahtuck]

So i want to order a new 23" 1920 x 1080 LCD monitor this week and as i have never personally owned one i am wondering if there will be a BIG difference between a 5ms & 2ms response time ?

I obviously work on video & play a lot of FPS games like Crysis 2, COD, Battlefield Bad company 2, etc. and i'm not sure if there will be a big difference or noticeable when playing fast moving games.

[jagabo]

There is no standard by which LCD switching time is measured. Manufacturers use whatever method they want to measure it, and of course, they use whatever method give the best number for a particular monitor. It has little relevance to the real world performance. You have to see the monitors in action, or find unbiased reviews, to tell the difference.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htm

[aedipuss]

companies like samsung and asus that offer both seem to be consistent in speed ratings. the 2ms monitors seem to refresh faster.

if you are interested in saving energy the led lcd use much less power than the older cold cathode type.

[Noahtuck]

I have been looking at the Asus 23" 2ms monitors but i have seen some good 5ms monitors for quite a bit cheaper, like $70.00 cheaper, but i don't want to get a 5ms than find out it does not work/run as fast with faster games....

Oy Vey...

Nothing can ever be simple.... LOL!!

[Noahtuck]

Yeah i was going to get an LED LCD.

There is not much of a price difference between Asus 5ms & 2ms monitors.

But i figured if i could save an extra $70.00 with not much, if any, noticeable difference between a 5 & 2 ms monitor, that would be extra money for my new hex core build within the next month

[Noahtuck]

Okay, between the two i am looking at, here are the specs,

Response Time: 2ms (GTG)
Horizontal Refresh Rate
31 - 79 KHz
Vertical Refresh Rate
56 - 75 Hz

Response Time: 5ms
Horizontal Refresh Rate
30-80KHz
Vertical Refresh Rate
55-75Hz

Both are 1920 x 1080 LED backlit.

But the 5ms one is $70.00 cheaper.

With both the Hor. & Ver. refresh rates so close will the ms make a lot of diff. ?

[deadmeow]

I have an Asus 27" monitor with 2ms delay, and it is the fastest response time I have had on a monitor, since my last CRT monitor. My old LCD was a 25 ms delay, and that was not good for online gaming, though many average people may not notice delays. I also have a Philips LCD television, with 1ms delay, but the Asus LCD monitor, still seems quicker.

If gaming is your priority, especially if it is online gaming, I would suggest you get the Asus 2ms monitor. It is not worth getting waxed by some noob, just cause he has a faster monitor than yours, haha.

[jagabo]

With both the Hor. & Ver. refresh rates so close will the ms make a lot of diff. ?

Maybe.

The response time is typically measured as how long it takes to go from black to peak white to black again. Even that isn't straight forward as they consider something like 90 percent peak white and 10 percent black to sufficient for the measurement. Ie, they apply a 100 percent signal and when the brightness reaches 90 percent (because that last 10 percent takes much longer to reach) they switch back to black. And when the light output reaches 10 percent they call it done.

But respons time from say, 25 percent to 75 percent may take much longer. And it may not be consistently related to the 0 to 100 percent times.

[Noahtuck]

With both the Hor. & Ver. refresh rates so close will the ms make a lot of diff. ?

Maybe.

Thanks for the certainty...
LOL!!!


Okay, stupid Q.

Which would be better, 50,000,000:1 or 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio ?
I am assuming the higher contrast ratio would be better.

I am just going to get one of these two.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236117

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236112

There is only a $2.00 difference so.....

Unless someone can recommend something equal or better for the same price or cheaper.

[jagabo]

With both the Hor. & Ver. refresh rates so close will the ms make a lot of diff. ?

Maybe.

Thanks for the certainty...
LOL!!!

I added a bit to my last post.

Which would be better, 50,000,000:1 or 10,000,000:1 contrast ratio ?

Once again, the answer is maybe. There is no standard for measuring dynamic contrast ratio either. One measurement may be taken with the the backlights turned all the way down (even off) and displaying a full black screen. The other may be with the backlights turned up as high as they will go and displaying a full white screen. That gives a very dark black and a very bright white for the contrast ratio report. But you can't display both of those at the same time! Of much more importance is the static contrast ratio, usually measured with an ANSI checkerboard pattern. That tells you the ratio of black to white that can be displayed at the same time. These typically range in the 500 to 1000 range. Also of more importance is the black level. How dark the blackest blacks are when displaying normal picture material. Most people don't need to have the backlights turned up all the way (I run most of my displays with the backlight at around 25 percent). But having overly bright backlights is an easy way to boost the dynamic contrast ratio.

Then you have viewing angles. Most monitors and TVs claim values like 178 degrees. But they don't say what that means. You may still see something when viewing at extreme angles but the contrast may not be very good (typically the black level rises so the darkest parts of the picture are gray, not black) and the colors may shift. This is a little less important in a computer monitor where you sit right in front of the display all the time.

The evenness of the backlighting is another issue. Edge lit LED displays tend to have rather uneven lighting. Many monitors have leaks around the edges (ie when displaying a pure black screen the edges will be brighter than the center).

This aritcle is a shootout between LCD and plasma displays, but it explains a lot about the tricks that manufacturers use to inflate their specs.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

Also worth reading:

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

The good news is that LCDs have reached a point where even budget displays are acceptable to most people. If you're really picky you need to look further up the ladder.

[redwudz]

One advantage I see to a LED display is little or no change in the backlight levels over the lifespan of the monitor. I have older florescent backlit monitors that have very little contrast as the tube is dying. I now have a Viewsonic 23" LED and I really like it. The case is much slimmer and lighter and the unit puts out a lot less heat than the 19" LCD florescent backlit display it replaced.

On the downside, the black levels aren't quite as good as the Hanns G 19" it replaced. But that is more attributable to manufacturer design than using a LED backlight. I needed a LCD with a HDMI (DVI) and a VGA input and the Viewsonic was the best value at the time that had those options.

With the Viewsonic and a black screen, there is a little bleed from the backlight around the edges, but I suspect a better quality monitor would have less. If at all possible, I would view the monitor in person as the manufacturer specifications don't really mean much, IMO. I would bring my own test disc if they will let you.

Great black levels are a big plus for me, more important than refresh times. But I don't game.

[lordsmurf]

Not much difference in 2ms and 5ms.

I use one of these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/658413-REG/Viewsonic_VP2365WB_VP2365wb_23_Widesc...3167/KBID/4166
Not a gaming monitor, however. Calibrated for video, photo and print accuracy.

For low-end consumer monitors made for watching movies and playing games, like you're wanting, I generally suggest an Acer, if available in the specs desired. Honestly, all monitors are more or less the same on the low end (non-IPS).

Specs are all fudged, meaningless measurebating.
"My daddy makes a million dollars."
"Oh yeah, well my daddy makes two milllion dollars, so there!"

It's really stupid.

[redwudz]

'Measurebating''? But I agree about the manufacturer specs.

[Noahtuck]

Thanks for everyone's input!!!

I'm still not sure if some of it helped me or just overloaded my brain!!!
LOL!!!

I'm just going to go with the Asus that i linked to, the one that is a couple of $$ more.

It's the same one i ordered for a friend a while back and when i tested it, it ran pretty good with COD black ops, but she had a cheap card in her system so i figure it should run better on my current system and next build.

I have been reading the reviews on quite a few of them (the 2ms LCD's) and people are stating no ghosting ect. so i guess i will find out.

And viewing angles wont be an issue seeing as when i am at either of my desk's i am about 24 inches from my monitors directly in front of them.

I am still going with a LED backlit even though energy use is not an issue seeing as even if my PC is on 90% of the time i shut my monitor down.

I just wish they would make some of the monitors i am looking at without built in speakers for a cheaper price!!!
Because i sure DO NOT care about them or will i be using them!!!!

[Noahtuck]

Just an update, I received the ASUS VH238H 23" monitor thursday afternoon, set it up but i did not get to test it until tonight, friday night.....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236117

My first LCD & Widescreen monitor.... HOLY BAT$H!T BATMAN!!!!!!!!!

I went from 1024 x 768 on my 19" CRT monitor to 1920 x 1080 resolution in any of the latest games and it rocks!!!

I knew it looked good when i tested one on a friends PC but i never tested it on a faster system with current game's.

SWEEEEEEET!!!!!!!!!

It's like having 2 - 19" 4:3 CRT monitors sitting side by side!!!

Yeah, i know, i am late to the party but, i just always worried about LCD monitors being so much slower than CRT's and being as i hate any kind of lag or ghosting in games i have held off until now.

[aedipuss]

the only negative i have with my 238h is that it is way too bright at normal settings. using quickgamma to set it up i've got to reduce the brightness setting at 0 and gamma to 2.0.

[Noahtuck]

Yep, i know what you mean.

I had to tweak mine a little also.

But i always have to tweak any of my CRT's i get to the way i like it also.

[redwudz]

Monitor manufacturers seem to think really bright displays are what we all want. I turn all mine down a bit. I also really wish W7 would have an option to use other than the glaring white background on their aero menu screens as they are blinding in low room lighting.

[jagabo]

Monitor manufacturers seem to think really bright displays are what we all want.

Because that's what sells in the showroom. And it allows them to advertise a bigger dynamic contrast ratio. I run all my LCD displays with the backlights turned down to less than 20 percent.