Will 1ms 60hz monitor make difference when compared to 5ms 60hz monitor

[220VoltsallCore]

[Dropit]

Not really, more noticable is the switch to 144hz I'd say.

[Ominous]

A 4ms difference is minuscule and you won't notice it.  Even then, it's not as black and white as it just being 4 ms faster as the benchmarks to find the response time from companies vary between them.  It also doesn't matter if a monitor has 1ms GTG (grey to grey) if its BTB (black to white to black) time is absolutely huge.

 

If you really want to see a difference, get a 144hz monitor.

[Fasauceome]

16ms is how long a frame is on screen at 60Hz, response time of 5ms is a tiny fraction of that. the difference between 5 and 1ms can't be noticed.

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

16ms is how long a frame is on screen at 60Hz, response time of 5ms is a tiny fraction of that. the difference between 5 and 1ms can't be noticed.

5 isn't a tiny fraction of 16. It means that during almost a third of a frame, you're seeing the wrong color.

 

And that's assuming 5ms is a representative number, which it typically isn't. Manufacturers do a lot of nonsense with pixel response times.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Dropit said:

Not really, more noticable is the switch to 144hz I'd say.

 

1 hour ago, Fasauceome said:

16ms is how long a frame is on screen at 60Hz, response time of 5ms is a tiny fraction of that. the difference between 5 and 1ms can't be noticed.

You do know what "1ms" means in this context?  Typically this is the gray to gray response time of a monitor and not what many seem to weirdly believe anything to do with input lag. 

 

It simply means if you have a fast response time there will be less ghosting.  Screens with 5ms gray to gray response time are generally not considered suitable for gaming,  watching movies etc is usually no issue though. 

 

Gray to gray and also black to white (rarely used) response time is simply how fast the LCD screen can switch between colors and 5ms will see large amounts of ghosting whereas 1-2ms means basically no ghosting,  a 4ms difference therfore is huge. 

 

 

 

 

[Fasauceome]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Screens with 5ms gray to gray response time are generally not considered suitable for gaming,

By who? I've used quite a lot and the ghosting is almost nonexistent

 

The spec only looks bad on paper, if you've got it right in front of you it doesn't show at all because the entire screen isn't changing color constantly

[Sakkura]

13 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Gray to gray and also black to white (rarely used) response time is simply how fast the LCD screen can switch between colors and 5ms will see large amounts of ghosting whereas 1-2ms means basically no ghosting,  a 4ms difference therfore is huge.

The way it's measured varies, so you can't really make sweeping generalizations. But typically 5ms wouldn't correspond to large amounts of ghosting. Just... more than nothing.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

By who? I've used quite a lot and the ghosting is almost nonexistent

By pretty much anyone who tests monitors, like for example Displaylag.com 

 

Maybe you just don't see the ghosting? 

I have a 5ms response time TV and the ghosting is super noticeable,  even on my ASUS "gaming monitor" I notice it sometimes. 

That's also why many monitors come with "trace free" settings or similar. 

The point is this really has nothing to do with frametimes or similar. It's a display specific thing  and like already has been mentioned the things manufacturers say about the response times aren't necessarily conclusive, but generally less response time = less ghosting. 

 

https://displaylag.com/exposed-input-lag-vs-response-time/

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The way it's measured varies, so you can't really make sweeping generalizations. But typically 5ms wouldn't correspond to large amounts of ghosting. Just... more than nothing.

That's true,  which is why I would always check on a reputable site before buying anything.  

 

And yeah... actually 5ms is somewhat playable IMHO,  but the ghosting is noticeable (also seems to vary by display and game, so there's probably more to it too) 

Hence lower is definitely better in this case. 

[Fasauceome]

17 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Maybe you just don't see the ghosting? 

Yeah I don't, and neither do most people, that's my point.

 

Going between my 1ms and any cheapo monitor is almost totally imperceptible in terms of ghosting, and few people will say they will never play on a 5ms monitor because you have to be very sensitive to it to factor it in.

[SolarNova]

@Dinesh1

 

Yeesh some inaccurate replies here.

 

 

 

So general rule of thumb is to ignore the spec of 'response time' from manufacturers. they are VERY misleading.

 

You can find 1ms monitors with worse ghosting (blur) than 5ms ones. and ofc visa versa.

You can grab 10 different monitors all with advertised 1ms specs and they will all act differently in regards to pixel response time and the resulting ghosting /blur.

 

Only consider monitors that have been tested and reviewed . When it comes to response time, u want real world tested figures, like those shown by rtings reviews and tftcentral reviews.

 

At 60hz the frame time is 16.66ms .. however that doesn't mean u should be ok with a monitor that has a 'real' response time of 16ms , thats still going to look bad. Aim for as small a figure as possible. At least 12ms (100% transition speed average) or less i would say. 5ms or less for 80% transition average.

 

the specs u see online from manufacturers are more or less the fastest single transition measured , likely using an 80% measurement. EG a 80 - 100% luminence transition measured to 80% of the total transition. This can easily be around the 1ms with fast panels. they also often use very high levels of overdrive, which n many cases will cause overshoot, which ofc they wont include in the timing results, becouse if they did it would increase the real world response time figure as the pixel has to readjust back down to the desired color after overshooting the mark.

 

 

 

FYI: While pixel response is a objective thing, it can be measured so can the ghosting it produce, for each individual person it is a subjective matter in regards to how much ghosting it takes befor they notice it. if u dont notice ghosting on ur particular display, regardless of its real response time .. then thats GOOD for you, and it doesnt mean if som1 else CAN see the ghosting that u are somehow inferior.

Much like with any visual artifact, some people are more sensitive to it than others. i can assure you some people wish they couldnt see somthing like ghosting as much as they do becouse its a right PITA to find a display that is good enough.

[Mark Kaine]

24 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

Yeah I don't, and neither do most people, that's my point.

 

Going between my 1ms and any cheapo monitor is almost totally imperceptible in terms of ghosting, and few people will say they will never play on a 5ms monitor because you have to be very sensitive to it to factor it in.

Well I don't believe that's true that most people don't notice this. 

 

I've been knowing that this is a thing since ca 2005, also that the numbers are often incorrect,  you don't even know which response time,  they'll just say "response time" on the box.. 

 

And since I play a lot of fighting games where this is specifically an issue, it has always been totally clear to me most people prefer lower response times,  while "some" said it doesn't bother them. 

 

And it's usually also big point in tests...  5ms you will never get a great review for a gaming display,  it's just not worth it even if the rest of the display is up to spec. 

 

Now you can say tests don't matter etcetera,  which we'll then just have to disagree on,  I know exactly what I want (usually)  and I *will* check out tests to find out the numbers manufacturers keep secret from me,  such as input lag and response times... 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, SolarNova said:

Much like with any visual artifact, some people are more sensitive to it than others. i can assure you some people wish they couldnt see somthing like ghosting as much as they do becouse its a right PITA to find a display that is good enough.

That's true too. Everyone seems to have their pet peeves with graphics and displays,  for example I don't get the obsession of this forum with frametimes at all,  usually people care about frame rates,  because that's just way more noticeable,  yet I've seen people say few frame drops doesn't bother them,  but frametimes,  yeah that's like super important.. Yes,  I know that should be mostly really regular and stuff without too many spikes,  but it's not something I notice immediately,  1FPS frame drop or worse tho?  Immediately notice because the picture literally stops lol, how could you not notice...  And then colors,  most people prefer over saturated colors that "pop" and some prefer actually calibrated screens that give naturally a lot more muted colors... Some people care about full RGB,  some don't,  etc... 

 

But just because someone doesn't notice something as much doesn't mean they should say it's not important (when they full well should know it *is* important for others...) 

 

 

I know my monitor is not the greatest with ghosting, but far from the worst, and depending on the game,  I don't even notice any ghosting most of the time. But I do know from experience I would notice it all the time if my display was worse... There's s a point where it just starts to be too apparent.

 

 

[220VoltsallCore]

@Intransigent

[Paul Rudd]

10 hours ago, Dinesh1 said:

Will 1ms 60hz monitor make difference when compared to 5ms 60hz monitor 

What type of difference are we talking here? And which two monitors?

[220VoltsallCore]

2 hours ago, Intransigent said:

What type of difference are we talking here? And which two

 

2 hours ago, Intransigent said:

What type of difference are we talking here? And which two monitors?

More smoothness

 

[Paul Rudd]

5 minutes ago, Dinesh1 said:

More smoothness

Which two monitors?

[220VoltsallCore]

3 minutes ago, Intransigent said:

Which two monitors?

https://www.amazon.in/Acer-Nitro-QG221Q-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B07S31CP9G/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?keywords=1ms+monitor&qid=1575093039&sr=8-5

This 

Vs 

https://www.amazon.in/LG-inch-68-58-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B078GRM2MV/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=lg+27uk650&qid=1575093116&sprefix=lg+27uk&sr=8-1

[Paul Rudd]

7 minutes ago, Dinesh1 said:

https://www.amazon.in/Acer-Nitro-QG221Q-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B07S31CP9G/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?keywords=1ms+monitor&qid=1575093039&sr=8-5

This 

Vs 

https://www.amazon.in/LG-inch-68-58-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B078GRM2MV/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=lg+27uk650&qid=1575093116&sprefix=lg+27uk&sr=8-1

And the hardware running these monitors? Particularly the CPU, what it's clocked at, the GPU, the total amount of RAM and the RAM speed.

[220VoltsallCore]

5 minutes ago, Intransigent said:

And the hardware running these monitors? Particularly the CPU, what it's clocked at, the GPU, the total amount of RAM and the RAM speed.

I52400 8gb gtx1650

I get above 60fps+ in pubg

[Paul Rudd]

27 minutes ago, Dinesh1 said:

I52400 8gb gtx1650 I get above 60fps+ in pubg

The 1080p 75 Hz monitor will be more smooth than any 4K monitor using that hardware. The downside will be the size. 23-24" is ideal for 1080p. 21.5" may not seem like it's gonna make much of a difference but it actually does. Imo anyway.

 

27" is also not ideal for 4K.

27-28" is ideal for 1440p.

28-32" is ideal for 4K.

[Doobeedoo]

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I don't get the obsession of this forum with frametimes at all,  usually people care about frame rates,  because that's just way more noticeable,  yet I've seen people say few frame drops doesn't bother them,  but frametimes,  yeah that's like super important.. Yes,  I know that should be mostly really regular and stuff without too many spikes,  but it's not something I notice immediately,  1FPS frame drop or worse tho?  Immediately notice because the picture literally stops lol, how could you not notice... 

 

Frametimes are very important, say you can have 144fps capped with irregular frametimes and game will not feel smooth and even worse your aim will suffer, tracking will be horrible. I play a lot of online shooter games and you can notice every irregularity. You also definitely want high framerate but not really jumping between say 120-300 for example. Also depends on a game, in some games in-game fps cap works different. 

[Mark Kaine]

25 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Frametimes are very important, say you can have 144fps capped with irregular frametimes and game will not feel smooth and even worse your aim will suffer, tracking will be horrible. I play a lot of online shooter games and you can notice every irregularity. You also definitely want high framerate but not really jumping between say 120-300 for example. Also depends on a game, in some games in-game fps cap works different. 

It seems to depend on the game and the player actually.  I can't do unlocked framerate at all,  it doesn't really matter if the framerate goes up or down,  I will notice any irregularities immediately and since my monitor is locked to 60Hz my framerate must be locked to the same number.

And yes I know  perfect frametimes are preferable,  I just don't notice it as much,  as long it's around 20 and my framerate is locked there is no issues. 

 

I don't play first person games at all though and the only "shooters" I play are Resident Evil and Monster Hunter,  might have something to do with it

 

 

[SolarNova]

10 hours ago, Dinesh1 said:

https://www.amazon.in/Acer-Nitro-QG221Q-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B07S31CP9G/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?keywords=1ms+monitor&qid=1575093039&sr=8-5

This 

Vs 

https://www.amazon.in/LG-inch-68-58-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B078GRM2MV/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=lg+27uk650&qid=1575093116&sprefix=lg+27uk&sr=8-1

The problem here is 2 fold.

 

1) You system cant handle 4k. So the LG isnt ideal, even though its clearly the superior display

2) The Acer Nitro is a 'cheap' VA panel display , meaning its a damn near certainty that its going to have a pixel response time (real response time) that is to slow and will cause ghosting/blur. Acer also have a habit of releasing rather poor 'gaming' monitors.

Example:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/16747

Of the 10 Acer displays reviewed, only 1 is a truly 'fast' gaming display and it has absolutely terrible uniformity. the rest are middle of the road in terms of 'speed' , but have poor uniformity, and the only one with good uniformity is rather slow for a TN panel.

They are not all 'terrible' , its just there are better options.

 

The LG has been reviewed, its good.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27uk650-w

 

But at 4k ur system is going have a real hard time. You'll be forced to play at 1080p on it, which is a bit of a waste.

 

I'd suggests looking at different monitors.

 

EDIT:

if u can find them available in ur region consider the following.

I used the price of the LG display ulinked and converted to GBP to get an idea of price range.

These in the UK are of similar price.

 

The 1st is a 25" 1080p 240hz display. While ur unlikely to get 240FPS, its a very good TN panel highly recommended. So u should consider it.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/hp/omen-x-25f

 

The 2nd is a good 27" 1080p ,144hz, relatively uniform, fast, and accurate out of the box, budget IPS gaming display.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/vg279q