6ms response gaming?

[Matriox]

Hi I am about to buy the acer k272 monitor and I was going to game on it with my R9 290x, this monitor is 60Hz, 1440p, and 5-6ms response time so I was wondering if I will be okay with gaming on this or should I change my mind.

I don't wanna go with a 1080p monitor because I already have one and also my GPU is WAY to powerfull for it. Thanks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?SID=62cb75e5bfa743e99e03158dfa652456&AID=10440897&PID=1225267&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-cables-_-na-_-na&Item=24-009-626&cm_sp=

[Cubit481]

Hi I am about to buy the acer k272 monitor and I was going to game on it with my R9 290x, this monitor is 60Hz, 1440p, and 5-6ms response time so I was wondering if I will be okay with gaming on this or should I change my mind.

I don't wanna go with a 1080p monitor because I already have one and also my GPU is WAY to powerfull for it. Thanks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?SID=62cb75e5bfa743e99e03158dfa652456&AID=10440897&PID=1225267&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-cables-_-na-_-na&Item=24-009-626&cm_sp=

ya it should be fine....go for it...although if u can get an ips panel instead that will be better...

[Matriox]

ya it should be fine....go for it...although if u can get a ips panel instead that will be better...

good to hear, thanks

[0s4x]

To be perfectly honest with you, you won't notice the difference between even an 8ms monitor and a 1ms monitor. Anything under 10ms is suitable for gaming, all you need to decide on is refresh rate, resolution and colour accuracy.

[Syntaxvgm]

To be perfectly honest with you, you won't notice the difference between even an 8ms monitor and a 1ms monitor. Anything under 10ms is suitable for gaming, all you need to decide on is refresh rate, resolution and colour accuracy.

believe me I certainly can. I bet I'm in the minority on that, I'm sensitive to those differences, ever subtle. Doesn't bother me though. . But it really doesn't matter unless you like compete or something

[ShadowCaptain]

Will be fine I game on a 13ms IPS Panel but if you can change to an IPS display do it. 27" is quite large and with TN you tend to lose some colours at the edges because they are at a bit of an angle

 

 

believe me I certainly can. I bet I'm in the minority. But it really doesn't matter unless you like compete or something

 

Dont forget the rated ms rating on monitors is not the whole story! sometimes 1ms panels have tons of input lag this increasing overall lag to a much higher figure

 

 

Perhaps this? some people have managed to overclock them to 120hz or close to

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1JX0558&cm_re=qnix-_-9SIA4JH1JX0558-_-Product

[skydanny]

You should use a monitor has 120Hz and 2-6 ms or higher.

[Matriox]

You should use a monitor has 120Hz and 2-6 ms or higher.

There is no 120Hz 1440p monitor

[Paralectic]

There is no 120Hz 1440p monitor

Wait for ROG SWIFT

[GoodBytes]

Response time is a miss leading figure.

They are no standard way of measuring, every manufactures or even between series, uses different method of measuring. By method, this means equipment and procedure.

The flow in measure is also mentioned on the box: You will see that you have "(g-t-g)" next to the figure. This means gray-to-gray. In other words, the speed the monitor takes to pass from 1 gray color, to another gray color.

Well there is a problem with this: Which gray to which gray? And those 2 grays varies. The larger the distance between the 2 colors, the slower the response time.

Back in the early days of LCD monitor, the figure used was black to white. Pure black to pure white. Simple, and accurate, and a standard in equipment used was forming, and an IEEE standard was being defined. Sadly, because those figures looked bad (because at the time, LCD monitors where not only competing against each other, but also CRT monitors who had true 0ms response time, and LCD monitor where sllloowww back then. They switch to their own methods and used gray-to-gray, where manufactures claim to represent real world performance, as it is unlikely to have white object move on a black background. While true, and they have a point, it is no longer a valid benchmark, and now every manufactures uses their own gray's, equipment and methodology in measuring.

It's like deciding which graphics card is fastest to buy that fit your budget, and you look at benchmarks, and EVERY single card uses a different benchmark software, and you base your buying decision ONLY on that. It's just as ridiculous and meaningless. The point of a graphics card benchmark, like 3D Mark is a score that represent the performance of a graphics card, against others using the same benchmark, in a situation of intensive gaming environment.

So you have:

-> Different gray colors used between manufactures.

-> Different equipment, which have different ways of measuring (using a sensor or using a camera, for example. And the camera can have different speed, which may or may not be as accurate to provide you these small millisecond difference, same for the sensor.)

-> Different methodology in measuring.

So it really a bogus figures at the end of the day. It's ok if you compare monitor within the same series or somewhat fine with the same manufacture, but different manufacture? no way.

So how to know the real response time? Simple. Look at in depth review sites, as they reveal the true performance of the monitor. Sites like TFTCentral or Prad.de or AnandTech are great example of sites that does in depth monitor reviews.

Usually (they are exceptions), IPS monitors will show more realistic results, in my opinion, over any gaming targeted monitor, as:

-> IPS are mostly targeted at professional, where response time is not a figure they really care about, or knows it is not meaningful

-> A game monitor that isn't <= 2ms, is not selling well, so they NEED to show these 1ms figures. So they don't lie, as that is false advertising, but nothing stops them in using the next gray color, or the same (0ms?!.. a mater of time in my opinion), and not something more further apart.