Response Times: Will It Make a Difference?

[TasteOfTheTech]

Hello again,

I have been looking into getting a new monitor for awhile now with the requirements that it must look great, run games well, have a resolution of 1080p and is under $150. I've been eyeing theses two monitors: Acer H236HL and the AOC i2367Fh.

 

They both fairly similar esthetics wise, resolution wise, and price point wise. The only issue I am having with them is the response time (5ms response time), however, should I really have to worry about that?

 

I watched Linus' (or TechQuicky, same thing) "Choosing the Right Gaming LCD Monitor" video where he explained what makes a great gaming monitor. When he got to the range for 5ms response time, he used the phrase "suitable for gaming". I have done my research, and just about every answer I see, it is "suitable" for gaming. I am having a hard time to distinguish whether or not the means good or not when it comes to gaming.

 

A bit of background of what kind of gamer I am: I am a fairly casual gamer. I play some FPS games and, ocasially, Minecraft (no judging). I wouldn't call myself "competitve", however, if I do happen to get much more competitive in my gaming, I do not want my opponent to have an advange over me if I do choose to become much more competitive in the future.

 

The main question I am trying to get across is: Will a 2ms REALLY have a BIG advantage in gaming over a 5ms response time and, if so, should that be a major downfall when deciding which monitor I should get? If so, please provide me with your best option for me with the requirements I posted in the first paragraph.

 

Thanks!

~TOTT

[Mr.Reggin]

i just got me an ACER G6 5ms screen and its totally capable of gaming. You wont notice the difference!

[Toddwjp]

the last 4ms of response time only matter in competitive play on the pro level in games like cs go.

i mean i have a 6ms monitor that i game on because i dont play shooters to that level and the ones i do play are ones where twitch timing isnt as important as map position

[Aniallation]

Response times under 6ms are barely noticeable, if at all.

[Syntaxvgm]

I have a 2ms panel and a 6ms one. I notice the difference if I focus. But I'm really sensitive, a rare case on that stuff actually. It doesn't effect my gameplay AT ALL.

[WoodenMarker]

The response time spec is pretty much bull unless it's labelled BTB or WTW, or is from an in-depth benchmark/review due to the lack of regulation on how GTG response time is measured. Ignore it.

The bigger factor in deciding should be that the Acer H236 is glossy and the AOC i2367 is matte. 

 

Response times for most displays nowadays are quite low--you shouldn't need to worry about it. 

[Lord Pantaloons]

-bloop-

No it won't, don't but into that low response time shit.

[Syntaxvgm]

The response time spec is pretty much bull unless it's labelled BTB or WTW, or is from an in-depth benchmark/review due to the lack of regulation on how GTG response time is measured. Ignore it.

The bigger factor in deciding should be that the Acer H236 is glossy and the AOC i2367 is matte. 

 

Response times for most displays nowadays are quite low--you shouldn't need to worry about it. 

This. If you really want to get a metric on input latency, you have to do a comparison from input to display, meaning using an external device, or putting it next to a crt with a clock mirrored and using a slow-mo camera.

Higher response times can lead to things like ghosting, but with modern monitors, I wouldn't worry about that unless it's like a 4k screen or something.

[TasteOfTheTech]

Alright, thank you everyone!

I expected it not to have a major difference, but I just wanted input from the Linus community.

 

Thanks again!

~ToTT

[moonedunk]

My um65 is 5ms and I dont see how any human can see a difference from my old 2ms monitor