Can we really see the difference between 1ms and 16ms? Does it really matter?

[Vozella]

Can we really see the difference between 1ms and 16ms? Does it really matter?

 

Edit: What does high amount of ms even look like?

Edited April 17, 2015 by Vozella

[flibberdipper]

 YES. 12 to 5 is noticeable for that matter.

[Osmium]

ms of what input lag?

[Sauron]

1) yes

2) usually no.

[AlwaysFSX]

You're asking the wrong question.

 

Can we see a difference? Yes.

Can you react quick enough in that time? No.

[rmac52]

16 ms would be horrible. Assuming we're talking monitor latency.

[givingtnt]

yes we can defenitivly notice the difference. and its very. very annoying

[xToFxREAPER]

Yes its noticeable, I put one of my 6ms monitors next to my dads 1ms rog swift.. You can clearly tell the difference. Needless to say im buying an rog swift soon.... lol

[Comessy]

I couldn't play counter strike with any more than 2ms, nevermind 16

[DildorTheDecent]

I went form a 8ms to a 2ms. There's a difference. 

 

although that's a Grey-to-Grey number.

 

Can still feel a difference though. 

[shirokado]

Yes its noticeable, I put one of my 6ms monitors next to my dads 1ms rog swift.. You can clearly tell the difference. Needless to say im buying an rog swift soon.... lol

I own an ROG Swift, great monitor, smooth gaming, no complaints here, maybe except the price tag. And your 6ms to 1ms comparison might actually be the difference between IPS and TN, or 60hz vs 144hz. I guess it depends on what you're used to, because no matter how hard I try, I cannot game on an IPS monitor, it is way too stuttery, its unplayable. For comparison, 60hz to me is like when people complain about how choppy 24fps gaming is on consoles.

[Sakkura]

Can we really see the difference between 1ms and 16ms? Does it really matter?

 

Edit: What does high amount of ms even look like?

 

If you're talking about response time, then high response time means you see a lot of motion blur and ghosting when there's quick on-screen motion.

 

You're asking the wrong question.

 

Can we see a difference? Yes.

Can you react quick enough in that time? No.

 

Pixel response time does not (primarily) have to do with reactions. It's about motion blur and ghosting - how well the monitor displays motion. Pixel response time makes up a small portion of the total input lag, but other factors are usually more important there. Plus higher levels of input lag can be tolerated.

 

16 ms would be horrible. Assuming we're talking monitor latency.

 

Monitor latency? As in input latency? Then 16ms is no problem. If it's pixel response time though, then 16ms is bad.

[Magnussen]

I couldn't play counter strike with any more than 2ms, nevermind 16

But I bet if I changed your monitor to a 3ms without you knowing, you would't notice

[WereCat]

Pixel response time?

Well... Yes and no. Because it comes down to what kind of latency manufacturer means.

5ms CTC latency is a lot better than 5ms GTG latency for example.

CtC=Color to Color

GTG=Gray to Gray

Usually manufacturers market only GTG latency because it is the fastest one but they may have really bad CTC or Black to White latencies.

Usually you are better off with 6ms CTC than with 1ms GTG.

It gets really complicated and confusing because every manufacturer markets different standards so then you have to dig deep into the specs.

[Sakkura]

It gets really complicated and confusing

 

Par for the course with any monitor spec. Especially once marketing has had their way with it.

[Glenwing]

16ms of latency is good, and generally unnoticeable from 1ms.

On the other hand a 16ms response time doesn't tell you anything, because response time measurements are extremely imprecise. Subjective experiences are also worthless because of this. You can put a 12ms monitor and a 1ms monitor next to each other and see a massive difference, but then put a different 12ms monitor and 1ms monitor together and see no difference at all. Not all "1ms" or "12ms" monitors are the same, and in fact there is such a massive variance that you can find a 12ms monitor which is in reality faster than a 5ms monitor.

See the mythbuster thread at the top of this section, the very first two parts deal with this topic extensively.

[WereCat]

Par for the course with any monitor spec. Especially once marketing has had their way with it.

Exactly. 90% of specs that are marketed on monitors are bullcrap.

Contrast ratios and bla bla...

[Glenwing]

Pixel response time?

Well... Yes and no. Because it comes down to what kind of latency manufacturer means.

5ms CTC latency is a lot better than 5ms GTG latency for example.

CtC=Color to Color

GTG=Gray to Gray

Usually manufacturers market only GTG latency because it is the fastest one but they may have really bad CTC or Black to White latencies.

Usually you are better off with 6ms CTC than with 1ms GTG.

It gets really complicated and confusing because every manufacturer markets different standards so then you have to dig deep into the specs.

You know "grey" is another word for color in color terms

There is only black-to-white and grey-to-grey.

[Glenwing]

You're asking the wrong question.

Can we see a difference? Yes.

Can you react quick enough in that time? No.

Response time has nothing to do with reaction times or delays. You're confusing response time with latency.

16 ms would be horrible. Assuming we're talking monitor latency.

Actually, it wouldn't. 16ms is pretty typical for a monitor and is quite low. Don't let the response time numbers fool you just because those have been hanging around 1-5ms for a few years. The unadvertised latency numbers have always been around 10-30ms on most monitors and it's never caused a problem. The huge latency you experience on a TV is anywhere from 200-400ms or above. 16ms is nothing.

Yes its noticeable, I put one of my 6ms monitors next to my dads 1ms rog swift.. You can clearly tell the difference. Needless to say im buying an rog swift soon.... lol

There are way too many factors changing here... Different panels and anti-ghosting solutions, not to mention 60 vs 144Hz. It's VERY unlikely you're noticing response time differences.

I went form a 8ms to a 2ms. There's a difference.

although that's a Grey-to-Grey number.

Can still feel a difference though.

Response time differences aren't something you "feel". You're confusing response time with latency.

Honestly I'd recommend everyone spend a few minutes on humanbenchmark.com so you can get a better idea of how much time a millisecond actually is.

[AlwaysFSX]

Response time has nothing to do with reaction times or delays. You're confusing response time with latency.

I know I'm sorta comparing apples to oranges with this but there is a relationship between different response times and what you can see and then react to.

[DildorTheDecent]

Response time differences aren't something you "feel". You're confusing response time with latency.

Honestly I'd recommend everyone spend a few minutes on humanbenchmark.com so you can get a better idea of how much time a millisecond actually is.

I honestly haven't the slightest idea. All i know is, that the ghosting went away. 

[xToFxREAPER]

Response time has nothing to do with reaction times or delays. You're confusing response time with latency.

Actually, it wouldn't. 16ms is pretty typical for a monitor and is quite low. Don't let the response time numbers fool you just because those have been hanging around 1-5ms for a few years. The unadvertised latency numbers have always been around 10-30ms on most monitors and it's never caused a problem. The huge latency you experience on a TV is anywhere from 200-400ms or above. 16ms is nothing.

There are way too many factors changing here... Different panels and anti-ghosting solutions, not to mention 60 vs 144Hz. It's VERY unlikely you're noticing response time differences.

Response time differences aren't something you "feel". You're confusing response time with latency.

Honestly I'd recommend everyone spend a few minutes on humanbenchmark.com so you can get a better idea of how much time a millisecond actually is.

We set the swift for 60hz so as to limit out that factor actually. We also made sure any of the add in anti ghosting features etc were disabled on the swift entirely (for the ones that could be disabled that is) Regardless, The you could feel and see the difference in almost every aspect. My only dislike is the color range of tn panels

[Vozella]

Honestly I'd recommend everyone spend a few minutes on humanbenchmark.com so you can get a better idea of how much time a millisecond actually is.

The best I can do on that site is exactly 250ms.

[Glenwing]

I honestly haven't the slightest idea. All i know is, that the ghosting went away.

 

 

We set the swift for 60hz so as to limit out that factor actually. We also made sure any of the add in anti ghosting features etc were disabled on the swift entirely (for the ones that could be disabled that is) Regardless, The you could feel and see the difference in almost every aspect. My only dislike is the color range of tn panels

 

Either way, even if you examine the ghosting, the response time numbers don't actually represent the amount of ghosting you'll have.

 

 

Response time is a genuinely useless number, it tells you nothing about how much ghosting or anything else you'll have.

[shirokado]

We set the swift for 60hz so as to limit out that factor actually. We also made sure any of the add in anti ghosting features etc were disabled on the swift entirely (for the ones that could be disabled that is) Regardless, The you could feel and see the difference in almost every aspect. My only dislike is the color range of tn panels

Honestly, the color range isn't even that bad on a TN.. its not like you look at a game screen and go "that shade of brown needs to be 3 levels lighter"

: