Did I mess up ?

[Claydelas]

Probably just like many of you, i was caught in the Black Friday black hole and rushed out and bought a seemingly really good price to performance monitor. My friends all tell me I messed up since it was an IPS panel and apparently slow (i know it ain't true). They are saying i could have bought a better monitor for the *140$* i spent on this one. Here is what I am talking about:
http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/lcd-computer-monitors/lg-23MB35PM-B/technical-specifications
What do you think, is it good for the 140$ price tag ? Thanks :*
I am mostly asking because I have 30 days to return it if it's not what I was looking for.

[Ivyk]

It's fine.

[vanished]

IPS is slower than TN, that's a fact, but depending on what you are doing that may not matter since they have superior colour reproduction.  Are you doing photo/video editing, or gaming?

[Smooth Bunz]

Probably just like many of you, i was caught in the Black Friday black hole and rushed out and bought a seemingly really good price to performance monitor. My friends all tell me I messed up since it was an IPS panel and apparently slow (i know it ain't true). They are saying i could have bought a better monitor for the *140$* i spent on this one. Here is what I am talking about:

http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/lcd-computer-monitors/lg-23MB35PM-B/technical-specifications

What do you think, is it good for the 140$ price tag ? Thanks :*

I am mostly asking because I have 30 days to return it if it's not what I was looking for.

You're fine.

[Claydelas]

 

IPS is slower than TN, that's a fact, but depending on what you are doing that may not matter since they have superior colour reproduction.  Are you doing photo/video editing, or gaming?

 

Usually gaming, very competitive in fact, but my only choices were 1-4 ms TN vs 5 ms IPS all 60hz.

[German_John]

Looks fine. 

If it's not an absolutely atrocious panel it will very likely never matter. Maybe if you're playing competitive CS:GO at a quite high level or whatever (and I'd even doubt that - I think it's mostly nocebic, tbh), but for everything else, even mainily gaming, I'd go with the just plain nicer looks of IPS over TN 10/10 times.

 

EDIT:

I don't think you'll notice that one millisecond in ANY way. That's quite decent for an IPS panel (afaik)

[NinjaJc01]

It is very meh. Not a great monitor, but I can't compare prices based on me being in the UK.

[vanished]

 

 

 

Usually gaming, very competitive in fact, but my only choices were 1-4 ms TN vs 5 ms IPS all 60hz.

 

It is true you will not notice a 1 ms difference, and in fact response time doesn't perfectly correlate to motion blur anyway, but if you could compare a 1 ms 144 Hz TN with pretty much anything else, I think as a competitive gamer you will appreciate it

[Claydelas]

It is true you will not notice a 1 ms difference, and in fact response time doesn't perfectly correlate to motion blur anyway, but if you could compare a 1 ms 144 Hz TN with pretty much anything else, I think as a competitive gamer you will appreciate it

 

Couldn't spend that much to get a 120hz + anyway. So we are basically comparing response times here.

 

It is very meh. Not a great monitor, but I can't compare prices based on me being in the UK.

 

 

I just converted the currency, not living in USA as well, It's 259 BGN. 95 pounds.

[z0ne]

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

 

The average human reaction time is 269 ms. If you're sure you need the 4 ms edge go for a TN panel.

Otherwise, enjoy the far prettier IPS panels. (Tell that to your friends if you want to sound dorky)

 

EDIT: If you think you can pick a better monitor at 140 go to a price/rating website in your country and go from there

[Claydelas]

Okay, got what I needed to hear. Sticking with it

[vanished]

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

 

The average human reaction time is 269 ms. If you're sure you need the 4 ms edge go for a TN panel.

Otherwise, enjoy the far prettier IPS panels. (Tell that to your friends if you want to sound dorky)

 

EDIT: If you think you can pick a better monitor at 140 go to a price/rating website in your country and go from there

the 4 ms is response time, which (albeit not perfectly) correlated to motion blur.  It is going to have almost no affect on how quickly he can react to the image.  Now, if it was a factor like input lag, that would make a difference, but the reason people go for quick response times is to ensure the image is clear (not blurred) at all times - not to get it to the screen faster (since that is affected by input lag - something completely different).

[z0ne]

the 4 ms is response time, which (albeit not perfectly) correlated to motion blur.  It is going to have almost no affect on how quickly he can react to the image.  Now, if it was a factor like input lag, that would make a difference, but the reason people go for quick response times is to ensure the image is clear (not blurred) at all times - not to get it to the screen faster (since that is affected by input lag - something completely different).

Input and response time tie into eachother, because a theoretical head popping up behind a rock forces the pixels to go from say white to black. which is response time. Do that plus your input time (which is a spec that is usually hidden) And seeing how little that is compared to human reaction times the argument is still valid. Ghosting and blur is very monitor specific and is usually better spotted by looking at a review than looking at response times.

[vanished]

Ghosting and blur is very monitor specific and is usually better spotted by looking at a review than looking at response times.

Yes, that's why I said that it's by no means a perfect indicator.

 

Input and response time tie into eachother, because a theoretical head popping up behind a rock forces the pixels to go from say white to black. which is response time. Do that plus your input time (which is a spec that is usually hidden) And seeing how little that is compared to human reaction times the argument is still valid.

One could take the opposite stand though; maybe reaction times are already so slow that you should do anything you can to minimize anything that will make them worse

 

I suppose it's much worse on TVs though... most computer monitors are probably around or under 10 ms input lag, while most TVs are more like 30 - 40 ms, which by the way actually can make a huge difference in some games, making them almost unplayable despite the fact that this number is only a small fraction of reaction time. That's because not all things in a game are suddenly reacting to something unforeseen.  Timing and the feeling of control are greatly affected by the time between your inputs and when you see them.  That's one of the reasons 30 fps is so bad.  Not only is it not smooth, but on average you are waiting another 16 ms between your input and getting a response when comparing 60 to 30.

[Gikero]

 

I suppose it's much worse on TVs though... most computer monitors are probably around or under 10 ms input lag, while most TVs are more like 30 - 40 ms, which by the way actually can make a huge difference in some games, making them almost unplayable despite the fact that this number is only a small fraction of reaction time. That's because not all things in a game are suddenly reacting to something unforeseen.  Timing and the feeling of control are greatly affected by the time between your inputs and when you see them.  That's one of the reasons 30 fps is so bad.  Not only is it not smooth, but on average you are waiting another 16 ms between your input and getting a response when comparing 60 to 30.

^^^

That is why I never advocate using a TV as a gaming PC's monitor.