Which One

[Guest]

Hey guys

Buying a new monitor, looking for 60Hz with 1-2ms responce. Budget is around £150.

 

Which of these two is better:

 

BenQ-RL2455HM   http://goo.gl/zS8l0K

 

Asus VN247H   http://goo.gl/XvVCS0

 

 

 

[rhyseyness]

Why do you care about a 1-2ms response time?

You won't be able to notice the difference between a 1-2ms and an 8-10ms monitor.

 

What is the monitor being used for?

What are you upgrading from?

 

This will help us help you

[Xenift]

7 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

Why do you care about a 1-2ms response time?

You won't be able to notice the difference between a 1-2ms and an 8-10ms monitor.

 

What is the monitor being used for?

What are you upgrading from?

 

This will help us help you

Theoretically it makes no difference. But with input latency from the keyboard, mice or other peripherals.

Pre-rendered frames, VSYNC on and all that crap having a 1-2ms response time display isn't all that bad. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

Why do you care about a 1-2ms response time?

You won't be able to notice the difference between a 1-2ms and an 8-10ms monitor.

 

What is the monitor being used for?

What are you upgrading from?

 

This will help us help you

 

2 minutes ago, Xenift said:

Theoretically it makes no difference. But with input latency from the keyboard, mice or other peripherals.

Pre-rendered frames, VSYNC on and all that crap having a 1-2ms response time display isn't all that bad. 

Im using an ancient, fat VGA only Samsung monitor. Tonne of white bleed and all around awful!

What would you recommend? Also 24inch is the sweetspot for 1080p right?

 

Will be used for gaming, not crazy competitive but i'd put myself above causal.

[Xenift]

Just now, Pearsonia said:

 

Im using an ancient, fat VGA only Samsung monitor. Tonne of white bleed and all around awful!

What would you recommend? Also 24inch is the sweetspot for 1080p right?

Yeah i would say so. Im currently using a BenQ2411Z, getting maybe the G2460HM is better not?

[rhyseyness]

On 12/27/2014 at 11:47 PM, Glenwing said:

Spoiler

The first are the people that think response time refers to input lag/latency, which is not true as I explained in the previous section. Don't confuse response time with latency. If you switch from a 5ms monitor to a new 1ms monitor and the new one "feels faster", what you're feeling is not due to the faster response time. You are feeling a decrease in latency, which is completely unrelated to those 5ms/1ms figures on the box, and is probably more along the lines of a 20-50ms decrease or even up to 200-400ms if you're coming from a TV. Even if you can feel decreased latency on your new monitor, the fact that the response time also happens to be 4ms lower than your old monitor is basically a coincidence and is not what is causing any feelings of decreased latency. Feeling a difference of 4ms is absolutely impossible, and if you think you can, have a go at this so you get an idea of how short a millisecond is: http://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime.

The second group are the people that understand response time isn't latency, but say you'll get bad ghosting and terribly blurry images without 5ms or less. As I explained in the previous section, the response time numbers printed on boxes are extremely, extremely imprecise. This means any statement like "5ms and under is ok for gaming, anything more and you will start seeing ghosting" is completely untenable. Any kind of blanket statement like that relies on the assumption that a 5ms response time translates to a defined amount of ghosting, and likewise for any other numbers, but in reality that just isn't true. You cannot tell how much blur or ghosting a monitor will have from the listed response time number. The fastest 10ms monitors will have less ghosting than the slowest 5ms monitors, and saying that any 5ms monitor is ok for gaming, and any 10ms one isn't, is just wrong. You can find 2ms, 5ms, 8ms, even 12ms monitors with minimal ghosting. You can also find 2ms, 5ms, 8ms, or 12ms monitors with much more pronounced ghosting. Saying 5ms will have acceptable ghosting for gaming while 8ms or 12ms will have too much is simply wrong, even if you put the word "generally" in front, it's still wrong. Response time numbers listed on the box are meaningless, and this is easily proven by real-world ghosting tests with high-speed cameras.

For example, there is this collection of ghosting tests, which clearly shows a 12ms monitor more or less equalling a 5ms monitor from another vendor, both of them faster than a 4ms monitor from a third vendor. On top of that, the pair of 2ms "gaming" monitors at the bottom have completely different levels of ghosting despite having the "same" response time. In fact one of the 2ms monitors actually appears to be slightly faster than the 1ms monitor at the top, while the other 2ms monitor is even slower than the 12ms IPS model mentioned above. The 8ms monitor seems to have the heaviest ghosting in the bunch. So basically, monitors should never have their response times compared. Response time is, in a nutshell, the second most useless spec on a monitor spec sheet. It's all a moot point anyway, since ghosting hasn't been a big issue for a long time.

 

It's pretty much all a big myth at this point, perpetuated by bunches of people parroting 1ms is good and 8ms is too slow to everyone because they heard someone else say it, without having any actual experience, or else are just suffering from a placebo or confirmation bias. If you ask anyone who has actually used a decent modern IPS panel, I've never met a single one who has had ghosting and blurring issues in gaming. From everything I've seen so far it seems the "IPS displays are bad for gaming" community is composed ENTIRELY of people who have never used IPS displays before.

 

[rhyseyness]

47 minutes ago, Xenift said:

Theoretically it makes no difference. But with input latency from the keyboard, mice or other peripherals.

Pre-rendered frames, VSYNC on and all that crap having a 1-2ms response time display isn't all that bad. 

Have a read of the above.

Sorry  for the double post.

New forum effing up on me

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

Have a read of the above.

Sorry  for the double post.

New forum effing up on me

Does this look any good?

4ms for the sake of IPS?

 

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/25-acer-g7-g257hl-full-hd-zeroframe-led-monitor-ips-panel-1920x1080-4ms-100m1-250cd-m-d-sub-dvi-hdmi

[Xenift]

4 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

On 12/27/2014 at 7:47 AM, Glenwing said:

  Hide contents

The first are the people that think response time refers to input lag/latency, which is not true as I explained in the previous section. Don't confuse response time with latency. If you switch from a 5ms monitor to a new 1ms monitor and the new one "feels faster", what you're feeling is not due to the faster response time. You are feeling a decrease in latency, which is completely unrelated to those 5ms/1ms figures on the box, and is probably more along the lines of a 20-50ms decrease or even up to 200-400ms if you're coming from a TV. Even if you can feel decreased latency on your new monitor, the fact that the response time also happens to be 4ms lower than your old monitor is basically a coincidence and is not what is causing any feelings of decreased latency. Feeling a difference of 4ms is absolutely impossible, and if you think you can, have a go at this so you get an idea of how short a millisecond is: http://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime.

The second group are the people that understand response time isn't latency, but say you'll get bad ghosting and terribly blurry images without 5ms or less. As I explained in the previous section, the response time numbers printed on boxes are extremely, extremely imprecise. This means any statement like "5ms and under is ok for gaming, anything more and you will start seeing ghosting" is completely untenable. Any kind of blanket statement like that relies on the assumption that a 5ms response time translates to a defined amount of ghosting, and likewise for any other numbers, but in reality that just isn't true. You cannot tell how much blur or ghosting a monitor will have from the listed response time number. The fastest 10ms monitors will have less ghosting than the slowest 5ms monitors, and saying that any 5ms monitor is ok for gaming, and any 10ms one isn't, is just wrong. You can find 2ms, 5ms, 8ms, even 12ms monitors with minimal ghosting. You can also find 2ms, 5ms, 8ms, or 12ms monitors with much more pronounced ghosting. Saying 5ms will have acceptable ghosting for gaming while 8ms or 12ms will have too much is simply wrong, even if you put the word "generally" in front, it's still wrong. Response time numbers listed on the box are meaningless, and this is easily proven by real-world ghosting tests with high-speed cameras.

For example, there is this collection of ghosting tests, which clearly shows a 12ms monitor more or less equalling a 5ms monitor from another vendor, both of them faster than a 4ms monitor from a third vendor. On top of that, the pair of 2ms "gaming" monitors at the bottom have completely different levels of ghosting despite having the "same" response time. In fact one of the 2ms monitors actually appears to be slightly faster than the 1ms monitor at the top, while the other 2ms monitor is even slower than the 12ms IPS model mentioned above. The 8ms monitor seems to have the heaviest ghosting in the bunch. So basically, monitors should never have their response times compared. Response time is, in a nutshell, the second most useless spec on a monitor spec sheet. It's all a moot point anyway, since ghosting hasn't been a big issue for a long time.

 

It's pretty much all a big myth at this point, perpetuated by bunches of people parroting 1ms is good and 8ms is too slow to everyone because they heard someone else say it, without having any actual experience, or else are just suffering from a placebo or confirmation bias. If you ask anyone who has actually used a decent modern IPS panel, I've never met a single one who has had ghosting and blurring issues in gaming. From everything I've seen so far it seems the "IPS displays are bad for gaming" community is composed ENTIRELY of people who have never used IPS displays before.

 

Yea i get what you mean.

But marketing aside, having lower latency is better. There is no reason to run out and get 60hz 1ms response rate monitor. But with gaming monitors like the BenQ i mentioned out there, is a solid buy and having that "latency" improvement is better than nothing at all.

[rhyseyness]

1 minute ago, Pearsonia said:

Does this look any good?

4ms for the sake of IPS?

 

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/25-acer-g7-g257hl-full-hd-zeroframe-led-monitor-ips-panel-1920x1080-4ms-100m1-250cd-m-d-sub-dvi-hdmi

Yea, looks fairly good to me.

Find as many reviews as you can and see what they say

I'd recommend customer reviews on Amazon and Scan over professional reviews.

I always think there's more likely to be someone with my use case on Amazon compared to a pro reviewer.

[rhyseyness]

4 minutes ago, Xenift said:

Yea i get what you mean.

But marketing aside, having lower latency is better. There is no reason to run out and get 60hz 1ms response rate monitor. But with gaming monitors like the BenQ i mentioned out there, is a solid buy and having that "latency" improvement is better than nothing at all.

The post I just quoted states that response time is not latency.

It's the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another.

It's more important that there's no over/undershoot when this happens as opposed to how fast it happens.

[Xenift]

6 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

The post I just quoted that response time is not latency.

It's the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another.

It's more important that there's no over/undershoot when this happens as opposed to how fast it happens.

" It's the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. "

You know this means that it's just latency right.

Latency in the English term is " Latency is a time interval between the stimulation and response, or, from a more general point of view, as a time delay between the cause and the effect of some physical change in the system being observed. "

 

 

The word Response Time used already depicts that a latency in some form or other exists. I think the poster where you got that from is just cranky from the word in general lol.

[rhyseyness]

Just now, Xenift said:

" It's the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. "

You know this means that it's just latency right.

Latency in the English term is " Latency is a time interval between the stimulation and response, or, from a more general point of view, as a time delay between the cause and the effect of some physical change in the system being observed. "

 

 

The word Response Time used already depicts that a latency in some form or other exists. I think the poster where you got that from is just cranky from the work in general lol.

I'm not disagreeing.

I understand what latency is.

I'm saying that you're NEVER going to be able to tell the difference between a 1ms and a 10ms response monitor.

It's not even a standard measurement. Not every manufacturer measures it the same way.

Yes, the response time adds to your latency, but you will not notice the difference between a 1 and 10ms monitor.

There's no need to be patronising by posting a definition of latency.

[Glenwing]

18 hours ago, Xenift said:

" It's the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. "

You know this means that it's just latency right.

Latency in the English term is " Latency is a time interval between the stimulation and response, or, from a more general point of view, as a time delay between the cause and the effect of some physical change in the system being observed. "

 

 

The word Response Time used already depicts that a latency in some form or other exists. I think the poster where you got that from is just cranky from the word in general lol.

Not at all, latency is the time it takes between the monitor receiving the command and actually beginning the pixel transition. It's a much much larger scale, the pixel transition itself is essentially instantaneous in comparison and doesn't add any meaningful amount of latency. The pixel transition also only needs to be about 40-50% completed before the new image is on the screen and any "latency" it adds is finished and human reaction time begins.

 

Latency on a monitor is typically 20-40ms, response time does not really affect it to a degree worth mentioning.