1ms VS 5ms

[Guest Goggle]

Hello,

I found this really cool monitor and it is 2560x1080 and it is 5ms and ultra wide it's name is the LG 25UM58-P.

Right now I have this nice monitor called the ASUS VP228H it is 1920x1080 it is 1ms. Will the the 2560x1080 monitor bring down performance on games I can play at ultra 1080p 60+ fps? my setup is a Ryzen 5 1600 and RX 58. One more question is will it be a big downgrade to buy the LG monitor since its 4ms more than the one I have now? 

 

Thanks

 

[genexis_x]

I bet you can't notice any differences between 1ms and 5ms
BTW why ultra wide monitor?

[79wjd]

Don't worry about response times, 1ms vs. 5ms isn't a big difference and regardless there is no standardized way of measuring response times.

 

The new monitor will hit performance because it's a higher resolution, but not becomes of a higher response time. I've also heard mixed opinions about the ultra wide format at only 25".

[Guest Goggle]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Don't worry about response times, 1ms vs. 5ms isn't a big difference and regardless there is no standardized way of measuring response times.

 

The new monitor will hit performance because it's a higher resolution, but not becomes of a higher response time.

Big performance drop?

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Goggle said:

Big performance drop?

It's about 30% more pixels that need to be rendered....so think somewhere roughly half way between 1080p and 1440p.

[Guest Goggle]

2 minutes ago, ZM Fong said:

I bet you can't notice any differences between 1ms and 5ms
BTW why ultra wide monitor?

The ultra wide is so cheap right now (In a store in my country) , and I didn't want to miss a good deal so I decided to check first, my only concern now is the fps drops.

 

[19_blackie_73]

I wouldn't get a 25" ultrawide, it is probably even smaller in height than your 22" 16:9

[19_blackie_73]

Just now, Goggle said:

The ultra wide is so cheap right now (In a store in my country) , and I didn't want to miss a good deal so I decided to check first, my only concern now is the fps drops.

 

Performance (fps) will not drop because of response time, but because of the higher pixel count. It will take a small hit, but the difference shouldn't be to big.

[Guest Goggle]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's about 30% more pixels that need to be rendered....so think somewhere roughly half way between 1080p and 1440p.

Will I get 60+ fps on ultra? take a guess 

[79wjd]

Just now, Goggle said:

Will I get 60+ fps on ultra? take a guess 

It depends on the game(s).

[Oshino Shinobu]

Response times are mostly meaningless and are primarily used for marketing purposes. There is no standardised way to measure response times, so what one company reports as 5ms may actually be 9ms when using a different method of testing. 

 

There's also a lot of misinformation/misunderstanding of what response time actually is. Despite what you may hear, it has nothing to do with how fast a monitor responds to an input. That is input delay/lag, which is something different entirely. Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. Most of the time it is quoted in GtG (grey to grey), so it is the time it takes to go from one shade of grey to another. High response times can cause ghosting, which is similar to motion blur. 

 

You cannot notice the difference between 1ms and 5ms, it is just too small. The difference is 0.004 seconds. You can have a test of your own reaction times here. It should give you an idea of how little time that is. It (apparently) takes 100 times longer to blink (0.4s). 

[Guest Goggle]

I c

1 minute ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

Performance (fps) will not drop because of response time, but because of the higher pixel count. It will take a small hit, but the difference shouldn't be to big.

 

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's about 30% more pixels that need to be rendered....so think somewhere roughly half way between 1080p and 1440p.

I found out I can get 60+ Ultra on 1440p with my setup right now, I guess I can run this resolution no problem I am guessing.

 

PS: Is it a good idea to get the LG monitor?

[Guest Goggle]

11 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Response times are mostly meaningless and are primarily used for marketing purposes. There is no standardised way to measure response times, so what one company reports as 5ms may actually be 9ms when using a different method of testing. 

 

There's also a lot of misinformation/misunderstanding of what response time actually is. Despite what you may hear, it has nothing to do with how fast a monitor responds to an input. That is input delay/lag, which is something different entirely. Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. Most of the time it is quoted in GtG (grey to grey), so it is the time it takes to go from one shade of grey to another. High response times can cause ghosting, which is similar to motion blur. 

 

You cannot notice the difference between 1ms and 5ms, it is just too small. The difference is 0.004 seconds. You can have a test of your own reaction times here. It should give you an idea of how little time that is. It (apparently) takes 100 times longer to blink (0.4s). 

 

[Synawke]

6 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Response times are mostly meaningless and are primarily used for marketing purposes. There is no standardised way to measure response times, so what one company reports as 5ms may actually be 9ms when using a different method of testing. 

 

There's also a lot of misinformation/misunderstanding of what response time actually is. Despite what you may hear, it has nothing to do with how fast a monitor responds to an input. That is input delay/lag, which is something different entirely. Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to change from one colour to another. Most of the time it is quoted in GtG (grey to grey), so it is the time it takes to go from one shade of grey to another. High response times can cause ghosting, which is similar to motion blur. 

 

You cannot notice the difference between 1ms and 5ms, it is just too small. The difference is 0.004 seconds. You can have a test of your own reaction times here. It should give you an idea of how little time that is. It (apparently) takes 100 times longer to blink (0.4s). 

some people can see/feel the difference. Its more like a feeling. I can in osu and CSGO as well as many others I talk to

[Guest Goggle]

5 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

The ultrawide is basically 33.33% more pixels to render compared to what you currently use.

So you can expect to see 75% of the framerate you are currently getting.

We have no idea what games you play. It could be anything from Minecraft to Arma3

I would strongly suggest getting a 29" version if you are going for ultrawide.

Most of these games here,(the video) btw if I switch to 1920x1080 if my pc can't handle some games will there be black bars or will it stretch I don't mind black bars.Also here is RX 580 GPU playing 1440p with no problem 60+ fps on ultra, I'm guessing there will be no problems with this monitor? btw not my video.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Goggle

[Oshino Shinobu]

5 minutes ago, Synawke said:

some people can see/feel the difference. Its more like a feeling. I can in osu and CSGO as well as many others I talk to

Have you done blind tests? A placebo effect can really make a difference too. A lot of people say they can feel a difference because they know the specs are different so they want to feel a difference. 

 

I'd also check to see if you can find a site that tests response times and compare monitors (on the same site, as otherwise you may get two different measurement methods) to see if they are actually 1ms and 5ms monitors. 

 

There are many things that could affect how the monitor feels other than the response time. It could actually be a difference in input lag making the difference, but basically no manufacturers quote or even test the input delay so it's hard to know which monitors are "faster". 

 

I'd actually like LTT to do a video with some blind tests between different response times. While the statistics quoted by manufacturers are unreliable and inaccurate, it could still be interesting to see if people can tell the difference. I personally have a 1ms monitor, 2x 5ms monitors and a 7ms monitor and cannot tell the difference between them in terms of ghosting in games. 

[Limecat86]

20 minutes ago, Goggle said:

I c

 

I found out I can get 60+ Ultra on 1440p with my setup right now, I guess I can run this resolution no problem I am guessing.

 

PS: Is it a good idea to get the LG monitor?

I have this monitor and I'm happy with it. If your PC can handle 1440p I would go for the 29'' one. I chose the 25'' mainly because going up to 1440p ultrawide would be a bit to much for the 970's I have with their 3,5GB VRAM

[Guest Goggle]

Thanks for the help guys

[EunSoo]

2 hours ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

I wouldn't get a 25" ultrawide, it is probably even smaller in height than your 22" 16:9

Its about the height of a 20".

 

25" ultrawides aren't worth it. If your looking for larger screen area then get a 25" 16:9, it has more screen area (I forgot the percentage, I'll have to do the math again) and for the same if not lower price.