4ms IPS 144hz Panel vs 1ms TN 165hz panel (Both at 1440p)

[Zkellington LW]

Hi! I'm playing most of my time FPS Games and the only MMO game I play is League of Legends, I'm not a content creator but I love to have these neat graphics in games but I'm really competitive when it comes to gaming, I also heard about backlight bleed is a normal con on a IPS panel, I also don't think I wanna go from a 1ms monitor to a 4ms. Currently I'm using 2 Benq RL2455HM 60 hz & 1920x1080. I have a 1080 ti so I really have to get a monitor that doesn't bottleneck the GPU. So please I need help with honest opinions, What's best for a guy who is a competitive gamer but also loves the views of the games? (IPS has Freesync AMD and the TN Version is G-Sync Nvidia)

[QuantumBit]

1ms vs 4ms isn't noticeable. I would get the IPS one for better angles and color accuracy.

[Cookybiscuit]

1ms to 4ms is pretty meaningless, and different monitor manufacturers measure response time differently anyway. You'll not notice any input lag difference, but potentially the IPS display might blur more when displaying something in motion. Backlight bleed can happen on TN displays too, but IPS displays sometimes have a glow effect to them too when showing black images which accentuates the effect. Unless you get a really crappy example it's the kind of thing you'll notice once and never care about ever again.

 

Most people will probably tell you that TN is crap and to take the IPS one without even thinking about it. The colours and viewing angles on most TN displays are complete shit.

[ARikozuM]

1ms and 4ms are meaningless numbers. If you want to find the latency for the panel, you'll need to look at independent testers that use the same method of testing over every panel. 

 

My vote goes to the IPS model. 

[redsquirrel0249]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

1ms and 4ms are meaningless numbers.

^^

You're aware "ms response time" is a feature of pixel clarity, not input delay, right? At any rate, I'd say, even if you get backlight bleeding, IPS is just much more enjoyable to look at than TN. If it were up to 200+ Hz, it would provide both smoothness and competitive edge (that's high-end pro stuff), but 15Hz wouldn't be much of a difference at all. I have a 1440p 144Hz IPS panel, and most panels like it will come with overdrive for reducing input lag to almost nothing, so that's going to give you more of an edge than framerate will.

 

Also, resolution and graphical settings make bottlenecks for GPUs. CPU limits your framerate if your GPU can pull off the graphics fine (which a 1080 Ti can). Competitive games are generally pretty easy on graphics (so I'm confused why you have a 1080 Ti), but if you have a processor to match, you should be fine.

 

Using G-Sync or FreeSync will only slow down you game, if you're that worried about your competitive edge. They have a tendency to generate input lag. It's minimal at higher frame rates if I remember right, but it's less useful at higher frame rates anyway.

[Starelementpoke]

27 minutes ago, Zkellington LW said:

Hi! I'm playing most of my time FPS Games and the only MMO game I play is League of Legends, I'm not a content creator but I love to have these neat 

 

 

On a serious note, go for the IPS

[Zkellington LW]

All votes really goes for IPS, Well that convinces me good to go for that. I just registered my self here so I'm new and feels good that you people give me the answers I really need! I talked to 2 friends earlier and surprisingly they both said I should go with the 1 ms monitor, But if you tell me it's barely a difference between the 1 and 4 ms then the IPS panel sounds like a dream. Thanks!

[Mick Naughty]

Given the differences between 1 and 6ms I’d still go to lower and lose color. 

 

Color doesnt win me a game. 

[Pixel5]

13 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Given the differences between 1 and 6ms I’d still go to lower and lose color. 

 

Color doesnt win me a game. 

the ms you see there are pixel response times and you wont be able to tell the difference for one simple reason.

even at 165hz you have one new picture every 6.06ms so even a screen with 6ms pixel response time will give you a perfect picture and react as soon as the new frames come in.

[Mick Naughty]

6 hours ago, Pixel5 said:

the ms you see there are pixel response times and you wont be able to tell the difference for one simple reason.

even at 165hz you have one new picture every 6.06ms so even a screen with 6ms pixel response time will give you a perfect picture and react as soon as the new frames come in.

If it’s taking 6ms to react to every frame, it’s not gonna be as smooth as 1ms. Taking 6 times as long for each frame. 

 

So one new frame every 6ms and takes 6ms to refresh and realign. 

 

If you’re not a good FPS gaming and don’t care, get what ever. 

[Pixel5]

10 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

If it’s taking 6ms to react to every frame, it’s not gonna be as smooth as 1ms. Taking 6 times as long for each frame. 

 

So one new frame every 6ms and takes 6ms to refresh and realign. 

 

If you’re not a good FPS gaming and don’t care, get what ever. 

its exactly the same, new frame comes in, 1ms passes new frame is displayed (+input lag obviously) now this frame is displayed for another 5ms as a static image before the next frame comes in.

 

at 6ms the new frame comes in, it takes 6ms to react to the new image (again + input lag which typically is far higher anyways) now the frame is displayed while the new frame comes in and the pixels need another 6ms to react.

 

for the user its exactly the same thing, you see the same refresh rate with the only difference being that the very first frame is there 5ms later than the other one, after that the they refresh in the same interval.

[Mick Naughty]

17 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

its exactly the same, new frame comes in, 1ms passes new frame is displayed (+input lag obviously) now this frame is displayed for another 5ms as a static image before the next frame comes in.

 

at 6ms the new frame comes in, it takes 6ms to react to the new image (again + input lag which typically is far higher anyways) now the frame is displayed while the new frame comes in and the pixels need another 6ms to react.

 

for the user its exactly the same thing, you see the same refresh rate with the only difference being that the very first frame is there 5ms later than the other one, after that the they refresh in the same interval.

Like I said, if you think you cant see it, then it doesn't matter.

Im not getting a slow monitor anymore, as I tend to care. Nothing is the same for all users.

[Pixel5]

2 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Like I said, if you think you cant see it, then it doesn't matter.

Im not getting a slow monitor anymore, as I tend to care. Nothing is the same for all users.

ok guys pack it up, we dont need expensive testing equipment anymore, we found the guy that can see the difference between 1ms pixel response times and 6ms at the same refresh rate.

[Mira Yurizaki]

23 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

ok guys pack it up, we dont need expensive testing equipment anymore, we found the guy that can see the difference between 1ms pixel response times and 6ms at the same refresh rate.

That's pretty impressive given that the average reaction time for most people is around ~200ms. Even trained people approach ~100ms.