1ms tn vs 4ms ips

[Froberg]

so i want to buy a new monitor

and i have 2 options

a ips 4ms 1440p 144hz

and tn 1ms 1440p 144hz

which should i get?

i play mostly CoD and other shooters

[Himommies]

Get the IPS.Unless you have insane reflexes your reflexes will almost always be slower 

[Agonizel]

2 minutes ago, Froberg said:

tn 1ms 1440p 144hz

I'd go for this one

[Agonizel]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

Get the IPS.Unless you have insane reflexes your reflexes will almost always be slower 

I don't see the link, can you please develop

[Himommies]

Just now, Beer_Nontitju said:

I don't see the link, can you please develop

Read the post one's IPS and the other one is TN

[r2724r16]

What are the model numbers of each of the displays?

 

If you're doing any sort of serious colour work on the display, then the IPS one is a must.

[Froberg]

no color work 

Asus PG278QR 27

Asus PG279Q 27

those are the 2 monitors im not sure which one to get as the 4ms and 1ms

[PopsicleHustler]

Get IPS, it got better color accuracy. As for 1ms vs 4ms, unless you're pro e-sports player, you wno't be able to see the difference between the two.

[Agonizel]

5 minutes ago, Himommies said:

Read the post one's IPS and the other one is TN

Okay but 1ms response time is superior for shooters. A good TN for gaming, especially for shooters is more than sufficient

[Agonizel]

2 minutes ago, PopsicleHustler said:

As for 1ms vs 4ms, unless you're pro e-sports player, you wno't be able to see the difference between the two.

I notice the difference

[PopsicleHustler]

Just now, Beer_Nontitju said:

I notice the difference

I won't believe it unless I see a real life test with you and 2 monitors.

[Froberg]

Asus PG278QR 27

does it have a good tn panel? 

[Thomas Farmer]

IPS all the way!

 

[2slow4me]

15 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

I notice the difference

Calling bullshit on this. 

 

Literally the first thing on the stickied post:

Quote

This is probably the biggest and most common misconception I see on here, so it's going first. Most people are under the impression that the response time is a measure of the display's latency, that ingame feeling of delay between hitting a button and seeing your command play out onscreen, "controller lag" as some people call it. A perfectly reasonable assumption; the value for response time is even given in milliseconds after all. But alas, this delay is NOT what response time measures. Response time is something entirely different, it just happens to be confusingly named. That "controller lag", delay, whatever you want to call it, is called input lag or latency, and unfortunately it is never actually listed in the specs of a monitor. You'll need to look to review sites like TFTCentral or Blur Busters which actually test latency using advanced equipment.

Response time, in case you were wondering, is the time it takes for a pixel to switch from one color to another. Typically 1–10 ms, it isn't nearly enough to have any kind impact on the perceived latency or "controller lag", especially considering the color transition doesn't even have to be fully completed for us to see and begin reacting to the new image that is being formed. What it can do is cause blurriness in scenes with fast moving objects on high contrast backgrounds. These moving objects might leave a visible "trail" behind them on displays with a very very slow response time. This is called "ghosting" (not to be confused with the smearing/echo effect over VGA connections also called "ghosting"). You can call it motion blur if you like, but that is technically incorrect as the term motion blur usually refers to the "built-in" blur that is part of the content being viewed (movies, etc.). When you pause and the entire scene is blurry, that is motion blur. That blurry image is exactly what the monitor is being instructed to display, and a faster response time won't make it any less blurry.
 

 

 

15 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Okay but 1ms response time is superior for shooters. A good TN for gaming, especially for shooters is more than sufficient

It's not superior because it's not the refresh rate. See above.

[Agonizel]

19 hours ago, PopsicleHustler said:

I won't believe it unless I see a real life test with you and 2 monitors.

I'm a seasoned FPS player (CSGO, R6, Overwatch, PUBG, Battlefield,...)

I own 2 computers, one at my dorm and one at my home. Both computer perform above the 144 fps and both have internet connections of 10ms or lower. One monitor has a 4ms 144hz display, the other a 1ms 144hz display (both TN).I don't literally "see" the difference with my eyes, but it's a latent measure that can be verified in my performance. In fact,  I perform better on the 1ms one. The pixels react faster with 1ms, it's a minimal edge, but it's enough to make the difference at high competitive level.

IPS 4ms is better than TN for browsing, watching movies and shows, any work involving images or videos for precise color reproduction - and you pay a hefty premium. But: TN 1ms is simply superior than IPS for shooters - you can't deny this. Esports players prefer the 1ms TN over IPS 4ms for a good reason. Furthermore, you don't need to be an Esports player to benefit from the edges the 1ms TN gives you - being an avid FPS gamer like myself is enough.

3 hours ago, 2slow4me said:

Calling bullshit on this. 

Language please.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

I'm a seasoned FPS player (CSGO, R6, Overwatch, PUBG, Battlefield,...)

I own 2 computers, one at my dorm and one at my home. Both computer perform above the 144 fps and both have internet connections of 10ms or lower. One monitor has a 4ms 144hz display, the other a 1ms 144hz display (both TN).I don't literally "see" the difference with my eyes, but it's a latent measure that can be verified in my performance. In fact,  I perform better on the 1ms one. The pixels react faster with 1ms, it's a minimal edge, but it's enough to make the difference at high competitive level.

IPS 4ms is better than TN for browsing, watching movies and shows, any work involving images or videos for precise color reproduction - and you pay a hefty premium. But: TN 1ms is simply superior than IPS for shooters - you can't deny this. Esports players prefer the 1ms TN over IPS 4ms for a good reason. Furthermore, you don't need to be an Esports player to benefit from the edges the 1ms TN gives you - being an avid FPS gamer like myself is enough.

Language please.

Faster pixel response times reduce ghosting, which can be more noticable on high refresh rate panels. However, unless you are testing the otherwise exactly the same monitor/system, it's hard to attribute your performance to just 3 ms of (likely) gray-to-gray response time, instead of perhaps a change in terms of input lag and overall response time between the systems.

 

20 hours ago, Froberg said:

which should i get?

If purely for gaming, maybe save some money and get the TN panel, but personally I would spend the extra money and get an IPS panel. Between the two, at 144 Hz, you are looking at an average 2.9 ms GtG response time for the TN panel and 5.2 ms for the IPS panel. I have read people complaining about noticable blurring/ghosting on the IPS model though. Which makes sense I guess as 5.2 ms comes close to the 6.9 ms refresh period at 144 Hz, and is an ideal case. It's hard to say without seeing them in person though.

[2slow4me]

15 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

I don't literally "see" the difference with my eyes, but it's a latent measure that can be verified in my performance. In fact,  I perform better on the 1ms one. 

Placebo.

Did you even read the post i linked you? 

15 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

The pixels react faster with 1ms, it's a minimal edge, but it's enough to make the difference at high competitive level.

As it was written in the post i linked, they don't "react" faster. Some MAY react faster, others may not. Read the thing i linked, it's quite well explained in the stickied post. 

[JoostinOnline]

16 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

I'm a seasoned FPS player (CSGO, R6, Overwatch, PUBG, Battlefield,...)

I own 2 computers, one at my dorm and one at my home. Both computer perform above the 144 fps and both have internet connections of 10ms or lower. One monitor has a 4ms 144hz display, the other a 1ms 144hz display (both TN).I don't literally "see" the difference with my eyes, but it's a latent measure that can be verified in my performance. In fact,  I perform better on the 1ms one. The pixels react faster with 1ms, it's a minimal edge, but it's enough to make the difference at high competitive level.

IPS 4ms is better than TN for browsing, watching movies and shows, any work involving images or videos for precise color reproduction - and you pay a hefty premium. But: TN 1ms is simply superior than IPS for shooters - you can't deny this. Esports players prefer the 1ms TN over IPS 4ms for a good reason. Furthermore, you don't need to be an Esports player to benefit from the edges the 1ms TN gives you - being an avid FPS gamer like myself is enough.

Language please.

That has nothing to do with the response time.

[Settlerteo]

On 10/21/2018 at 11:09 PM, Froberg said:

so i want to buy a new monitor

and i have 2 options

a ips 4ms 1440p 144hz

and tn 1ms 1440p 144hz

which should i get?

i play mostly CoD and other shooters

Read the post @2slow4me linked you, because you seem to have no idea about what response time really means. Read the post, it's very informative.

All in all i'd prefer the TN because i find them better for reading and that helps me a lot. Also TN means no IPS glow. Of course there are disadvantages like colours, angle views and more.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Settlerteo
Additional info

[Agonizel]

1 hour ago, PacketMan said:

Go for the IPS since you won't notice any difference in response time

The thing is, his use case is shooters. He will benefit from that extra -3ms in his personal us case of playing FPS. It's not only about he ms, there are also ghosting issues and the premium you have to pay on the IPS.

It's not about noticing the difference, it's about gaming performance. Gaming performance will benefit from the extra edge, no matter how you see it. If IPS was better and the difference was truly insignificant, th Esports scene would be using the IPS monitors instead of the 1ms TN they have. The numbers are there, you can't deny this.

If the OP hadn't specified he mainly played shooters, I would have suggested IPS as well

[2slow4me]

How about you read the post 5 of us told you to read, then come back and read what you said.

 

18 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

The thing is, his use case is shooters. He will benefit from that extra -3ms in his personal us case of playing FPS. 

And how do you exactly know he will benefit from that? I mean, even if we assume the things you say (that are obviously false, that are written in the post linked in the thread), he will need to actually see the difference between 1-4 ms, which is just nearly impossible for general public. And if you say "well, i notice" again, reminder: placebo. 

 

Also, some of the stuff they use in esports is used because sponsors provide them with the equipment. 

[Agonizel]

5 hours ago, 2slow4me said:

And if you say "well, i notice" again, reminder: placebo

Read again.What I am saying is: the 3 ms or more difference is obviously not perceived in the literal sense but it can objectivised with gaming performance: the amount of kills & wins, K/D ratio, awareness,... That's what I'm saying, I notice the difference trough my own performance.

 

Now, you can argue that it's confirmation bias or placebo, the thing is: the 4ms monitor was bought because I also thought the difference would be absolutely negligible - but the reality went against my expectations. Indeed, the difference is small, but at my competitive level, it's significant. If you still want to argue on that and continue claiming that 1ms and 4ms are apparently the same, please don't forget to address the question of why the Esports scene doesn't use 4ms IPS (at equal refresh rate).