45ms or 8ms Response time

M

MelonSplitter

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
1,088
I have a SVA 17" LCD with a 45ms response time. Would I see a noticeable difference when gaming with a 8ms response time?
 
MelonSplitter said:
I have a SVA 17" LCD with a 45ms response time. Would I see a noticeable difference when gaming with a 8ms response time?
Click to expand...

holy crap yes, 45ms is absolutely terrible
 
Good lord how old is that thing to have such a horrid response time?
 
45ms = a blurry mess. talk about ghosting, Casper himself would shit a brick. :p
 
I CAN'T play with 8ms and I can barely play with 5ms.

I would smash anything that slow.

Man, I miss my VX922 sometimes.
 
I've used 15" LCDs (desktops, not laptops) from like 1999. When the regular speed mouse movement across the screen lags, it makes me wanna cry.
 
that reminds me of the old days of 486 laptops, they had lcds like that which had horrific ghosting/response times, you didnt even need to enable mouse trails, you had them all the time :D
 
Brahmzy said:
I CAN'T play with 8ms and I can barely play with 5ms.

I would smash anything that slow.

Man, I miss my VX922 sometimes.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with that. Especially since every manufacturer rates their response times a little differently. You can try 3 different LCDs claiming an 8ms response time, and I bet at least one of them will actually be closer to 12 or 16 in reality.

Additionally, there are plenty of great LCD's that are sufficient for gaming that have 16ms response times (true 16ms or less) and work great. I know my Dell 3007WFP with an 11ms grey to grey and a 14ms black to black is great for games. It's not any worse than my Viewsonic VX2025wm which claims 6ms, and it is a little better than my VP201s which is a 16ms display.

The VP201s, when I was testing out different displays, was about the best of the so called 16ms displays out at the time I purchased it. There were few displays claiming 16ms back then, and most were 25ms at the time. It's amazing how some of the 25ms weren't that bad, and several smaller 19" displays that were supposedly 16ms sucked bad.
 
Techx said:
that reminds me of the old days of 486 laptops, they had lcds like that which had horrific ghosting/response times, you didnt even need to enable mouse trails, you had them all the time :D
Click to expand...

I used to play Half Life 1 on a Pentium 166MHz Compaq Presario 1610 notebook. I think I had a two or four gigabyte hard drive or less, and 64MB of ram. (Upgraded from 32MB)

I know what you mean.
 
Dan_D said:
I'd have to disagree with that. Especially since every manufacturer rates their response times a little differently. You can try 3 different LCDs claiming an 8ms response time, and I bet at least one of them will actually be closer to 12 or 16 in reality.

Additionally, there are plenty of great LCD's that are sufficient for gaming that have 16ms response times (true 16ms or less) and work great. I know my Dell 3007WFP with an 11ms grey to grey and a 14ms black to black is great for games. It's not any worse than my Viewsonic VX2025wm which claims 6ms, and it is a little better than my VP201s which is a 16ms display.

The VP201s, when I was testing out different displays, was about the best of the so called 16ms displays out at the time I purchased it. There were few displays claiming 16ms back then, and most were 25ms at the time. It's amazing how some of the 25ms weren't that bad, and several smaller 19" displays that were supposedly 16ms sucked bad.
Click to expand...

This is true, I'm just telling about my experience with the 7 LCDs I've owned. Out of all of them the VX922(2ms) was the fastest by far. right now I'm using a Sammy 204B(5ms) and the ghosting is very noticable compared to the 922. I also have a VA912b(8ms) and it is unplayable. Instant headache.

I am extremely sensitive to response times and refresh rates, unfortunately.
 
I until very recently had an old Dell 17" (1702FP) with 40ms from december 2002. Now I have a Dell 2007WFP and there is a quite noticable difference. However, I gotten used to the ghosting from that monitor so I had no problem playing games with it. Now, with the new monitor you get a differant feel though, the image feels cleaner. Still though, the old monitor was a very good monitor, at least that's my view. It cost me about 998,06 USD with todays exchange rate (7400 SEK) back in the day.
 
blunden said:
I until very recently had an old Dell 17" (1702FP) with 40ms from december 2002. Now I have a Dell 2007WFP and there is a quite noticable difference. However, I gotten used to the ghosting from that monitor so I had no problem playing games with it. Now, with the new monitor you get a differant feel though, the image feels cleaner. Still though, the old monitor was a very good monitor, at least that's my view. It cost me about 998,06 USD with todays exchange rate (7400 SEK) back in the day.
Click to expand...

I have that same old dell monitor at work, it SUCKS, but I don't game on it ;)
 
fuelvolts said:
I have that same old dell monitor at work, it SUCKS, but I don't game on it ;)
Click to expand...
Why do you think it sucks? I think it's still pretty good. Nothing compared to my 2007WFP though. :D
 
I just purchased the Sceptre 19 inch 8ms response time monitor today and im gonna have to say that I dont really see a difference in gaming. No I dont need glasses, I have perfect vision.
 
Brahmzy said:
This is true, I'm just telling about my experience with the 7 LCDs I've owned. Out of all of them the VX922(2ms) was the fastest by far. right now I'm using a Sammy 204B(5ms) and the ghosting is very noticable compared to the 922. I also have a VA912b(8ms) and it is unplayable. Instant headache.

I am extremely sensitive to response times and refresh rates, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Well it does vary from monitor to monitor, and the rates response time holds little meaning unless you are comparing it against like monitors with the same basic specs and the same panel inside them. For example the Dell and Apple 30" monitors have the same panel, and can act quite a bit differently, but their response times are the same.

My VX2025wm has a 6ms response time and I see no ghosting, nor did I see any ghosting on my VP201s (16ms). Yet, I've seen ghosting on VA series Viewsonics with an 8ms response, and they sucked. I've seen 25ms response displays that were almost good enough, and I've seen 12ms displays that were almost unusable.

MelonSplitter said:
I just purchased the Sceptre 19 inch 8ms response time monitor today and im gonna have to say that I dont really see a difference in gaming. No I dont need glasses, I have perfect vision.
Click to expand...

Some people just don't seem to notice the ghosting, but depending on the monitors make/model and panel technology, it is definitely there.
 
Dan_D said:
Some people just don't seem to notice the ghosting, but depending on the monitors make/model and panel technology, it is definitely there.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's there but if you notice it probably depends on a lot of things like monitor you hade before etc., Good or bad eye sight has nothing to do with it though. Also, you can get used to the ghosting of your specific monitor which makes you almost not notice it unless you think about it.
 
boomheadshot45 said:
I didn't even know they made that crappy of monitors...
Click to expand...

LCD monitors as we know them have been around since the mid to late 1990's. The sizes were generally small, and they had horrid performance. Originally, they were analog only too.
 
Dan_D said:
LCD monitors as we know them have been around since the mid to late 1990's. The sizes were generally small, and they had horrid performance. Originally, they were analog only too.
Click to expand...
You mean the inputs for it were analog, ie. d-sub, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top