There are a lot of monitors which look good in all other specs, but only have 5 ms refresh rate. Can anyone tell the difference in a monitor with 5 ms refresh vs. one with 2 ms? And I mean really be able to tell the difference as if you could tell which monitor had the slower refresh rate if they were placed side by side.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Refresh Rate - 5 ms vs. 2 ms -- can anyone notice?
- Thread starter SNYP40A1
- Start date
lawless2142
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 253
The labels 2ms and 5ms can only be used as that, just a label. Their measured response times are NO WHERE NEAR either of those. For example, 2ms TN panels are currently achieving an average transition of sub 8ms, with the worst transitions taking up to 15+, but even then everything usually happens within one refresh rate interval (16ms), so you never see artifacting.
Whereas 5ms TN panels are unaccelerated (no RTA/RTC) and generally average 20-40ms in the worst case transitions. This slow response time is very noticeable and makes a big difference in the amount of blur you see. Few if any color transitions get as low as 5ms. Manufacturers have been abusing and inflating ISO response time measurement techniques for years and at this point you can only use it as a label and compare them with other panels that are tested for their actual response time and input lag characteristics.
Technical review sites like Xbitlabs and similar are your best way to get acquainted with what response time, RTC error, and such actually mean. Here's a typical Samsung 5ms panel, compared to "2ms" panels with RTA, it is much slower:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/22inch-3_7.html
Whereas 5ms TN panels are unaccelerated (no RTA/RTC) and generally average 20-40ms in the worst case transitions. This slow response time is very noticeable and makes a big difference in the amount of blur you see. Few if any color transitions get as low as 5ms. Manufacturers have been abusing and inflating ISO response time measurement techniques for years and at this point you can only use it as a label and compare them with other panels that are tested for their actual response time and input lag characteristics.
Technical review sites like Xbitlabs and similar are your best way to get acquainted with what response time, RTC error, and such actually mean. Here's a typical Samsung 5ms panel, compared to "2ms" panels with RTA, it is much slower:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/22inch-3_7.html
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
I suspect you guys are replying to a bot.
Gray to Gray is referring to the pixel, not the monitor. When you plug in the monitor to your computer and measure response time, this will be different, as the monitor has to process the signal (input lag). The pixels very well may retain a 2ms g2g but that's not the end of the story.
Would you be able to tell the difference? I think you would first have get two identical screens with the only variable being pixel response time. Monitors vary so wildly in their features that grabbing two monitors with 3ms variation in pixel response isn't going to be the deciding factor in your purchase.
If you're trying to decide between two monitors, throw away the g2g measurements and instead rely on factors like native resolution, ghosting from the likes of overdrive, backlight bleeding. There aren't that many panels out there, it's all about how the panel is driven. BenQ isn't popular because they have a better panel than others, as they use the same panels as most, it's how the use it.
Would you be able to tell the difference? I think you would first have get two identical screens with the only variable being pixel response time. Monitors vary so wildly in their features that grabbing two monitors with 3ms variation in pixel response isn't going to be the deciding factor in your purchase.
If you're trying to decide between two monitors, throw away the g2g measurements and instead rely on factors like native resolution, ghosting from the likes of overdrive, backlight bleeding. There aren't that many panels out there, it's all about how the panel is driven. BenQ isn't popular because they have a better panel than others, as they use the same panels as most, it's how the use it.
lawless2142
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 253
No because total lag time is confounded by a slow matrix. Today you don't see "ghosting" as it was originally defined much anymore. Only particularly slow matrices exhibit true ghosting (after images present well beyond the maximum pixel refresh time), like the PVA based Dell 2408 or 3007/8.
Mostly you'll see either smearing from an overall sluggish matrix (such as 20-30+ms transitions in dark tones), or RTC related artifacts (halos and light blue-ish after images on simple backgrounds). When RTC overshoots the desired voltage to achieve a fast transition, you're left with an "imprint" like halo on screen briefly behind moving objects. These get less and less severe with both pixel response and screen refresh. Currently 120hz TN panels nearly eliminate visible RTC artfiacts due to having half the refresh time.
Mostly you'll see either smearing from an overall sluggish matrix (such as 20-30+ms transitions in dark tones), or RTC related artifacts (halos and light blue-ish after images on simple backgrounds). When RTC overshoots the desired voltage to achieve a fast transition, you're left with an "imprint" like halo on screen briefly behind moving objects. These get less and less severe with both pixel response and screen refresh. Currently 120hz TN panels nearly eliminate visible RTC artfiacts due to having half the refresh time.
Last edited: