• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Sub 12ms Lcds when will then become available

V

vinny77

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
330
Does anybody know when there will be any sub 12ms response time LCds on the market. I mean like maybe 4ms or 6 ms


I just had a 12ms, and it wasent up to par with my needs, so I will just save my money untill somthing new comes out


Anybody have any info on this or if it is even in the near future.
 
I don't have an exact date, but I don't think 4 or 6 ms is gonna be any time in the near future. Expect to wait at least 2 years.
 
If 16 ms can do 62.5 frame per sec., why would anyone knows more than 60 frame/sec?
 
Happy, its not exactly like a framerate, so that doesn't work.

Back to the issue at hand, in a couple years we should have some OLED displays on the market, which have pixel response much faster than an LCD.
 
alright, tell me this, why doesn't the industry sell plasma screen for computer? Or for that matter, why not sell LCD with high res. that works on both TV and computer use?
 
that's not a big fad in the states... here in Moscow, it's a boom, i tell you... All these LCD panels that also serve as TV's... too bad prices here are just stupid... All tv's under 28-inch size (CRT) are fairly overpriced... Payed some $800 for a flat Sony CRT 28... but once you pass on to 32 inch, it jumps from $800 to $2000, and nothing in between. Pretty fux0red country, I tell you... Most of the people in this city make $140 a month for a living, yet they try to sell you things that cost more than 2x of what it is stateside..
GOD BLESS AMERICA, GODDAMNIT!
 
Happy Hopping said:
alright, tell me this, why doesn't the industry sell plasma screen for computer? Or for that matter, why not sell LCD with high res. that works on both TV and computer use?
Click to expand...


Probably because after a few weeks of use you would have the start button/taskbar burned into your screen, if not your whole desktop.

As for high res. LCD that work for both TVs and computer screens, we have such things out, such as the 23" 1900x1200 HP l2335 that I bought :D I will use it as my tv (hdtv) and computer screen. The problem is its much cheaper to put out an "lcd tv" with half the pixels and a crappy response time. Also I think the PC and TV are still separate components in most homes and will stay that way. For the price of the l2335 I could have bought a big 50-60" lcd projection tv and a nice 17" display for my computer, which is what most people are doing I believe.
 
Happy Hopping said:
If 16 ms can do 62.5 frame per sec., why would anyone knows more than 60 frame/sec?
Click to expand...

Rated ms is not the same as true ms because 16 ms is not constant. Different color transitions will give different rates, which means some colors could take quite a few times longer to transition. So to have a display that could guarantee 60 fps across all possible color combinations would require a response time of possibly as little as 4 - 6 ms. Ms ratings need to be taken with a grain of salt and can only be treated as a range and not an absolute number. They are more useful as a frame of reference for comparison between screens, but even then there are differences in manufacturers standards for measurement and testing.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as uniform performance across the board. If you're playing games in black & white, you'll probably get 60fps. If you're playing a game thats mostly midtone shifts, you'll get muddy blurs everywhere on that same 16ms screen. Those are extremes though, and most games fall in between. Even then, some people will notice the ghosting and some won't. It's at least better than the old days when we still had "submarining", a severe form of ghosting in which moving objects would literally disappear until coming to a stop. This was due to the fact that response times could be measured in tenths of a second, since TFT displays were thousands of dollars and passive matrix screens were all most people could afford. If you notice ghosting, the next question is does it bother you? If it doesn't, then head out and buy an LCD. If it does, then wait for SED displays, OLED displays, or sub 12ms LCDs. Or, buy a 2141sb :D
 
"Back to the issue at hand, in a couple years we should have some OLED displays on the market, which have pixel response much faster than an LCD."

If you are really wanting to have a 4 or 6 ms display as emorphien has said your gonna want an OLED, so if I was you I would keep my eyes on them.

From what I have heard they will have a faster response time, better brightness, and use less electricity. But as of now they don't last too long (< 10,000 hours). But as far as I know it's a very fixable problem.
 
- NintendoFan - said:
"Back to the issue at hand, in a couple years we should have some OLED displays on the market, which have pixel response much faster than an LCD."

If you are really wanting to have a 4 or 6 ms display as emorphien has said your gonna want an OLED, so if I was you I would keep my eyes on them.

From what I have heard they will have a faster response time, better brightness, and use less electricity. But as of now they don't last too long (< 10,000 hours). But as far as I know it's a very fixable problem.
Click to expand...

If it is a very fixable problem, then why hasn't it been fixed yet? :eek:

Don't get your hopes up on OLEDs coming anytime soon. I suspect they may start getting big in 2007/8, maybe.
 
Excelsior said:
If it is a very fixable problem, then why hasn't it been fixed yet? :eek:

Don't get your hopes up on OLEDs coming anytime soon. I suspect they may start getting big in 2007/8, maybe.
Click to expand...

Yup, they're goin to take at least a couple years, maybe (and most likely) more. We'll probably see some displays out in 2-3 years but there won't be much selection and it won't be very mainstream at first.

In a sense it's fixable (it is, just not that easy). One problem is the early formulations for the blue pixel have a shorter lifespan than green or red, so they're still working on that. Also OLEDs will oxidize and essentially die with exposure to oxygen, so they must be sealed. Currently OLEDs are only being used on products with a lifecycle of 2 or 3 years, which isn't as long as most people like to keep computer monitors. An OLED can be encased in glass, it's just tricky to ensure there's no leaks or oxygen in it, particularly for a display big enough for use on a computer. Cellphones and cameras don't have big displays.
 
emorphien said:
Yup, they're goin to take at least a couple years, maybe (and most likely) more. We'll probably see some displays out in 2-3 years but there won't be much selection and it won't be very mainstream at first.

In a sense it's fixable (it is, just not that easy). One problem is the early formulations for the blue pixel have a shorter lifespan than green or red, so they're still working on that. Also OLEDs will oxidize and essentially die with exposure to oxygen, so they must be sealed. Currently OLEDs are only being used on products with a lifecycle of 2 or 3 years, which isn't as long as most people like to keep computer monitors. An OLED can be encased in glass, it's just tricky to ensure there's no leaks or oxygen in it, particularly for a display big enough for use on a computer. Cellphones and cameras don't have big displays.
Click to expand...

True. Another reason they won't be here for a while is that the industry is all about making money, and they are still making money off LCDs, so why rush the tech? They want to squeeze as much as possible out of each technology.
 
Excelsior said:
True. Another reason they won't be here for a while is that the industry is all about making money, and they are still making money off LCDs, so why rush the tech? They want to squeeze as much as possible out of each technology.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's also the business reasons. LCDs are still viable, and selling like hotcakes. I don't even know if they've reached peak yet. We'll know for sure when the only CRTs selling are to graphics professionals who give a damn about image quality. By then however I might expect to see some OLEDs on the market.
 
dabomb said:
The problem is its much cheaper to put out an "lcd tv" with half the pixels and a crappy response time.
Click to expand...

And much more profitable once they double the price :D Am I the only one who thinks LCD TVs (at least in this market) are a gigantic ripoff?
 
Zuht said:
And much more profitable once they double the price :D Am I the only one who thinks LCD TVs (at least in this market) are a gigantic ripoff?
Click to expand...
I agree. I can't believe they charge so much money for the small LCD tvs with lower res and slower response time.
 
If 12 ms don't do it for you, you better forget LCD's you will never be happy!
 
I dont think that that is true, there used to be 25ms Lcds now there are 12 and a 10ms hitachi

so there is always room for improvement
 
The reason you weren't happy with your 12ms response time is because it was 12ms on a Samsung. Trust me, they are very liberal with their ratings. I had a 191t which was rated at 25 ms and it ghosted much more than any other 25 ms screen I had used. This was especially true on greys. I now own a 2001fp (16 ms) and it is much faster than the 9 ms difference would imply. This is even true for grey-to-grey transitions, which most say is the slowest. Try a low response monitor that uses a different panel.
 
BigDH01 said:
The reason you weren't happy with your 12ms response time is because it was 12ms on a Samsung. Trust me, they are very liberal with their ratings. I had a 191t which was rated at 25 ms and it ghosted much more than any other 25 ms screen I had used. This was especially true on greys. I now own a 2001fp (16 ms) and it is much faster than the 9 ms difference would imply. This is even true for grey-to-grey transitions, which most say is the slowest. Try a low response monitor that uses a different panel.
Click to expand...

You...are...retarded. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top