5ms ips vs 1ms LED

Zamblot

Commendable
Apr 7, 2016
84
0
1,580
0
Ok guys so I'm thinking of buying a new monitor for my buget home built pc I'm due to build and it wont support VGA with adapters or anything so i want to know if i should choose the monitor with the high quality ips display that has a 5ms response time (with hdmi no displayport :( ) or the displayport and hdmi LCD 1ms response time monitor? I will play a mix of games from fallout 4 to battlefield 1/ overwatch and will response time matter that much and displayports aren't a massive difference from hdmi are they? I mean its not like I'm going 4k or anything!
So i would like a high quality monitor and a fast response time one... will response times matter to much, Anyway i want a 27 inch one and I'm on a buget so i have a choice between

IPS NO DISPLAYPORT- https://www.amazon.co.uk/MX279H-Widescreen-Multimedia-SonicMaster-Technology/dp/B00A4K9KBQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1463760208&sr=1-4&keywords=asus+27inch

OR

LCD-High response time and displayport! - https://www.amazon.co.uk/ASUS-inch-VN279QLB-Monitor-1920x1080/dp/B00DRPZ988/ref=sr_1_5?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1463760208&sr=1-5&keywords=asus+27inch

If you can recommend any other good 27 inchy monitors i can get used for the £100 to £150 price
that are better than these then please notify me but for now do the better displayports matter to much compared to hdmi, does a high response time really matter i mean a 4ms difference seems unnoticeable! And finally does a ips display offer much more than an led thanks!
 


The low end TN's you see, are using 18 bit panels, where as the low end IPS are using 24 bit panels. So, the TN has got 16 million colors less than the IPS, available to it. That's where your "washed out" comes from. And, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason the manufacturers list the response time spec in the title of the monitor, is because people think it's input lag, so they buy it and experience placebo until their next purchase. :)





 

Kurz

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
33
0
18,590
4
Average reaction time of a human is 250MS.

HZ is more important. I've gamed on 60hz LCD panel for awhile. Though if you want the best 120 or 144hz is where its at, it improves response time as well as improves ghosting effects on the screen.
 

Sakkura

Distinguished
LED is just the backlight, the second monitor has an AMVA+ panel.

AMVA+ generally has better contrast than IPS, but not as good viewing angles.

As for HDMI vs. DisplayPort, it makes literally zero difference as long as the resolution and refresh rate is supported.



That's completely irrelevant to the pixel response time, which mainly determines how much ghosting there will be on the monitor. Input lag is what would be relevant to reaction times, though it's still noticeable far below a reaction time like 250ms.
 

Kurz

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
33
0
18,590
4
Sakkura it is relevant as you will not be able to perceive the difference.
HZ is more important in fluidity of motion of a LCD screen
 

Sakkura

Distinguished


No it's not, you haven't understood what pixel response time is, you've conflated it with the entirely different concept of input lag.
 
Refresh rate > Response time

My projector which has 10 micro seconds response time (100x faster than any LCD), has still noticeable blur when moving stuff around. If you get more images per second, you'll get less blur when moving objects/windows on screen.
 

Kurz

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
33
0
18,590
4


Pixel repsonse time is the ability of the pixel to switch from 1 gray to another gray.
The difference between 1ms and 5ms is nothing to write home about. Most people will not be able to tell the difference.

There are other more important metrics, HZ. Input Lag.
 
The only LCD's capapable of 1 ms persistence, are those that support Lightboost, and you have to push 100+ FPS as well. Other LCD's don't even come close to 1 ms, not even 5 ms, they're hovering around 7-8 ms the fast ones. And majority of 60 Hz monitors around 15 ms, TN included.
 

Kurz

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
33
0
18,590
4


Depends on what you value more.

IPS = better viewing angles, better colors.
Though typically higher input lag. Though I've seen IPS monitors that their input lag is really good.
They also are less likely to have 120hz or 144hz options. If they do they are pretty expensive.

TN = pretty bad viewing angles, colors are washed out compared to IPS. Though many people are fine with TN colors.
Lower input lag (Which is better than higher input lag.
They also more likely to have 120hz or 144hz.



 

madmatt30

Honorable
The MX is a better monitor mate , it's as simple as that - I'm not going to go into great detail, just suffice to say that the real works response time on both screens is really 8-12ms & the old VN model suffers far worse ghosting problems than the MX IPS.
 

Sakkura

Distinguished


I don't really disagree with that, just the part where you spread misinformation by comparing the pixel response time with reaction time.

Input lag is usually not problematic either, for PC monitors anyway. But input lag is basically never officially specced, where pixel response time is usually included. But the official specs are so inaccurate that they're pretty useless anyway.
 

Zamblot

Commendable
Apr 7, 2016
84
0
1,580
0

So it turns out the second one is a AMVA+ panel
What should I go for?
 

Sakkura

Distinguished


I don't think either one looks particularly appealing, honestly. 27-inch 1080p is not amazing. From this review, it seems the first monitor can only get rid of ghosting by using extreme overdrive that results in severe artifacting (worse than the ghosting), so it's probably not that great for games or other content with a lot of motion.

I mean this kind of price range could get you a decent 1440p monitor like the Acer G257HU. And a 144Hz 1080p monitor would be cheaper.

But it depends how set you are on getting more than 24 inches.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY