Choosing monitor

From what I've read around here, 5ms is bad for gaming.

bump.

bumping.

Cloudy is just an ad-bot so you can ignore him as any other salesman. But unfortunately he's about the only one here at Tom's that regularly offers suggestions on monitors.

I can't say that I have ever been unhappy with my monitor selections from Acer and Viewsonic in the past. You need to start with either your budget or your monitor size preference. Less than 5ms response time is key for gaming. But that's the extent of my knowledged.

Too bad Tom's doesn't have a monitor guru. Ask about a new a build and you will get 5-10 great suggestions but ask about monitor and you get two. And one of those is salesman Cloudy.

LG 23" Full HD&3D
Decided to get this, 5ms yeah.But full HD and 3d? worth it.

@Mutt,

do you realize the sheer amount of "what monitor should i buy" posts that we get here on toms? i quite often reply on some general things to look for and consider when buying a monitor. i also name a few brands. what i do not list is a particular model as this is up for the OP to decide on.

at the very least the OP should look through the first and second pages of new posts and read through some.

everyone seems to think response time is everything: it isnt. you can have a 1ms 120hz monitor and my old 16ms will still make it look like crud.

its hard to be a monitor guru as a monitor is a very personal thing, sort of like how speakers are. what i like you might not like. there are a few of us who post details on what to look for though on a very regular basis.

i've seen cloudy2010 actually answer some questions but i agree that the blatant advertising nature of the posts leaves much to be desired.

----

by full HD all that is meant is "1920x1080 resolution" which is pretty much standard on every single monitor nowdays.

monitor type (TN, VA, 6bit-IPS, 8bit-IPS) plays a role in the viewing angles and color accuracy.

response times are highly overrated unless you plan on 3d gaming. my old 16ms (maximum) monitor never ghosted once. only TN panels are in the ultralow ms ranges and out of all the monitor types are the worst on viewing angles.

@OP, i understand how frustrating it can be if we do not respond to your post right away, but it does help if you look at some similar posts in the meantime. when it comes to monitors often time we will just repeat what we mentioned a few days ago in a post. it saves us time if you read through at least a few posts and then ask any questions you may have after.

"unless you plan on 3d gaming"

I actually do plan that.Will 5ms be enough to avoid "image-lag"?

a few factors to consider:

if you're running a standard 60hz display: you would need a monitor capable of processing and displaying the signal from a monitor faster than 16.67ms. pretty much any monitor does this.

if you're running a 120hz dual-dvi display: i'd take a guess and see you need a monitor that can respond twice as fast, or under 8ms but this is just a guess.

i'm not interested in 3d ready products myself as (in my opinion) its a worthless trend. the 3d effect is more like "sliding paper over paper" and it is bad for the eyes. my eyes hurt after watching an in store display for like 60 sec. that said, the 3d effect is either from displaying alternating frames in a row... A-B-A-B-A-B or by halving the resolution of a monitor and displaying both images interlaced. actual response times have more to do with how fast the computer is sending a signal to the monitor (60hz or 120hz depending)

"57-75 Hz" @ Seller's site.

I guess it'll be enough for some movies and games.

Bumpty..(3 days without reply)

Why don't you get an ips screen? like the u2311h?

Its not 3D

The monitor is probably an international model. In europe 50hz is standard. In usa it is 60hz. Sounds like you have a 60hz model.

If i had to guess this means your 3d is either 960x540 images interlaced or full 1920x1080 in alternating frames. Not the best for 3d but would work. The ips monitors probably would display as well in 3d also.

Edit.

We post here in our free time. Responses are not always quick. Jave a little bit of patience and bump if you must.

Well the thing is, after 1/2 days my thread reaches page number 2-3 at that point, no one will ever reply.
I bump to bring it to the first page again.

There are a lot of monitors out there that have a response time slower than 16,67ms (0-100-0) and this is also where my monitor let me down.
As stated before, its pretty much a personal thing but there are facts stating one monitor gives more bang for the buck than the other.
If you are going to use it for gaming its the safest to stick with the 2ms.
There are plenty of 5ms screens that can handle games like quick fps's but i've made the mistake once and never going to do it again.
So my advice, if you wanna have smooth fps gaming, its the safest to stick with 2ms.
Usually this results in a lower contrast ratio.
I've had a very hard time picking my monitor (still searching) since i need the contrast and true colors for editting, but also quick response times for gaming.
You might be a little less interested in the greyscale tracking or such but you want 3D. Personally i dont like gaming with 3d glasses on but i've searched around a little and you might be interested in the
Asus VG236H
its 2ms, 3d and pretty well tested. I think it looks pretty neat too but thats personal.
Can be found for $319 on tigerdirect.
I think thats the price you'll be looking at for a good 3d monitor.

Hope this helped you out a bit