Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5ms response time vs 2ms response time?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
January 7, 2012 7:05:41 PM

I'm having trouble deciding between two monitors and the difference between them comes down to just one being 2ms and the other being 5ms, but newer. Is that difference really noticeable? I would prefer the 5ms monitor, but I don't know if 5ms is too slow for gaming and I should get 2ms instead?
a b C Monitor
January 8, 2012 4:20:57 PM

No its not slow. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between 5ms and 2ms. And the response time is measured at the manufacture and each manufacture does it "kind of" differently.

So go with the one you like regardless of the response time as both response times (2ms and 5ms) are perfect for gaming.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 105 C Monitor
January 9, 2012 11:01:34 AM

do not go by the response times listed. as skaz pointed out they often vary (by quite a good margin) depending on who does the test.

in general for 60hz signals you shouldnt have anything slower than 16ms maximum response time if you dont want issues. my old panel was a high quality 16ms rated version and it did fine.

deciding between 2ms and 5ms is splitting hairs. both are more than fast enough. pick which one has the other features you want.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 9, 2012 11:17:23 AM

Great, thanks for your replies :) 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 12, 2013 6:28:50 AM

This and a few other threads I've seen are misleading people into thinking there is not much difference between 2ms and 5ms displays and there is. 2ms gives more than twice the performance! A 1hz refresh rate would mean the picture refreshes once every second, too slow for anyone!! So the math for a 5ms refresh rate is 1second/200hz = 5ms so this simply means a 200hz refresh rate i.e. 200 times a second. A 2ms refresh rate is equal to 1second/500hz so a 2ms monitor has a refresh rate of 500 times a second. Big difference. Now whether that is noticeable to the human eye or not I will leave to you but for 3D I would recommend at least 200hz as I found 120hz insufficient.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 105 C Monitor
January 12, 2013 11:56:38 AM

while theoretically:

5ms = 200hz
2ms = 500hz

keep in mind that the video standards are:

60hz = 60 frames per second
120hz = 120frames per second.

the maximum response time to display 60hz is 16ms and to display 120hz is 8ms.

having a low response time is not going to improve the smoothness of video at all. what a low response time does do is reduce the delay between your pc input (such as in game) and the display on screen.

do consider that the human eye blinks in 300ms or about 19x faster then the slowest response time needed for a 60hz signal.

--

do remember that not every person will notice a huge difference between response times. some people do not notice a huge difference between 120hz and 60hz.

in general the difference between 2ms and 5ms is inconsequential even though technically it is twice as fast. one could say that 1ms is twice as fast as 2ms but i doubt one would see that difference either.

so while what you said does have quite a bit of merit, the math is not always what counts. individual preferences are first and foremost.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 12, 2013 4:46:11 PM

I recently went from a 27" monitor with a 2 ms response time to a 30" with 7 ms response time and did not notice any difference in gaming.
The term ms is milli seconds and you can't really notice the difference.
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 10:17:27 AM

guitarxe said:
I'm having trouble deciding between two monitors and the difference between them comes down to just one being 2ms and the other being 5ms, but newer. Is that difference really noticeable? I would prefer the 5ms monitor, but I don't know if 5ms is too slow for gaming and I should get 2ms instead?


I had a 5ms monitor and i bought a new 1ms asus vx238H and i can definitely tell a difference. The 1ms asus is faster no doubt about it, i had them side by side, the 5ms seems sluggish in compare. I dont know about the 2ms monitors, but 1ms is much faster then 5ms, and i can se the difference, period.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 128 C Monitor
March 20, 2013 10:34:31 AM

There is a difference, but most people won't notice it. Basically, lower response times keep things crisp even with a lot of action on the screen. There is no trailing colors when something moves fast. While 5ms is not a problem for most people, it could be an issue for another. Where this really comes into play is in 3D. In 3D, since you are receiving two completely different images back and forth between eyes, that response time is critical and causes ghosting if it is slow. This ghosting is much worse in 3D than 2D, though it is present with either.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 2:13:13 PM

Ok, i'm going to lay it out flat to you. If were talking about console gaming then go for the 2ms. If you are mostly playing pc then i don't think you will notice much difference since the mouse is so damn accurate. Yes a response time is suppore to be the delay of the screen but it's also input lag.
I play a lot of Halo and i remember when i played competitively on Halo 2 back in the days and i had an old tube CRT tv which has 0ms my aim was dead on and then the HDTV came out. I remember when those things came out at 8ms my aim was way off. Could i see a difference in the reticule tracking NO! but could i feel a difference YES! That's the key right there, just cause you cant see the difference doesnt mean it's not there and you cant feel it. To test this i set up 2 monitors, a 22inch 5ms and 22inch 2ms (Grey-2-Grey by the way on each) and man did the 2ms make a difference. Now after that i tested my game on a plasma which is "suppose to be 1ms" and to my suprise it felt like the good old tube tv i playedon for years. So yes the ms do matter, and i had a bit of a science project of real world testing and not numbers lol.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 128 C Monitor
April 23, 2013 2:18:28 PM

^ you may have been experiencing the problem with input latency, rather than response time. They are not one in the same.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
April 24, 2013 5:37:11 PM

For a HDTV, you need to switch it to 60Hz if it is a 120Hz HDTV. When the refresh rate is set above 60Hz the HDTV itself does some video processing by inserting an interpolated frame in between every two actual frames received from the source. The purpose it to smooth out video playback of movies / videos with a frame rate of 24. 24 FPS does not divide evenly into 60Hz so some people notice video stuttering when watching movies. Video interpolation basically doubles the number of frames displayed so that movies and videos will play back smoothly. 120Hz can be evenly divided by both 30 FPS and 24 FPS.

The HDTV needs a bit of time to do video interpolation so having HDTV set to 120Hz will artificially induce input lag which shows up as a delay between an action command you sent and when it actually happens on screen.
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 6:26:18 AM

Well now I am little bit confused after reading all the responses.

Can someone write a conclusion for this?

I'd really appreciate it. I am planning to buy a monitor for myself. Will help me in choosing one.

You guys are amazing !!
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
December 3, 2013 6:36:17 AM

Simple.

Most people cannot tell the difference between 2ms and 5ms response times. Can you? You will only know if you have a 2ms monitor and 5ms monitor in front of you with the graphics card sending the same signal to both monitors when you play games.

120Hz PC monitors and 120Hz HDTV operate different. 120Hz PC monitors will accept 120Hz inputs and assuming the graphics card is powerful enough you will actually be getting up to 120 frames per second. 120Hz HDTVs only accept 60Hz inputs or 60 frames; using video interpolation it can display up to 120 frames per second, but half of them are "fake" because the electronics in the HDTV makes them. Since it takes time to create those fake frames you get a bit of lag.
m
0
l
December 6, 2013 2:53:44 AM

prudhvirazz said:
Well now I am little bit confused after reading all the responses.

Can someone write a conclusion for this?

I'd really appreciate it. I am planning to buy a monitor for myself. Will help me in choosing one.

You guys are amazing !!

Just got a new monitor today. The price was good, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It's an LG with 5ms. My old LG is 2ms.

Best example I could give is a CRT vs an old laptop screen. The new one, 5 ms, feels slightly ghosty playing the same game. It's more than enough to bug me because it does indeed feel like I've gone back in time in quality. Going to switch back to my 2ms for games and 3d editing.

Not 100% sure it's the 2 vs 5ms, but definitely going < 2ms next time to make sure.
m
0
l
!