Dell IPS 60Hz vs Philips TN 144Hz

Lukebad

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
36
2
18,535
Hey guys!
(tl;dr at the bottom)

So, my old Samsung Syncmaster T220 started flickering... I kept using it and it gave me headaches after 5 minutes!
I tried taking it to the repair shop and they want to charge me as much as I paid for it originally. So... Time for a new monitor!

I already narrowed it down to two that I can and would be willing to afford.
The Dell P2414H and the Philips 242G5DJEB. They're both Full HD, and that's what I want right now.

Basically, they consist of:

Dell P2414H
Link
-IPS panel
-60 Hz
-Comes with DisplayPort cable
-Input: DVI and DisplayPort

Philips 242G5DJEB
Link
-TN panel
-144 Hz
-Input: HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort

I have NO monitor at the moment, I'm using a 21.5 inch AOC from a friend... He kindly lent it to me so I could "test" a 16:9 resolution, since I've used 16:10 for years.
My PC is as follows:
- AMD Phenom II X4 965 (old, I know...)
- 2x4GB RAM, 1600MHz
- MSI R9 290X (4gb)
So I can get more than 60 fps in a bunch of games, but not the most demanding / recent ones.
What I mean is: I know I will be able to make use of the increased frequency on most games, even if it's not 144 fps, since anything over 60 will already be noticeably different. (If I've read correctly)

Anyway...
Both are height/inclination/swivel adjustable, so no problems there... And both are 24" (technically the Dell is 23.8")
Philips' monitor has a little "mouse" to adjust settings and such, and Dell's has a back plate to cover up all cable connections.

I will be using this monitor for quite a while, until I'm willing to afford a new, FreeSync-enabled one!
So it has to be a good all-rounder, and a good choice overall.
I've never used a IPS panel, so the whole IPSvTN, Color v Response, Fidelity v Smoothness debacle is going on in my mind.

I've given up hope of having a FreeSync-enabled monitor for the time being, since I live in a third-world country and it'd take a while before they were affordable here.

tl;dr: Which of these two monitors is the best one, for everything? I game mostly, but my pc is modest.


I thank you masters for any and all suggestions and guidance.
All the best,
Lucas
 
Solution
Comparison:

To be clear (since I was long-winded) there is no "BEST" monitor of the two mentioned. They both have pros and cons. Pretty much classic IPS vs TN issues:

IPS:
- better overall color and viewing angle
- more ghosting/blur due to higher response time

TN:
- poor color/ viewing angles
- less ghosting/blur

I personally prefer IPS, others prefer TN. When IPS gets lower response times it (or similar panel) will replace TN completely.

As for 144Hz that's arguably a pro all things considered, again if you know how to adjust (i.e. Half Adaptive VSYNC). I should add you may need a better mouse.
There's only one IPS Panel that I would recommend for gaming and that's the new 144 HZ XB Predator from Acer ($750) where G-Sync, 144 Hz and ULMB tech combine to eliminate ghosting and lag. There's a Freesync version for $550 with a TN panel but Freesync is broken.

If doing image editing, desktop publishing etc, then of course the IPS panel would serve better.
 

Lukebad

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
36
2
18,535


Well, my gaming is not professional or anything like that.
Just single-player and such.
Would I see a decrease in quality from a T220 to a IPS?

I guess I only game... And sometimes do something related to my studies, but almost never. (Word, documents, etc)
 
Hey,
It's not "no questions asked" as it's really not that simple:

1) 144Hz is only one component. Screen quality (IPS vs TN) is important as well.

2) COST is important (144Hz is more than 60Hz) unless cost is no issue.

3) G-SYNC allows to run games fairly smooth at low frame rates. (G-Sync has cost and some visual issues)

4) Maintaining 144FPS requires very expensive hardware.

5) If using 144Hz you'll have a CRAPPY EXPERIENCE if you don't know how to use it properly.

*If using 144Hz normally if you enable VSYNC (to eliminate screen tearing) you need to to be able to output at least 144FPS. Otherwise you drop below and end up getting stuttering (1/144 second update then drop to 1/72 second update... back and forth in one second).

Want to avoid the stutter issue? You MUST:
a) Stay above 144FPS, or
b) Stay between 72FPS and 144FPS (so synching to 72FPS), or
c) Stay at 72FPS manually (by forcing Adaptive Half VSYNC), or
d) Disable VSYNC (get screen tearing), or
e) use G-SYNC (ideal for smoothness though may have visual issues on some monitors)

Summary:
It's COMPLICATED. Every single monitor has Pros and Cons which also depend on how much you understand about tweaking computers.

*The most important thing to know if you have a 144Hz monitor is how to use the "Adaptive Half VSYNC" feature (to force 72FPS VSYNC ON). If you can usually game with VSYNC OFF then a 144Hz model is probably a good idea but again it's a complicated discussion.
 
Comparison:

To be clear (since I was long-winded) there is no "BEST" monitor of the two mentioned. They both have pros and cons. Pretty much classic IPS vs TN issues:

IPS:
- better overall color and viewing angle
- more ghosting/blur due to higher response time

TN:
- poor color/ viewing angles
- less ghosting/blur

I personally prefer IPS, others prefer TN. When IPS gets lower response times it (or similar panel) will replace TN completely.

As for 144Hz that's arguably a pro all things considered, again if you know how to adjust (i.e. Half Adaptive VSYNC). I should add you may need a better mouse.
 
Solution

rdc85

Honorable
IPS if u are not into much gaming.. (never going back again TN again.)..

the color is more vivid and accurate (except dark/black)..
and if u move your head u will not see image/video quality distortion.

144hz monitor is good if u into gaming and will spend most time on games..
then go for it..

Now days newer gen IPS panel not as bad as old gen ones for casual (not competitive) gaming...
not complete replace but much improved from old days...



 
IPS and TN are both under the 16 and 7 MS response time required to minimize ghosting on a 60 and 144 Hz panels respectively. The difference is that they're marketing towards gaming and use the pro scene to brainwash the consumers. The biggest difference is that were now using LED edge lit displays rather than CCFL back lit. This type of marketing has completely ruined the monitor market, by making everybody think they are experts.
 

rdc85

Honorable
^ err what do u means by brainwash??

OOT: AFAIK TN panel and IPS panel is indeed different type of panel (even both still a LCD panel..)
if u saying LCD vs LED, then LED is LCD monitor with different back lit ...

the move of back lit from CCFL to LED (WLED) because it's cheaper, cooler, save power, also no hazard (unlike CCFL)
if i'm remembering it right, that's why all manufacture moving to LED...

the newest one is using color LED instead white LED to make the color much more vivid and accurate (but still expensive/limited to pro monitor)

edit: btw I'm agree that monitor spec is full of marketing jargon that confusing and deceive..
never trust those spec, always read review of that specific model monitor... (TFTcentral, etc..)
some monitor same brand, same spec, can have very different quality..
 
I know that there are led back lit displays. That wasn't my point. They are both different panel tech. Back lit to edge lit is a big move. Right now were moving backwards not forward in panel tech due to marketing. That people actually think response time matter comparing these two is beyond me. Again. Marketing towards gaming--those who won't ask questions.
 
Incase it was hard to follow or seemed arrogant. On a 60 Hz panel, everything lower than 16 MS BTB will cause severe ghosting. On older panels maybe not at all, especially TVs. Times changed and now they are educating the consumers from thinking higher is better to lower is better. 5 ms IPS vs 1 ms (theoretically) is exactly the same, no difference, just clever marketing. My problem with this hence me trying to explain, is that people think lower is better, which they want you to believe. On a 400 plus Hz panel, yes. Who knows what kind of number they'll pull out of their a** by the time we see much faster displays on the market. Edit: Corrected spelling and errors caused by phone.....
 
Hey...
Wow, so much confusion...

I'm not sure anything I say can clear this all up completely but I'll try:

1) Response time:
This is the time for the physical PIXELS to change color. There's a backlight in the rear which passes through a scattering layer and finally it passes through the individual red, green and blue subpixels. (Showing "blue" for a subpixel actually means blocking everything else except a small range of blue frequency light).

The SLOWER the response time of these subpixels the MORE noticeable is blurring/ghosting of images especially with darker backgrounds and brighter moving objects.

2) RESPONSE TIMES are not standardized.
Yep, one monitor may simply say "8ms" or "8ms GtG" or whatever but one may have more ghosting. Sigh. Which makes comparing very difficult. I believe my U2711 was rated at 8ms and I can tell you that's quite noticeable at times. I'm fairly certain 5ms is still noticeable.

3) "5ms IPS vs 1ms...exactly the same"???
No idea where you got that but... no. Differences in standards aside, if using the same standard to measure it means the 1ms response was 5X quicker than the 5ms response.

There's no lookup table that says "Xms IPS = Xms TN"; response times should be comparable. Quality of color is a separate issue.

4) Light strobing:
There are OTHER ways to reduce image blur such as quickly turning the backlight ON and OFF many times per second. So you can't just compare response times.

5) Backlit LED vs Sidelit LED:
Not quite sure what Suzuki was going for with his discussion above. Both serve the same purpose which is to provide light that is then filtered by the front LCD panel (whether IPS, TN, or similar).

The only main difference is how evenly the light can be distributed which can be an issue with Side-Lit especially if the scattering layer is insufficient. We can get light that is far too bright in spots. This has very little to do with ghosting/blur which again is mainly a product of the response time of the pixels.

Summary:
Probably won't help much. Ideally you would simply VIEW the monitors in a slightly darkened room.

My suggestion is the IPS panel. Others will suggest TN. There's no right/wrong and I've already layed out the main differences.

If you just can't decide then based on your FreeSync comment alone I suggest the TN/144Hz monitor.
 
So much confusion indeed. I didnt include as muchd etail as I wanted too it was painful to type using phone. My main point I was trying to make is that (without actually saying it anyways), a 60 Hz display will refresh it's image every 16 ms. This means that anything faster than 16 Ms, 16-1 are exactly the same, because you won't see the picture any faster regardless of response time. While I should have explained it a lot better, I thought it was easy to follow. The 5 vs 1 argument I started is because it won't matter. About the marketing, well that's just my own opinion, I don't expect anyone to agree.
 

rdc85

Honorable
OOT: AFAIK.. GtG is another example marketing that ruins the monitor spec..
instead it measure from completely off to full light like it supposed to, they measure from gray to gray ..
so it's look faster/lower response time, bad marketing..... (sorry maybe "good" for marketing)
Another one is "Dynamic" Contrast...

still will vote for IPS monitor, the color and viewing angle is great .. (for me at least)
 

Lukebad

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
36
2
18,535


Wow, I've never had such a attentive answer before.
I thank you for your time and disposition.

Thanks also for clearing up some technological confusion I might've had.

After reading your first and second comments I was inclined to get the Dell IPS, but you said that based on my FreeSync comment you'd suggest the 144Hz one! Why? Didn't quite get that.

I have read some reviews of the Philips TN (not available on TFTCentral... shame), and they all say it is a medium-tier/quality 144Hz TN panel, considering everything (not just colours and things innate to TN, but also input delay and other thingamajiggies)
While the Dell IPS is reviewed by TFTCentral (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_p2414h.htm) and said to be a very good panel, even for gaming.

Still can't decide! Sorry for the hassle, I know this is a "make up your damn mind" kind of problem, but I had problems before being an impulse buyer.

Thank you again for such great answers :)
 
There's still some confusion. What photon is saying is that 5 ms response time will cause ghosting, this is not true at all. What causes ghosting is the slow refresh rate (60 Hz). A 1 ms TN panel is updating it's pixels every 7-8 which is as high as you can go without pixels causing blur on a 144 Hz display. There is a big difference. I know that people think you add a 60 Hz's 16.6 ms + response time to get the final number, this is false. If that was the case, a lot of things on screen would constantly be ghosting because the pixels would change after 1 frame not earlier. Anything below 16.6 ms on a 60 Hz display will complete the image before you see it on screen. The only way to reduce ghosting is to up the refresh rate, this is what it was specifically designed for. I really don't understand where this misconception comes from.
 

ppalm

Reputable
May 28, 2015
21
0
4,520


I feel the need to correct this. The change to GtG was for the exact opposite reason you mention - response time used to be measured purely in BtW, but pixel response in some techs is more delayed from shades close to each other than from a full transition. Manufacturers were selling '2ms' monitors that ghosted like hell because of it. One of the big review sites (AT or Toms I think) had a big expose' about it some 5-10 years ago, and it was quite a hallmark article. It actually caused the addition of the GtG metric.

All that aside, the tech involved with IPS has inherently more input lag, not just a slower pixel response time. Input lag is the time it takes for the signal sent from the graphics card to appear on screen, pixel response is the time it takes for a pixel to change color. I am wanting to buy an IPS but fear that I will not like it purely for the higher input lag. I had a PVA panel some years ago and the input lag was so horrendous I'd score almost 40% lower on those 'click' flash games I used as a test. It was noticeable in FPS, RTS, MOBA, and it was so bad I could even notice it in sluggish games like WoW. I know IPS aren't that bad, but the buyer's remorse still has be leery.
 
Youre not going to find noticeable delay on any modern panel. My 4 year old Philips LCD TV is hard to compare between my monitor. When I'm playing CS I have absolutely no problem what so ever keeping up or notice any input lag on either my TV or monitor. My monitor is a HP 23Xi, it's an IPS. A good rule of thumb for me has been anything below 30 ms input lag is the maximum for FPS games. I believe it's placebo, because personally I cannot tell the difference between my IPS vs a TN, it's a cheap one I bought but it's still a 60 Hz TN. The only difference I notice is better blacks and better colors and viewing angles. I believe this misconception comes from the old TV sets (and even earlier LCD monitors) that had a super high input lag of 30 or more. Modern displays including TV's will have no problems what so ever playing the fastest pace games, IMO.
 

Lukebad

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
36
2
18,535
Hey guys, thanks for all your valuable input!
I thank you all sincerely.

I have decided to get a BenQ XL2430T after reading the review for it here http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/xl2430t-144hz-gaming-monitor,review-33103-8.html
And since I was already a bit fallen for it, it was easy to decide.
The Philips 144Hz wasn't selling it for me. It seemed like my choice was between a mediocre 144Hz TN, and a very good 60Hz IPS.
When I reconsidered the extremely good 144Hz TN, I made my choice and I'm quite satisfied with it. I hope I'll still be satisfied after I experience it in person!

Thanks a bunch,
Lucas
 

rdc85

Honorable


Thanks for correcting me, (we learn new things every days) :D..

From i know GtG there no universal standard, since each manufacture are using their own standard to determine the G... unlike old BtW.. that's why it deceiving... IMO..

anyways I think OP should pick a solution so we can close the case,
I think we have derailed so much ...
 
OP did specifically say that he was confused about the different kind of specs in a monitor. This is not off topic at all. Since hes looking for a monitor and not the specs wars going on between manufacturers and consumers that don't understand what they mean. I too recommend the XB270HU, but ULMB won't work at 144 Hz, with that said. I am very skeptical about all these cool tech that exist to make your overall gaming experience better. I believe it's all marketing gimmicks. Great choice on monitor by him, monitor is mostly preference anyways, you have to actually try it before deciding.
 

Lukebad

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
36
2
18,535


I learned a lot! Hahaha. It wasn't derailed, I enjoyed having information sorted out correctly and it was all relevant to my choice of monitor.
I was glad to have asked and ended up learning a lot about monitor tech.
The solution was picked yesterday! I think it was the most adequate considering new people may come and read all this. I chose the "There is no "better" one, you have to choose based on your preferences" that photonboy posted.



Exactly, it was good and what you guys said helped me learn and thus decide!
I hope I made a good choice. But I'm confident it will be, the extra money will be worth it, I think!

Thanks to Suzuki and rdc85 for all your help and time.