2ms vs 6ms Response Time.

[FlaccidSenpai]

Is the difference between 2m and 6m very noticeable for games like CS:GO? I have the choice of getting an Asus vs248h-p or a Dell S2415h. Asus has a 2ms response time and the Dell has 6ms. I really want the Dell because of the thin bezel and it looks really sexy. I want to know if the 4 ms difference make a really big impact on CS:GO.

 

[geofelt]

2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second.

Your graphics card/cpu may not be capable of either.
And even if it did, you would probably not notice.

Moreover, the 2m/6m numbers are suspect; how they are calculated has no standard.

Buy the one that looks better to you.

 

[Dunlop0078]

Are you asking about response time or input lag? I think your talking about input lag, they are two different things. Input lag is basically the time it take for you to say move your mouse and see a response on the screen. Response time is how fast the pixels can switch from different shades of grey (i think) high response times cause ghosting.

2-6ms of input lag is not bad at all and I doubt i could tell the difference however im not a hardcore fps player so I dont really care or notice that much. You may be different however.

 

[weberdarren97]

Are you asking about response time or input lag? I think your talking about input lag, they are two different things. Input lag is basically the time it take for you to say move your mouse and see a response on the screen. Response time is how fast the pixels can switch from different shades of grey (i think) high response times cause ghosting.

2-6ms of input lag is not bad at all and I doubt i could tell the difference however im not a hardcore fps player so I dont really care or notice that much. You may be different however.

Very close, but actually pixels are valued in RGB code from 0-255, so they all have a value of red, green, and blue. There is no gray value. But it is the amount of time between the electrical pulse happening and the pixels changing that is known as response time.

 

[weberdarren97]

I personally think that anything with more than 10ms total lag (response time added to input lag) is too much for a gamer. I usually go with panels that have less than a 3ms input lag and no more than a 5ms response time. I hope that I managed to explain that in a way that you can understand.

 

[FlaccidSenpai]

2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second.

Your graphics card/cpu may not be capable of either.
And even if it did, you would probably not notice.

Moreover, the 2m/6m numbers are suspect; how they are calculated has no standard.

Buy the one that looks better to you.

Will an MSI GTX 970 be capable?

 

[weberdarren97]

2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second.

Your graphics card/cpu may not be capable of either.
And even if it did, you would probably not notice.

Moreover, the 2m/6m numbers are suspect; how they are calculated has no standard.

Buy the one that looks better to you.

Yes, 2ms would lead to 500 cycles per second, but I've never seen a screen that outputs at 500Hz. The fastest I've seen is 144Hz. The difference is how many displays calculated per second versus how many are actually displayed per second. This is due to the fact that making pixels change faster than about 160 per second requires an enormous amount of power and produces a lot of excess heat. I favor 100Hz panels personally.

 

[Eximo]

G2G response time is the industry 'standard' (Though they always pick the test and number that is best). I believe this is flipping to literally different shades of grey (ha!) composed of different color combinations.

"2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second."

Not really sure what you are getting at here. GPUs don't really care about that. In a standard setup the monitor pulls whatever is in the frame buffer at the beginning of a refresh cycle. The GPU could be putting out ten to a couple of hundred frames per second. This is why screen tearing is a thing.

Standard V-sync eliminates tearing at the expense of more input lag. This forces the GPU to attempt to produce complete frames for each refresh cycle. (it breaks down a lot if it can't maintain 60FPS at 60Hz)

Adaptive Sync and G-sync get around this completely by letting the GPU control the refresh rate of the monitor, rather then the GPU trying to match the screen.

What you will see with higher response times on monitors is more blurring and ghosting. This is not ideal for gaming, but only if you notice such things.

 

[weberdarren97]

2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second.

Your graphics card/cpu may not be capable of either.
And even if it did, you would probably not notice.

Moreover, the 2m/6m numbers are suspect; how they are calculated has no standard.

Buy the one that looks better to you.

Will an MSI GTX 970 be capable?

A GTX 970 would fit best with a 100Hz screen, you might end up seeing some lag on a 144Hz panel, but a 60Hz screen wouldn't give you the best experience when coupled with that GPU as the GPU would likely be putting out >60fps unless playing at extremely high settings.

 

[weberdarren97]

G2G response time is the industry 'standard' (Though they always pick the test and number that is best). I believe this is flipping to literally different shades of grey (ha!) composed of different color combinations.

"2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second."

Not really sure what you are getting at here. GPUs don't really care about that. In a standard setup the monitor pulls whatever is in the frame buffer at the beginning of a refresh cycle. The GPU could be putting out ten to a couple of hundred frames per second. This is why screen tearing is a thing.

What you will see with higher response times on monitors is more blurring and ghosting. This is not ideal for gaming, but only if you notice such things.

Well even if it is gray, it's composed of red green and blue.

 

[FlaccidSenpai]

I personally think that anything with more than 10ms total lag (response time added to input lag) is too much for a gamer. I usually go with panels that have less than a 3ms input lag and no more than a 5ms response time. I hope that I managed to explain that in a way that you can understand.

So what would you say about 6ms? I'm currently playing CS:GO on a 400$ Samsung laptop bought in 2011 or 2012 and I am 90% sure that the response time on the monitor of this laptop is like 20ms. I'm making a huge upgrade from a work laptop to a gaming pc and I would like to stick with a good looking monitor for a long time that allows me to play games like CS:GO. Do you think 6ms will be fine?

 

[weberdarren97]

6ms isn't horrible, but for fast paced games like Tribes: Ascend or Rocket League, you'll definitely notice it when compared to 2ms. If all you play is CS:GO then you should be okay with 6ms.

 

[weberdarren97]

I would be less worried about the response time and more worried about the display rate (example: 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz) since a 970 will definitely be putting out more than thirty frames per second and a screen that only runs at 30Hz (displaying 30 images per second) would really limit your ability to get Uber involved in the gameplay if you ask me.

 

[Eximo]

G2G response time is the industry 'standard' (Though they always pick the test and number that is best). I believe this is flipping to literally different shades of grey (ha!) composed of different color combinations.

"2m happens 500 times per second.
6m happens 144 times per second."

Not really sure what you are getting at here. GPUs don't really care about that. In a standard setup the monitor pulls whatever is in the frame buffer at the beginning of a refresh cycle. The GPU could be putting out ten to a couple of hundred frames per second. This is why screen tearing is a thing.

What you will see with higher response times on monitors is more blurring and ghosting. This is not ideal for gaming, but only if you notice such things.

Well even if it is gray, it's composed of red green and blue.

I wasn't saying it wasn't. Just pointing out why he was mentioning gray. By the by there were panels that offered more then RGB, RGBCMYW plasma screens never caught on but then you had 6 colors plus white. Capable of producing nearly perfect blacks. But being plasma (which I think is completely out of production now) they were energy hungry and their lifespan isn't that good compared to LED-LCD or CCFL-LCD. OLED screens are set to replace them, and hopefully monitors, eventually. As of now I swear it is collusion to avoid re-tooling. They make OLED screens en masse for smartphones and make really, really big TVs. A couple of 10-11" laptops out there as well. Nothing in between.

 

[Eximo]

For CS:GO normally played at ludicrous frame rates of 200 or so I would go with something like this:

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-vg248qe

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/benq-monitor-xl2411z

Hmm, this one is new, might be worth looking into if you end up with a recent AMD GPU.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160273&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

 

[FlaccidSenpai]

I would be less worried about the response time and more worried about the display rate (example: 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz) since a 970 will definitely be putting out more than thirty frames per second and a screen that only runs at 30Hz (displaying 30 images per second) would really limit your ability to get Uber involved in the gameplay if you ask me.

The Dells is a 30hz?

 

[geofelt]

Many games are capped at 60 FPS regardless.
Many, if not most lcd monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz.
That is a good match in general, and at 1080P, a GTX970 will play most games well at that resolution.

When you get a mismatch between the graphics card capability and the monitor capability, you become exposed th screen tearing.
That is where gsync and freesync come into play.

If your games are competitive fast action shooters, then look at your best/fastest performance. Likely a fast tn panel.
For others, 60fps and a better image quality and a ips panel will be more satisfying.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

It really doesn't matter what the advertised response times are are exaggerated by the manufacturer's habit or redefining what "response time is" and they rarely pan out when tested. For example let's look at the average response time of the selected 2415H ... it's actually 9.3 compared to the claimed 6.

If Image not displaying you can find it here
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_rog_swift_pg279q/response_12.png

On short look at the real response times, not the fake one manufacturers place in their advertising.

I'd be more concerned about lag which is much higher (13.7) which would be a concern for many competitive gamers ... 16ms at 60 hz is generally considered the threshold for the gaming community tho of course serious F{S fold want to stay as far below that as they can.

If image not displayoing you can find it here
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_rog_swift_pg279q/lag.jpg

Today's most desired panels are the IPS 144 Hz models like the predator XB270HU and the Asus Pg279Q. 60 Hz IPS panels OTOH make pretty poor gaming monitors.

In addition if you are getting significantly better than 60 fps (Which is expected w/ CS:GO) , Freesync and G-Sync don't really come into play; what you would use here is ULMB (Which if the hardware module that comes with G-Sync, but not Freesync, monitors). I'd therefore advise getting a G-Sync capable model, at 75 fps or above definitely switch from G-Sync mode to ULMB mode.

Since there seems to be varying definitions of response time here....

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/response_time.htm

 

[weberdarren97]

I would be less worried about the response time and more worried about the display rate (example: 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz) since a 970 will definitely be putting out more than thirty frames per second and a screen that only runs at 30Hz (displaying 30 images per second) would really limit your ability to get Uber involved in the gameplay if you ask me.

The Dells is a 30hz?

I would need to know the model before I can confirm that.

 

[FlaccidSenpai]

I would be less worried about the response time and more worried about the display rate (example: 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz) since a 970 will definitely be putting out more than thirty frames per second and a screen that only runs at 30Hz (displaying 30 images per second) would really limit your ability to get Uber involved in the gameplay if you ask me.

The Dells is a 30hz?

I would need to know the model before I can confirm that.

Dell S2415H. Sorry for the late reply I was in a game of CS:GO. xD I really want to get that monitor but if it is 30hz I might kiss it goodbye and go with a BenQ RL2455hm.

 

[weberdarren97]

The Dell is 60Hz, it should be fine for you. Now if you ever upgrade to let's say a Titan X, then you'll want a screen that displays at at least 100Hz.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

It's not, it is a a 60 hz IPS monitor making it unsuitable for gaming ... as detailed in above post (look at the images), the 2415H does not have adequate response / lag times suitable for twitch (FPS) gaming.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260217

 

[weberdarren97]

It's not, it is a a 60 hz IPS monitor making it unsuitable for gaming ... as detailed in above post (look at the images), the 2415H does not have adequate response / lag times suitable for twitch (FPS) gaming.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260217

What's wrong with 60Hz IPS?

 

[FlaccidSenpai]

Ok I've made up my mind. I'm going to get the BenQ RL2455HM. Unless someone can tell me why the Dell monitor is bad.

 

[weberdarren97]

I didn't see anything majorly wrong with it. IPS is all about color accuracy so it'll look rather rich with 1000:1 contrast ratio and it's 6ms which isn't horrible, but isn't the best either. It's known that (except for really newer models) IPS is known for its high color accuracy but isn't the fastest. But 6ms isn't so slow to completely ruin a gaming experience in my opinion. Yes I would like faster, but it's not annoyingly slow or anything.