Comparing monitor response time and brightness

[hoch721]

I was hoping for some advice on picking out a monitor. I've googled some articles and found some contradicting reports on the significance of response time and brightness. I'm not sure whether to get a monitor with either 5ms or 2ms response time and 250 cd/m2 or 300 cd/m2. Can anyone provide some insight on how big a difference these specs make?

Just some other information: I do some gaming, I'm probably looking at 21.5 inch wide screen (I'm limited on space so the biggest I could go is 23 inches). The price will play a factor too, but if necessary I'd rather pay more to get something I'm happy with. I'm aiming for around 150, but could go higher to around 200. For comparison, I've been looking at something like these:


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009275


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236099

 

[MauveCloud]

Please fill in the template if you want us to suggest alternative monitors: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/59847-3-template-monitor-advice

To really be able to compare response times, the single number provided by the manufacturers isn't enough (since they're not specifying whether it's white-to-black, black-to-white, or gray-to-gray, or whether it's the minimum, mean, or median). If you can find a 3d graph or table that shows the multiple response times (which tend to differ a little depending on which shade of gray it starts and ends at, and I think they use about 7-10 shades of gray from black to white), then you can compare that. However, when the response times are under 8ms, the differences are insignificant and rarely noticeable. On the other hand, if the response time is quoted at 16ms or over, you can rule such a monitor out.

As far as cd/m2, I think LaCie recommends calibrating lcd monitors to 120 cd/m2 (with ambient light hitting the monitor under 64 lux), so 250 cd/m2 vs. 300 cd/m2 isn't an issue (those are at maximum brightness; it's usually possible to adjust down to get 120 cd/m2).

The difference I'm concerned with between those two is the LED backlight on the Asus ML228H - LED backlights tend to reduce image quality due to the blue tinge despite being more expensive than CCFL backlights. They sometimes have lower power consumption, but between the two you linked, the LED-backlit monitor only saves you 2.5W.

 

[hoch721]

MauveCloud: I didn't know that about the brightness levels. Also, thank you for clarifying the significance of 2ms v 5ms. I don't game a ton, but I was nervous that if I didn't get 2ms that there would be some ghosting or blurring effect. Based on what you said I think I'm going to avoid the LED backlight; I've read of a number of drawbacks that make it seem not worth it to me. Thanks again for the advice, I appreciate it.


Here is some more information based on the template for advice:

Approximate Purchase Date: the closer the better

Budget Range: up to 200 AR, cheaper the better

Monitor Usage from Most to Least Important: gaming, watching movies, editing photos/videos surfing the Internet

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: newegg.com, but I'd be open to buying from other sites with good reputations

Country: United States

Brand Preferences: I'd prefer a brand with a reputation, like ASUS, Samsung, LG...

Physical Size (Diagonal): 21.5 - 23 inch

Resolution(s) You'll Consider: 1600x1200+, preferably 1920x1080

Inputs Needed: Indifferent, I have adapters for everything.

Panel Type(s) Desired: (e.g.: TN, PVA, IPS) I don't know what the difference is, so indifferent

LED Backlight: Indifferent / Avoided - Some drawbacks of the LED (like higher chance of bleeding on the edges) makes me lean toward avoiding.

Speakers: Indifferent

Wall-Mount: Indifferent

Stand Functions: Indifferent

Additional Comments: I'd like a wide screen. Obviously, the less power consumption the better, but it isn't a big deal to me. I think my video card is a Radeon 4870.



I'm leaning toward the first link I posted, the Acer G215HAbd-1

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009275

 

[MauveCloud]

Given your requirements, the Acer G215HAbd-1 looks like a good choice. The Samsung 2333T has better ratings at NewEgg, but the 8ms GTG response time could be a drawback.

 

[ssddx]

my old viewsonic vp201b had a maximum response time of 16ms and there was never any ghosting, stuttering, etc. anything less than 16ms maximum response time should be perfectly fine.

overall image quality and viewing angle is determined by the lcd type. generally TN panels are cheaper to purchase but tend to limit viewing to straight on. even at a slight angle the display starts to grey out and lose color badly. if you have the money an ips (or other recommended panel type) would be ideal.

as mauve stated, you wont ever use the monitor at maximum brightness. it hurts the eyes!

 

[hoch721]

Thanks again for the information, I'm going to go with a 5ms response time. After looking at some models on tigerdirect.com and newegg.com it seems to be a standard. The link I posted for the acer had some reviews that said there can be bleeding around the edges, which I think would really annoy me. Anyone have any experience with dell monitors? Now I'm looking at these two:


Dell 22" Full HD Monitor ST2210B

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8966&dgc=CJ&cid=47997&lid=1625070&acd=10875079-1727683-

SAMSUNG B2230 Glossy Black 21.5"

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=24-001-385&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Keywords=#scrollFullInfo