Response time on LCD is useless

hermeslyre · 01-04-2008, 02:11 AM

Can I get some input here? My thoughts,

LCD monitors do not physically need a vertical refresh rate, however video cards still operate on a refresh rate signal, and will update the LCD screen as many times a second as the VRR specifies. Most LCD's will not allow you to choose a refresh rate above 60hz(a DVI connection is limited to 60hz), which when divided by 1000 (to get a MS rating) = 16. 16ms. This means that fancy 2ms response time is going to waste, 16ms is the max for any LCD monitor operating on a 60hrt VRR. A response time, for a LCD operating on a 60hz VRR, beneath 16ms is just a useless marketing gimmick?

Am I doing my math wrong? Am I missing something? Am I wrong in some of my assertions? I've used Google alot, but while everyone agrees that the VRR is still utilized, for compatibility reasons, none seem to take the step further in explaining that this limitation hampers the response time.

Iluvpenguins · 01-04-2008, 02:13 AM

I don't believe that calculation is correct for response time.

hermeslyre · 01-04-2008, 02:17 AM

Ah.. I can't remember how to do the calculation, that was my best guess. Anyone know if this is the correct way?

Nevakonaza · 01-04-2008, 02:28 AM

i dont think thats right,my old monitor took ages to come on with the same gfx card but with my new lcd it comes on basicly instantly.
well its soppos to be 5ms.

hermeslyre · 01-04-2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevakonaza

i dont think thats right,my old monitor took ages to come on with the same gfx card but with my new lcd it comes on basicly instantly.
well its soppos to be 5ms.

I think that's something altogether different Konaza

The logic is sound, though my math is probably off. The screen updates 60 times a second, how can can it even manage to take advantage of the much faster response time? I mean it's not a big deal, it's just to filed away under Refresh rate = FPS. I'm just pointing it out, because everyone is always saying lower is better. Maybe it isn't, maybe it doesn't matter.

[-0MEGA-] · 01-04-2008, 03:13 AM

I can't say for certain if it's correct or wrong calculation wise, but I can tell you that I do notice a difference between my 16ms laptop monitor and 6ms LCD.

Ambushed · 01-04-2008, 04:41 AM

Ahh I'm LCD is 24ms LOL. It's not very good for counter-strike

ThatGuy16 · 01-04-2008, 05:11 AM

wow, 24ms?

.. mines 2

I would have to say, you can tell a difference at the slower timings. IMO

brian · 01-04-2008, 05:31 AM

yep i think your right...

hermeslyre · 01-04-2008, 05:41 AM

I hear ya all, I just don't get how! Argh!!!

Lol, it just doesn't make any sense. The VRR is bottlenecking (right word?) the response time, it's refreshing the screen only 60 times per second, while a 6ms screen (or the pixels and sub-pixels) would need to be refreshed/changed 166 times per second to just start to function at it's rated response time. And since it isn't being refreshed at 166hz, then the response time seems to be useless. That's how I see it, someone prove me wrong!

(you talking to me, brian, or the rest of um?)

01-04-2008, 02:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
hermeslyre VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 18 Posts: 4,973	Response time on LCD is useless Can I get some input here? My thoughts, LCD monitors do not physically need a vertical refresh rate, however video cards still operate on a refresh rate signal, and will update the LCD screen as many times a second as the VRR specifies. Most LCD's will not allow you to choose a refresh rate above 60hz(a DVI connection is limited to 60hz), which when divided by 1000 (to get a MS rating) = 16. 16ms. This means that fancy 2ms response time is going to waste, 16ms is the max for any LCD monitor operating on a 60hrt VRR. A response time, for a LCD operating on a 60hz VRR, beneath 16ms is just a useless marketing gimmick? Am I doing my math wrong? Am I missing something? Am I wrong in some of my assertions? I've used Google alot, but while everyone agrees that the VRR is still utilized, for compatibility reasons, none seem to take the step further in explaining that this limitation hampers the response time. Last edited by hermeslyre; 01-04-2008 at 02:20 AM. Reason: CAN lol

01-04-2008, 02:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
Iluvpenguins Diamond Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Kitchener Ontario Posts: 1,293	I don't believe that calculation is correct for response time. __________________ My computer: Intel Core2Duo E6550 @ 3.01ghz Gigabyte P31-DS3L Patriot 2x1GB DDR2-800 @ 1032mhz EVGA GeForce 8800GTX Antec 500W w/32A on 12v rail WD 80GB HDD,WD 500GB HDD Ultra Aluminus Full Tower Case (Black Finish)

01-04-2008, 02:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
Nevakonaza Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Inside my 500Se Benz Age: 19 Posts: 7,822	i dont think thats right,my old monitor took ages to come on with the same gfx card but with my new lcd it comes on basicly instantly. well its soppos to be 5ms. __________________ Core 2 Duo E6300 1.8 @ 2.8Ghz -Asus Silent Knight II MSI P35 Neo-F (45nm Ready) 3Gb GeIL DDR2 @ 800 Mhz (Dual channel) Asus Extreme 8800GT G92 512Mb with Glaciator cooler Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme Fidelity 7.1 WDC 400GB Sata II + 120Gb Slave = 520Gb total Sony 20X DVD±RW DL & DVD-RAM SATA Windows Vista Ultimate X64\|Kaspersky IS 2009 Belinea o.display 22'' Widescreen (1680x1050)

01-04-2008, 03:13 AM	#6 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 19 Posts: 27,069	I can't say for certain if it's correct or wrong calculation wise, but I can tell you that I do notice a difference between my 16ms laptop monitor and 6ms LCD. __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM45 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // 512MB GDDR3 9800M GTS 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 4GB DDR3 800 750GB SATAII w/32MB // 200GB SATAII 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21391 // 9179

01-04-2008, 04:41 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ambushed Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,924	Ahh I'm LCD is 24ms LOL. It's not very good for counter-strike __________________ Core 2 Duo E6550 2.3GHz @ 3.4GHz FOXCONN MARS 2GB DDR2 800 500GB western digital SATA II XP Professional SP3 Nivida GeForce 9600GT 512MB 19" LCD widescreen 5ms

01-04-2008, 02:17 AM	#3 (permalink)
hermeslyre VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 18 Posts: 4,973	Ah.. I can't remember how to do the calculation, that was my best guess. Anyone know if this is the correct way?

01-04-2008, 05:11 AM	#8 (permalink)
ThatGuy16 Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,152	wow, 24ms? .. mines 2 I would have to say, you can tell a difference at the slower timings. IMO __________________ CPU: C2D E8400 @ 4Ghz 1.23v HSF: Apogee GTX MB: Gigabyte X38-DS4 Ram: 2x2GB G. Skill DDR2-1068 HDD: 320GB Seagate PSU: OCZ GameXStream 700w OS: Vista Home Premium 64bit GFX: HD3870 @ 837/1152 LCD: LG 22" L226WTQ My Old 3DMark06: 20008 =(

01-04-2008, 05:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
brian Diamond Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: California Age: 16 Posts: 3,720	yep i think your right... __________________ formerly brianmay27 Main laptop: hp dv9005us \| turion 64 X2 1.6 ghz \| 3 GB ram \| Vista ultimate \| 240 GB HD First build: pentium e2160 3.2 GHz \| gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L \| 2.5 GB ram \| 160GB HD If you can see this, you have WAY TOO much time on your hand. Or you're a mod going through my sig. But if you do, copy and past this in your sig.

01-04-2008, 05:41 AM	#10 (permalink)
hermeslyre VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 18 Posts: 4,973	I hear ya all, I just don't get how! Argh!!! Lol, it just doesn't make any sense. The VRR is bottlenecking (right word?) the response time, it's refreshing the screen only 60 times per second, while a 6ms screen (or the pixels and sub-pixels) would need to be refreshed/changed 166 times per second to just start to function at it's rated response time. And since it isn't being refreshed at 166hz, then the response time seems to be useless. That's how I see it, someone prove me wrong! (you talking to me, brian, or the rest of um?)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
lcd tv or lcd display?	X24	Video Cards and Monitors	4	12-08-2006 04:38 AM
my laptops LCD needs help	Holiday	Video Cards and Monitors	0	10-07-2006 07:55 PM
time set up	newbie123	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	1	04-18-2006 08:23 PM
Small LCD screen...	Kheddar	Video Cards and Monitors	1	03-31-2006 02:13 PM