2ms vs 5ms

N

Noir

New Member
Guys can i find a BIG difference on lcd that have 2ms and the one use 5ms in a game or movie?
I've consider to get a 19 inch samsung 953bw which has 2ms or 22 inch samsung 223bw which has 5ms? I got a good price for those lcds and the price isn't too far, the only thing that make me think is the difference in response time between those two lcds.
 
I honestly wouldn't pay more then $10-$20 more for the 2ms version, as you won't be able to see a difference between the two visually.
 
As said by [- OMEGA -], you will not notice much difference between a 2ms and 5ms refresh rate.

A 2ms will give you a faster fps than 5ms but this is not very noticeable.
 
2ms is suppose to be better for gaming, to prevent ghosting. But about all 5ms monitors are just as well, as long is its not a "cheapo"
 
so what more refresh rate (more Hz) the less or more the FPS will be?

5ms isnt bad, but if the price diff is small rather get the 2ms
 
Computer_Freak said:
so what more refresh rate (more Hz) the less or more the FPS will be?
Click to expand...

What the refresh rate is set at, 60hz for most LCD monitors, is the maximum FPS the screen is able to render per second. It's not apparent to some because of frame switches and apps like FRAPS. Just to be clear, FRAPS shows the user how many frames the card is capable of producing, not what you're currently seeing on the screen.
 
Basically anything below 12ms is good for gaming and as long as it's under said 12ms you won't notice any differences really even if you get a 2ms instead of a 5ms LCD.
 
mrjack said:
Basically anything below 12ms is good for gaming and as long as it's under said 12ms you won't notice any differences really even if you get a 2ms instead of a 5ms LCD.
Click to expand...

I would agree here. I've never used a tighter response timing than the ol' 12ms I have, but I don't have any complaints. Everything looks great, even fast motion.
 
FRAPS shows what its capable of....

so then GPU will perform worse than the reviews....



12ms..... i would have thought thats too much. ah well
 
I think my 17" is about 7-8ms and I think it's fine. As long as you run LCDs at their native resolution and they have about 8ms or higher response times, I doubt you'll see any difference.
 
Computer_Freak said:
FRAPS shows what its capable of....

so then GPU will perform worse than the reviews....

12ms..... i would have thought thats too much. ah well
Click to expand...

Not really, you just can't see all the frames the card is capable of. I dunno about you, but I've never had a problem with the 60fps cap on 60hz monitors, even in fast game like UT.. It's the same with the response time. Faster is supposed to be better, but you'd be surprised at what point you actually start noticing ghosting etc.

Computer_Freak said:
what happens if you run at less that native?
Click to expand...

The monitor attempts to reproduce that resolution, oft times with less than perfect results. Native is the resolution it would look absolutely best on.
 
From what i've read your opinion is it best if i just choose the 22" with 5ms instead 19" with 2ms?
If i choose the 22" the native res will be 1680x1050 pixel, can my card handle it in many games like crysis, dirt, assasins creed or even the upcoming grid and mass effect? The impact of having higher res quite big in a game isn't (as now i can play on all high in crysis in my old 15" crt at 1024x768 pixel, i doubt that i still can use that setting in higher res?
 
[-0MEGA-];953081 said:
I honestly wouldn't pay more then $10-$20 more for the 2ms version, as you won't be able to see a difference between the two visually.
Click to expand...

About the price between the 19" and 22" it take around $25 more to get the 22".
As said before, the 19" got 2ms and the 22" got 5ms, so which one is more reasonable?
 
I get no ghosting with my 5 ms monitor and it isn't exactly the most expensive monitor out there

it's a HP w1907
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top