Response time on LCD is useless

hermeslyre

hermeslyre

VIP Member
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:
Ah.. I can't remember how to do the calculation, that was my best guess. Anyone know if this is the correct way?
 
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.
 
Nevakonaza said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's something altogether different Konaza :D

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

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! :D

(you talking to me, brian, or the rest of um?)
 
don't think refresh and response have anything to do with each other.

yea, refresh is right, its how many times the screen is updated.
but 'response' means to react to something. its the delay in pixels changing to represent the new colors that they are sent. yea, it may be updating 60 times a sec, but the actual pixels might not be able to change fast enough to display these pics which results in blurring and ghosting
 
Last edited:
That's the whole point though. If the screen is refreshed only 60 times per second, it's far too slow to allow the much quicker response time to do anything. How can a 6ms response time be of any benefit if it is being sent a new screen every 16ms? Wait, lol, I just answered my own question. The pixels are translating to a new arbitrary state within their response time, then are left to wait till another screen is is produced by the frame buffer, and the process starts over. Ah, it's simple, I wasn't thinking right, I feel like a noob.

The VRR is still bottlenecking the response time though. Just not in one of the ways I proposed. It's solved! Thanks dudes. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top