I was curious...I've been looking at LCD monitors to buy. I'm looking to get a 22", probably on the cheaper end. I've been looking at this one in particular:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001254

But anyway, that's not particularly important.

Anyway, my question is...is there a noticeable difference between 5ms and 2ms refresh delay? It wouldn't matter except at rather high levels of FPS play, no?

stanley_

United States816 Posts

March 21 2009 21:02 GMT

I heard that only people who play high levels of FPS notice the difference. This may be because that they have "better eyes" than a large amount of the population. There is no difference, I tried both.

floor exercise

Canada5847 Posts

March 21 2009 21:09 GMT

Not really. Once you get below 8ms it's all pretty much smooth sailing. The biggest difference between high end and low end lcds is the contrast ratio and the general color and vibrance you will see. The only way you'd really know the difference is if you had a high quality one side by side with a low quality one.

I've used an LCD for a long time now, the 12ms+ ones, they screen will look like someone smeared vaseline on it if you play something like Q3 or you are bunnyhopping in HL or something.

They might also be lacking things like an internal scaler, but most drivers can handle aspect ratio without a hitch.

United States6173 Posts

March 21 2009 21:21 GMT

What is an internal scaler?

I use a seven year old Dell laptop, so the LCD definitely isn't top notch...I don't know its specs, but I guess it's safe to assume at this point that any modern LCD will be a considerable step up...haha.

floor exercise

Canada5847 Posts

March 21 2009 21:25 GMT

I mean your monitor might not be able to adjust the aspect ratio on a hardware level, just through your video card drivers, which would only be an issue if you ever tried to do use it for something other than a computer monitor, like if you hooked up a console or something that doesn't have native support for 16:10 itself

IzzyCraft

United States4487 Posts

March 21 2009 21:26 GMT

the ms is bull shit from 5 to 2 is really no difference the reason you want lower ms is to prevent bleeding of the picture which most monitor don't have an issue with anymore. I used to use a Viewsonic pro series VP9somethingb had 8ms no tearing at all

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009145

is better the one you listed uses dynamic contrast (the cheap way to make it darker) i'm not a fan but you decide. The contrast you'll be looking at normally will probably be around 1000:1

Boblion

France8043 Posts

March 21 2009 21:26 GMT

If you play competitive FPS yea.

PanN

United States2828 Posts

March 21 2009 21:43 GMT

LCD's give me a headache, laggy pieces of shit.

Get a nice CRT, or the new $400+ lcds by samsung that actualy have good hertz

IzzyCraft

United States4487 Posts

March 21 2009 21:46 GMT

You know you have that totally backwards CRT give headaches LCD dont lol also CRT give increased eyesight fucked up ness this is related to those who get headaches

Mikilatov

United States3897 Posts

March 21 2009 21:55 GMT

#10

There's not much difference between 5 and 2, and that's a great deal for that monitor with those specs. I paid about $100 more than that when I bought my Samsung 216BW 22'' about a year ago. (Very similar stats)

IMlemon

Lithuania296 Posts

March 21 2009 22:19 GMT

#11

Unless you play FPS games and stuff like that where having a high refresh rate is a must. For example, in counterstrike if you have a crappy LCD and play on 100 FPS it will blur whenever you turn... Its incredibly annoying.

If you dont play anything like that, you won't notice. Probably.

PanN

United States2828 Posts

March 21 2009 22:40 GMT

#12

On March 22 2009 06:46 IzzyCraft wrote:
You know you have that totally backwards CRT give headaches LCD dont lol also CRT give increased eyesight fucked up ness this is related to those who get headaches

No, you're wrong.

LCD's have a terrible reputation for reason, their low refresh rate kills my head.

Less refresh rate -> more eye strain.

LCD's are terrible for everything but being small. They only got decent recently with samsungs new LCD, except its $400, or $600 with their REALLY AWESOME 3D GLASSES!

I guarantee you've never played with anything more than 80hz.

IzzyCraft

United States4487 Posts

March 21 2009 23:18 GMT

#13

Lol i had a 120htz crt before i traded up for a lcd that thing used to give me head akes all the time High refreshrate is a lie you tell yourselfs ask teamliquid what kills your eyes crt with all those pros getting glasses or lcd. lcd is an accurate picture crt is a fuzzy picture shooting a ton of electrons at your eyes there is a huge difference.

Reason for eye pain for crt is too low refresh rate and fuzzy picture

for lcd it's bightness is too much for the person becuase they locked themselfs in a dark room and stook their face right into the lcd to watch then porn

whatusername

Canada1181 Posts

March 21 2009 23:55 GMT

#14

i dunno i just dealt with my lcd brightness by lowering the brightness and contrast settings?

IzzyCraft

United States4487 Posts

March 21 2009 23:58 GMT

#15

Or you can play in your room with the lights on for once, there is a reason why Japanese show tell you to watch in a well lit room.

Everywhere

United States97 Posts

March 22 2009 00:11 GMT

#16

On March 22 2009 08:18 IzzyCraft wrote:
Lol i had a 120htz crt before i traded up for a lcd that thing used to give me head akes all the time High refreshrate is a lie you tell yourselfs ask teamliquid what kills your eyes crt with all those pros getting glasses or lcd. lcd is an accurate picture crt is a fuzzy picture shooting a ton of electrons at your eyes there is a huge difference.

Reason for eye pain for crt is too low refresh rate and fuzzy picture

for lcd it's bightness is too much for the person becuase they locked themselfs in a dark room and stook their face right into the lcd to watch then porn

Uhh...you have these two mixed up...

1. High refresh rate is EASIER for your eyes. Less flicker, smoother image.
2. CRTs have better picture quality, especially for SC, because they are not limited by a native resolution like LCDs are. That's why LCDs display SC so shittily.

Also, progamers use CRTs for two reasons: picture quality and input lag. The most vital factor when considering an LCD is its input lag (not the same as response time). CRTs have virtually no input lag, meaning that mouse actions are displayed immediately. LCDs on the other hand, have a very minute input lag (<10ms on good ones), which is why your picture lags behind your mouse actions. Keep in mind that this lag in LCDs is very little - hardly noticeable. However, the difference is VERY apparent after using both an LCD and CRT back to back.

This has a very comprehensive list of monitors and their performances. Be sure to check the results for "Delay compared to CRT" if you're looking for high performance.

United States6173 Posts

March 22 2009 00:24 GMT

#17

My apartment is too small to use a CRT. My desk is literally like two feet deep from the wall to where I sit. A CRT planted there would be like five inches from my face.

LCD is a must for size.