|
Hi fellow-gamers,
I'm about to buy a new monitor. I currently use an Samsung SyncMaster 730BF 17 inch, which I bought back in 2006 for 275 euro. Despite that fact that it still works fine, I feel its time for a new monitor to enjoy SC2 to its maximum.
Im using an Asus Geforce GTX460
Especially 3 monitors caught my attention, two 5ms models and one 2 ms model.
1. LG W2443T, about EUR 140,--
Screen Size 24" Screen Type Wide Contrast Ratio 30000:1 Native resolution: 1.920 x 1.080 (16) Response Time 5ms Brightness 300 cd/m2 (Typical) HDMI Yes DVD-I Yes Photo Effect Yes
2. BENQ GL2450, about EUR 140,--
24inch TFT LED Full HD 16 analog DVI 1920x1080 12mio:1 250cd/m2 5ms 24W black glossy (9H.L7ALB.QPE) HDMI no
3. Samsung SyncMaster S24B350H about 170 euro
Schermdiagonaal 24" Beeldverhouding 16 Schermresolutie 1920x1080 (Full HD 1080p) Kijkhoek 170° Helderheid 250cd/m² Backlight Led: Edge-lit Video in D-Sub (VGA), HDMI Vermogen 27W Reactietijd 2ms
Now my questions are: What monitor should you recommend? The LG and the BenQ both have 5 ms. Is 5ms fast enough (compared to 2ms) when it comes to play sc2 at a competitive level? (b.t.w.: sc2 is the only game I play). At this moment the the LG is my favovorite because of the price, the HDMI connection and the 300/brightness.
Cheers!
|
|
For pro gaming I would recommend the 2ms monitor. Although it doesn't make much difference by itself, being a pro is about finding all the advantages you can, however little they are.
I don't think it would ever make the difference between winning and losing even one in 10000 games though
|
On July 25 2012 03:26 Mongoose wrote: For pro gaming I would recommend the 2ms monitor. Although it doesn't make much difference by itself, being a pro is about finding all the advantages you can, however little they are.
I don't think it would ever make the difference between winning and losing even one in 10000 games though
So, in summation, you recommend the 2ms monitor despite the fact it will never make a difference.
2ms vs 5ms, even if accurate, would mean nothing to you. Ever. Don't worry about it.
|
United Kingdom20156 Posts
A 60hz monitor will give you a ~17ms delay between frames anyway, and there are a bunch of other factors (frame buffers, mouse polling etc) that will contribute to input lag, 2-5ms response time on your display is the last thing you need to worry about.
|
Actually, the question should be: How much do you want to pay for a new monitor and which Panel do you want to use?
Therefor, use the monitor thread Skyr linked
|
I changed mine 2 weeks ago but it's not the same panel as your choices.
Sadly when choosing a new monitor you basically have to decide between a fast response screen or a color accurate one.... The more you want both the more you'll have to pay.
For SC2 2ms or 5ms won't make a difference. at a pro level just consider the 120hz models. There's nothing better for gaming but also for eye comfort since everything is fluid.
Do not trust constructor's specs about response time and constrast ratio. Use serious website like tftcentral who test thoroughly the screens and search popular hardware forum when you settled for a model to check.
Good luck !
|
ms shouldn't really matter in games like SC2, if you play a game like Counter strike or quake, 2Ms or even a CRT with 0MS would help you, i have a CRT that I use when i Play FPS and its pretty good i get 120Hz and 0MS wich makes it perfect but when Im not playing them i just switch over
|
@andReslic
The response time that you see on spec sheets in ms does not refer to what you think it does (you're confusing it with Input Lag). It refers to the pixel response times, and usually only the fastest/most optimistic gray-to-gray transitions.
It is just one part of input lag, which is generally calculated as the signal delay plus half the pixel response time AFAIK.
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/specials/inputlag/inputlag.html
|
5930 Posts
Fun fact: sometimes cheaper 2ms TN monitors have a lot of reverse ghosting, which basically makes their 2ms figure pointless and in extreme cases, worse than theoretically 12ms IPS monitors.
|
theoretically its the same...
Even if your monitor is 0,000000001 ms but your internet is 100 ms... that doesnt make the gameplay comfortable... 2 or 5 ms has no difference... from the plain eye (dutch translation :D)... you do not notice it... its just like driving 105 or 100 km/h on our infamous A2... only the speeding camera can detects it |
Focus more on the coloring like IPS or something like that...
oh and try to buy a NON-hd-ready or fullhd screen. then you will benefit the most at gaming... Skills > Equipment
|
On July 25 2012 03:34 LaM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 03:26 Mongoose wrote: For pro gaming I would recommend the 2ms monitor. Although it doesn't make much difference by itself, being a pro is about finding all the advantages you can, however little they are.
I don't think it would ever make the difference between winning and losing even one in 10000 games though So, in summation, you recommend the 2ms monitor despite the fact it will never make a difference. 2ms vs 5ms, even if accurate, would mean nothing to you. Ever. Don't worry about it.
You missed the "for pro gaming" part. And yes, it well never make a difference (on it's own). But if you can get 10 things that never make a difference on its own, then maybe that will add up to make a small difference. It's like how formula 1 designers will shred mere grams of weight off the car here and there. Get my point?
|
5930 Posts
None of them seem to really care what monitor they use to be quite honest.
As said in this thread's first post, 2ms is a meaningless figure just like most manufacturer figures. All it tells you is what technology it uses. If its wide gamut, its probably using CCFL backlighting; if its 120hz, its a TN monitor; if it has 178/178 degree viewing angles, its VA or IPS.
2ms means it is a TN monitor and it is using heavy overdrive. What it doesn't say is how well applied the overdrive is. If overdrive is too light, it won't actually be 2ms and the figure is a complete lie. If overdrive is too heavy, which is the case a lot of the time, you get reverse ghosting and everything looks like shit.
The specsheet also doesn't mention things such as gamma stability and accuracy, which can be important if you want to differentiate shades of blacks properly. Most gaming monitors are not very good at this.
I suspect monitor and panel manufacturers don't really care about specsheet accuracy anymore and neither should you. Most give those amazing 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio figures, which is not remotely possible. Similarly, Samsung's new professional monitor seems to lie about its factory calibration result...an eagle eyed Korean blogger noticed how every single calibration report sheet is exactly the same, which is also impossible.
|
On paper the samsung looks like the best monitor to get, but like ^ said, its 2ms on overdrive. My best advice for you is to look for reviews on the different monitors.
|
At this point below 10ms, I would look more on the price/ bargain buying and screen size. A 24" will allow you to experience more Starcraft than the old 17" monitor. Look for deals on the monitors and see if any have mounting places for a dual-monitor stand or tri-monitor in the future.
Good luck man! I hope to have a 2nd monitor by christmas, going be looking newegg for deals over the next months.
|
Guys, let's keep talking, but make it more simple. If "2ms" is much quicker than "1ms", which reverses ghosting, then isn't 5ms equivalant or better, as if it were 4D or 5D gaming? If 5ms isn't better than 2ms, then 10ms (if possible) should poetically yield to gamma-brain wave thoughts for God-like gamers. That's just being theoretic/poetic. So what am I missing about 2ms being better than 5ms, when 5ms is quicker?
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|