Does a monitor MS time vary with its size?

[setek]

Hey guys currently I have a 23" 2ms monitor, a long time ago it was suggested to me by Cheex not to go above 5ms when purchasing a monitor as I would most likely affect gaming experience, so I have my eyes on a 2K monitor which has a response time of 6ms, so I have few questions.

1. Is there a noticeable difference between a 5ms and a 6ms monitor?  As a minimum 5s was initially suggested and would I also notice a difference between my 2ms and a 5ms?

2. Is there a difference between the response of a 6ms 1080p monitor vs a 6ms 1440 monitor?

[BoFox]

1) 2ms really is a 10-15ms monitor overall. 2ms is just the absolute lowest advertised specification for a certain g2g shade transition time (e.g., from 50 degree grey to 150 degree grey, whereas 255 degree pure white to 0 degree pure black and back to 255 degree pure white would take at least 15ms without any distortion artifacts). The difference between "5ms" and "6ms" is usually not noticeable, as far as the advertised specifications go for these such monitors.

2) Not really - the resolution difference shouldn't make the response times any different - these are completely separate measurements.


Still, a factory-advertised "6ms" monitor should be rather decent for most of the games. If you're really into competitive online fps shooters, then by all means go for 1ms - a serious gaming monitor. Gsync / freesync or at least ULMB (Ultra Low Monitor Blur) is the major feature that hardcore competitive fps gamers value the most of all (with at least 100-144Hz actual input refresh rate).

[setek]

1)  2ms really is a 10-15ms monitor overall.  2ms is just the absolute lowest advertised specification for a certain g2g shade transition time (e.g., from 50 degree grey to 150 degree grey, whereas 255 degree pure white to 0 degree pure black and back to 255 degree pure white would take at least 15ms without any distortion artifacts).  The difference between "5ms" and "6ms" is usually not noticeable, as far as the advertised specifications go for these such monitors.

2)  Not really - the resolution difference shouldn't make the response times any different - these are completely separate measurements.  


Still, a factory-advertised "6ms" monitor should be rather decent for most of the games.  If you're really into competitive online fps shooters, then by all means go for 1ms - a serious gaming monitor.  Gsync / freesync or at least ULMB (Ultra Low Monitor Blur) is the major feature that hardcore competitive fps gamers value the most of all (with at least 100-144Hz actual input refresh rate).


"2ms really us a 10-15ms monitor overall"?  As in after transfering over the internet, to the game server and then back to you correct?  So in that case a 6ms monitor would most likely be more along the lines of a 14-19ms monitor then?

I am not a competitive gamer but, if I see you first and shoot you should be dead not I.

[ocre]

There are sites that test overall response for different monitors. It is not exactly the same thing as the response time that has been used as a selling point in marketing.
I think people get things a little mixed up and that could be by design.
When you really put to things to test, it turns out there is a lot more to it.

Testing the true responsiveness, in the way you are speaking, it will be nowhere near 6ms. From input to flash on the screen, the whole process is a lot longer. Some monitors fare better than others but the big point I want to make is that the true latency from input to flash is very different than the panels advertised response time. Overall latency will be much higher.

Like I said, there are several sites that have done deep investigations. There are abunch of monitors that have been tested. if you get the time, you should look it up. Its pretty cool. The true latency is not the pixel response time, they are two different things.

[BoFox]

[quote pid='5157' dateline='1446606837']
"2ms really us a 10-15ms monitor overall"?  As in after transfering over the internet, to the game server and then back to you correct?  So in that case a 6ms monitor would most likely be more along the lines of a 14-19ms monitor then?

I am not a competitive gamer but, if I see you first and shoot you should be dead not I.

[/quote]

No, not the internet ping times.  That's another thing. 

See, a popular gaming monitor with advertised 1ms response time actually has an average of 10ms:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus...pg279q.htm

( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_...onse_1.png )
The manufacturer just uses the absolute lowest possible measured response time from a certain grey shade:

( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_...onse_3.png )
That is, with extreme overdrive enabled (which gives severe artifacting in cases, as shown in the red boxes in the Overshoot chart). 
You can see that the response time from a starting point of 0 (black) to the end point of 150 (whitish grey) is 1.1ms (just a bit more than 1.0 ms), but the overshoot is a horrible artifact. 

Normal overdrive mode has far less artifacting, but is still not perfect.  It's still pretty ideal, with about 5.2ms average response time:

( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_...onse_3.png )


This is what it looks like in real life (slight "ghosting" trail behind the moving race car):

( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixpe...pg279q.jpg )
You can see more comparisons on that webpage that I gave you a link to. 


Then input lag is another thing (as Ocre pointed out). 

Input lag is the first thing - the time it takes for the monitor to display signals from the video cable input.  Then response time on top of that is the rough total time it takes for you to see me in front of you after I'm already in front of you for you to shoot (assuming we're playing in the same room on local LAN, without the internet ping times like 20-80ms on top of that). 

BTW, this monitor has one of the lowest input lag of all LCD monitors around:

( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_...9q/lag.jpg )
Interesting, eh?   Hope this helps dude.  Happy gaming!

[ocre]

Great explanation bofox.

I don't know what is up though, cause I don't see your pictures

[SteelCrysis]

I don't see your pictures either.

[BoFox]

Greedy site doesn't like deeplinking, so countermeasures blocked a forum site from linking the images.. ugh!

I edited the post, adding a direct link to each of the images. Bummer.