Samsung P2770FH Second Monitor to Boast a 1ms Response Time

16

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Logun

Can you really tell a difference between 1ms and even 5 or 6ms response rate?

avatar

Conin

I'm getting tired of new monitors being only "Full HD" (1920x1080) instead of going 1920x1200 or some other resolution since monitors are not made just for watching movies but also for gaming, video editing, photo editing and the like.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

It's gotta be a TN display. I don't think IPS panels are capable of 1MS response times, are they?

avatar

jlh304

What about the refresh, can I do 3D with it?

avatar

Jo3

Why does nobody talk about the lag on monitors?

It might have a 1ms "response time" between frames but it's not much good for gamers if the picture on the screen lags 50-100 ms behind the output of your computer, which, as I understand it, the vast majority of lcd monitors do.

How about some tests on this front MPC? A groundbreaking article on lcd monitor lag would be a credit to your magazine. Do it.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Don't know where you heard that. I've never experienced that on any high end or low end LCD monitors. Wouldn't make a good computer monitor is it had any kind of lag. I used to have a cheap 42" 1080P LCD TV and I was able to play PS3 games on it just fine, they looked pretty good compared to the cheapness of the TV. No lag. My laptop has an LCD and there is no lag and my last two desktop LCD's didn't have lag and one was a cheap entry level LCD and the other was a middle of the road LCD. 

When it comes to LCD's, pixel response is a big issue and with a 1 ms PR that's pretty good. Pixel Response is the amount of time it takes for a pixel to change colors. Each LCD pixel is made up of subpixels of the three or more colors. 1MS PR means that it takes 1MS for a Pixel to switch it's subpixels. I think that's how it works. It's logical so it must be true. (if memory serves me right that is.)

avatar

Biceps

I always love reading Keith's comments.  Here is another q for you/the field: what is the refresh rate on this thing, and isn't that just as important (if not more important) than the response time?  If your monitor has a 1 ms response time, but is refreshing at 60Hz, then wouldn't a lot of ghosting issues, etc, remain?

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

I'm not really sure how the refresh works in LCD's. The Refresh rate comes from the old CRT's that use super duper high amounts of electricity to produce a ray that fired at a phosphor screen, the refresh rate was the rate at witch this ray or beam hit the screen, the beam moved very fast from right to left or vice versa and how many time it could draw the screen per second in this fashion. 

The higher the refresh rate the more times per second that the screen was drawn on the phosphor screen. 

An LCD has a set number of physical pixels and there is no beam drawing the screen. There is no phosphor screen either. Once the pixels are commanded to display a color they basically just stay that way. The light comes in the form of a back light from behind the screen of physical pixels. This is completely different from how a CRT works. So refresh rate means something completely different when it comes to an LCD than a CRT. I just don't think that an LCD actually refreshes like a CRT. That's why in another post I questioned just what 120hz means as a selling point for an LCD display. 

So the Pixel Response rate, here at 1ms is fantastic and much more important than Refresh rate. In fact slow pixel response rates were the reason why for a long time LCD's weren't considered gaming capable. A slow Pixel Response rate, say 85ms will cause ghosting because the pixels can't respond to commands and change fast enough for the action that needs to be displayed. 

So you see a 60hz refresh rate for an LCD doesn't really affect anything that I can figure out, hell 120hz makes no sense either and I think Sony has a 240hz display.. It's freaking funny how it's the next selling point like contrast ratio... LOL..

avatar

samduhman

I see what your saying. All I can give is my experience from going for the Asus VK266 60hz to the Acer 120hz. There is definately less ghosting when playing FPS games with the Acer. I don't care what tecnology they use to accomplish it. I'm just happy its better.

My question is would this 1mhz Samsung have less ghosting than my Acer 120hz?

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

That depends, the sales people have turned the pixel response times into a gimmick as well and you can't seem to get a straight answer from one company to the next. Some companies will tell you 1ms response time for a pixel to go from gray to gray or black to white or something like that. All the companies have there own way of measuring Pixel Response times and almost always it's BS. These guys are claiming a pixel response time of 1ms, but in reality it may be somewhere around 40 to 80ms. 

When it comes to displays when your shopping around, take a good look at them and ask to watch some movies on them. Don't just take the sales persons word for it. 

There is a fairly recent issue of MaximumPC that has a lengthy article on LCD's and how you should shop for one and what to look for. I'm certain if you look through the PDF archives of the last 6 or so issues you'll find it. Also I believe that article was posted on MPC.COM as well so you may not need to get the PDF. 

Check out this article here

 

http://tinyurl.com/2d7a575

 

And here is that article, it took all of 5 seconds to find it.

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/25eacal

avatar

Nimrod

Yes monitors do have lag and no you wouldnt notice it, no FKing kidding dude. The only way you would notive the lag is if you had a nother monitor right next to it that didnt have any. But yes it does effect your response time in games. And yes, "refresh" on LCDs is important. 60 is far to low for good gaming AFAIC. And yes, i had the kill count back in my CRT days to prove that 80HRz was better than 60 so dont tell me it doesnt matter.

 

You obivously dont know much about how these work.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

I'll repeat myself here, REFRESH RATE ON AN LCD DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THERE IS NOTHING TO REFRESH.

CRT's paint an image on the screen really fast and has to keep painting because it's not a single solid image. CRT's use a beam of energy to paint the image on a mesh with holes known as a phosphor screen, these holes can be as little as .22mm in diameter. (The old NEC CRT that for a long time was MPC best of the best)

LCD panels send signals to each individual pixel on your display to display a color. This makes the whole thing about refresh rates moot. 

LCD's do have Pixel Response times and the lowest possible time is the best best. 1ms is freaking awesome.

When it comes to lag, I can only imagine that it has something to do with the cable that is being used to the connect the PC to the display or the interior wiring of the monitor. As I said before, I've never ever ran into a recent LCD that had any kind of lag. 

I know a lot about how these things work. Not only do I have 29+ years of experience as an enthusiast, I am also going to college and I'm actually taking a class that goes into extreme detail about how everything in a computer works and why. It's a Prerequisite for the A+ class. 

avatar

smashingpumpin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjePCW02U78&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00

I thought it was actually the Sony F520 having a refresh rate greater than 120HZ that made MaxPC GOTY more than a couple of times, from what year are you basing the NEC from?

As much as you sound well-informed on how images are rendered on both techs(CRTs and LCDs), you need to do some real world testing which most people already done on most techsites, forums and heck even youtube (just type "lcd input lag")

_________________________________________________________________________________

right before clicking SAVE, I felt a presence behind me with a knife saying "CAPTCHA BITCH!"

 

 

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

No, the NEC CRT, I think it had a 22" visible display with a .22mm super fine aperture grill. 

When it comes to refresh rate on an LCD it's mostly just selling point BS. Like the contrast ratio is just BS. 5,000,000:1 contrast ratio really sounds like it's gotta be great because it's a really big number. That contrast ratio is the difference in contrast from black to white. LOL.. It's just BS. 

Trust me, don't worry about refresh rate when it comes to an LCD. If it says 60 or 120hz I'd go ahead and get the 120hz, but don't think that has anything to do with the screen refresh rate because when it comes to LCD's there is no refresh at all. 

Perhaps the 120hz has something to do with the signal processing, I don't know. It sure does sound like a gimmick to me though. 

But before you purchase a display, be sure to check the net for comments to find out if the complaints are something you can live with. If the complaints are about a display that quit working, I wouldn't pay attention to those. Look for complaints about dead pixels, back light failures, and yes if anyone is complaining about lag check to see if there are more complaints about lag on that monitor. Check to see if there are complaints about artifacts and problems displaying water and certain graphics and videos. 

avatar

mikemurdock

Refresh rate on an LCD is very easy to understand. 1ms GTG just means that the pixels can change color that fast, that is all (which is still important).

The refresh rate is simply how often the monitor is "refreshed", or how often it is told to display something different. If you have a monitor with 1Hz refresh rate, and 1ms Pixel refresh, your monitor is going to display 1 Frame per Second, as it is only being supplied with a new image every 1 second (1Hz). Where that 1ms comes in is AFTER the monitor has been refreshed. It will then take 1ms for the pixels to change from the color they were displaying before, to the new color.

LCD monitors work a little differently than CRTs in terms of refreshing though. They refresh in rows and columns, so they will actually have a horizontal refresh, AND a vertical refresh.

Refresh rate is VERY important, say for when you are playing a video game. Sure, you might show that youre getting 80FPS or 200FPS, but if your monitor is a 60Hz monitor, you are only physically seeing 60FPS. This is also why you have the option for VSync in games, because whats the point of pushing more frames into the buffer than your monitor can actually display?

avatar

Dragos420

During my search for a new monitor, I spent several hours looking into the differences between 60hz and 120hz.  After gathering enough information, it was actually really simple.

A 60hz monitor will ask your graphics card for a new image to display 60 times a second, in exact 1/60th of a second intervals.  As stated above, this limits your on-screen FPS to 60, regardless of how many frames your graphics card is actually processing (overprocessing).  So if your graphics card is processing 120 frames every second, the monitor will not display the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc. frames, as it will not ask for a frame during those times.

Secondly, and this is what was most discussed and least understood, is the effect a 60hz refresh rate has on movies.  The movie industry uses 24 frames per second to film.  Let's check the math here:

at 60hz refresh rate:  60/24=2.5

at 120hz refresh rate:  120/24=5

What this means is that when watching the next blockbuster on a 60hz monitor, each frame would stay on screen for 2.5 frames or 2.5/60th of a second.  The problem is, that's impossible.  It can only refresh at 2/60th of a second or 3/60th of a second.  So the monitor is forced into 2:3 mode (as i heard it called) where it will display the first image for 2 frames, the next image for 3 frames, 2 frames, 3 frames, etc.  This produces a slight stutter or jitter because images are displayed on screen for different amounts of time.  With 120hz, every image in a movie is displayed for 5 frames, or 5/120th of a second, eliminating the stutter when watching a 24fps movie.  Personally, I never noticed this supposed stutter, but neither have I seen a 60hz and 120hz monitor side by side to compare.

I hope I explained that successfully, as it took me visits to several forums to understand it myself.  But is this a big deal?  Not really, maybe for a television if you watch a lot of movies and like the smooth feel of 120hz, but with the average computer becoming so much more powerful, I don't see how a switch to 120hz mainstream would be a bad thing.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.