I'm planning to buy an LCD, either a Chimei 946A, with 2ms response, or the 958A, with 5ms, but a higher resolution. Is there any noticeable difference between these response times, or am I splitting hairs?
What's the resolution difference between them? I'd personally opt for the higher resolution model either way because you (and most every other individual) won't notice the difference between 2 ms and 5 ms.
Depends what you're playing, fast moving or dark games may have noticable ghosting. Or a dark screen with a white mouse arrow. 2ms is better, but theres no reason you cant get a higher resolution screen with the same ms. I use a samsung syncmaster 932GW, the 932GW(not to be cnofused with 932b, 932bw, or anything else) is a bit harder to find, its their art series. It's 16:10, 1440:900 with 2ms. it works great if you're looking at it straight on, but if you sit low like i do (im short) you may notice some problems, also the stand it comes with is tough to get on, and has zero adjustability. Spend the extra 10-20$ and get the higher resolution screen with the 2ms responce times. Otherwise you may regret not doing so later.
There will be absolutely NO difference... If you think about it, response times mean nothing nowadays. Since most LCDs refresh at 60Hz, then there is a max of 60 frames per second. Taking 1000ms divided by 60Hz gives you 16.6666... ms. Anything lower than that will be indistinguishable.
deceived, this is serious The 946A has a resolution of 1440x900 with a contrast ratio of 600:1, and the 958A is 1680x1050 with a ratio of 4000:1. The one with the lower response time is actually cheaper, but seeing as you guys say there is no noticable difference anyway, I think I may go with the one with the greater contrast ratio.
Sorry I couldnt help myself, IMHO the best way to find out which monitor you want is to see them in action , you will never find which has the picture quality by specs. A Acer mon may have ace specs but a sony monitor will most likey outshine(forgive the pun) it even with lower specs. Next to that get user reviews, like some of the suggestions from these guys. Well thats my 2pence anyway!
Well put. I've been thinking about getting an LCD for about a year, but have always kept the 946A in mind. Basically because it's cheap. There's also a store nearby which has started selling both these models, so I suppose I'll go in there for a look (and then buy it off the 'net for a better price ~$100 less) The only things I can honestly say I'm worried about are dead pixels, and a dim picture. The LCDs I use at college work fine with games (even if they are the bulk order HP deals schools usually get), even at lower resolutions. Sheninator, good point. The last time I even asked about an LCD was in about 2003, when they has like 30ms responses.
timely thread, I've been thinking about this too. But, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an LCD with a "refresh rate" (is that phrase really even applicable to LCDs?) less than 75 Hz. Subbing that value into the calculation gives 13.33... still no worries. I gather the 2ms is black to white? (wicked!) It seems like 99% of mfctrs deal only in GTG, in which case that number (i.e. the point you could tell a diff.)would be cut in half again. So a person may be able to see a diff where GTG climbs above 6.67. Does that sound right?
Hey i have the 22 inch art series monitor, incredible the SyncMaster 2232 GW with the glare finish on it. I know what you mean about hard to find for the art series. Took me a while to find my 2232GW.
anything under 8ms and your eyes cant notice the difference its the same with frps anything over 40 your eyes cant notice any difference lol
Well, with FPS its not really about seeing it but distinguishing between whether something looks like it's running smoothly or isn't, and ye I can understand what you mean but I can notice when the fps goes down to 60 from 100 or so.
