8ms LCD

Peter D

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2002
3,603
0
0
Welcome to AT

Personally, I'd wait for some other manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Benq, etc. to come out with their renditions of an 8ms monitor, then make my choice based on some reviews.

Also, sometimes the first versions of things based on new technology can have bugs that are often fixed with a revision.
 

DanDaMan315

Golden Member
Oct 25, 2004
1,366
0
0
Theres no ghosting on a 12ms so whats the point of shelling out big bucks to get 8ms. (NEVER seen any ghosting on my 19" 12ms lcd)
 

IlllI

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2002
4,927
10
81
Originally posted by: ohknarf
supposly 8ms LCD can handle higher fps is that true?


i think so, but as with all these low ms lcds, at the sacrifice of color accuracy

 

Waylay00

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2004
1,793
0
71
And the human eye can only process about 60fps so anything beyond a 12ms is pointless.
 

dionx

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
3,500
1
81
i'm running dual 16ms Viewsonic VP171B and when i first saw the 8ms specification on newegg, i definitely thought it was a typo, considering the price of the LCD is about $370 whereas i paid $500 a piece for mine at the time.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Originally posted by: skunkbuster
Originally posted by: ohknarf
supposly 8ms LCD can handle higher fps is that true?


i think so, but as with all these low ms lcds, at the sacrifice of color accuracy

There are plenty of 12ms panels with a full 16.7m color rating. The Samsung 712N and 710T for example.
 

Pandamonium

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2001
1,628
0
76
Originally posted by: Waylay00
And the human eye can only process about 60fps so anything beyond a 12ms is pointless.

Everyone's different - you can't accurately make a sweeping statement like this.

Anyway, the best thing you can do when shopping for an LCD is to simply go to a store and try it out. The same can be said for speakers.
 

amol

Lifer
Jul 8, 2001
11,679
1
0
Originally posted by: skunkbuster
Originally posted by: ohknarf
supposly 8ms LCD can handle higher fps is that true?


i think so, but as with all these low ms lcds, at the sacrifice of color accuracy

i dont think response time has ANYTHING to do with f.p.s. . . .
 

Waylay00

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2004
1,793
0
71
yes response time does have to do with fps. 1000ms/25ms = 40fps and 1000ms/12ms = 83fps, so on and so on.
 

dionx

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
3,500
1
81
i run UT2004 at 1280x1024 at about normal settings. my general FPS using a Ti4200 is about 40-60 fps. so you are telling me by getting a 12ms panel, that i can get 83FPS now? your logic baffles me.

especially since 1000ms/12ms = 83, but that is unitless. FPS is FRAMES PER SECOND.
 

Waylay00

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2004
1,793
0
71
Originally posted by: dionx
i run UT2004 at 1280x1024 at about normal settings. my general FPS using a Ti4200 is about 40-60 fps. so you are telling me by getting a 12ms panel, that i can get 83FPS now? your logic baffles me.

especially since 1000ms/12ms = 83, but that is unitless. FPS is FRAMES PER SECOND.

Yes, I'm not stupid...But I belive that you are wrong. YOUR logic baffles me. No I'm not telling you that if you get a 12ms panel that you will automatically get 83fps. I'm sayin that the max fps that your MONITOR can generate is 83fps.

Take a look - http://fuhquake.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1575
 

rikadik

Senior member
Dec 30, 2004
649
0
0
Waylay is clearly right - its perfectly logical to say that the FPS your monitor can support is 1 second divided by the response time. In other words, the frame rate of the monitor is 1 frame per the response time.
 

h3nG

Senior member
Jan 2, 2003
212
0
0
what's with these odd figures people are throwing around...they're just approximates, almost meaningless if discussing whether you'll notice the ghosting.

if you can't notice ghosting on lcds...good for you, i guess. but making statements that others will not notice it is incorrect.

for a lot of people ghosting, even at 8ms it is still detectable. even at 12ms, i personally think it's still a problem. a 8ms lcd doesn't mean iit's 8ms. those figures dont always work out that way, which is the problem with using these numbers to decide. my friend's 20ms monitor ghosted less then my old 16ms monitor.

though i can see how waylay got his math, it doesn't work in the case of lcds. because the pixels does not function at a constant 8ms or 12ms for every change. you can look at running a demo and getting a final overal fps count of 60fps, but when you pay the actual game, there are spots in the game that spikes down to 45, thus you can detect the jumps. maybe not the best example, but sorta like that.

anyways, back to answer op's questions...8ms monitors are still rare. i would give it a few more months for competitors to jump in the market...or wait for reviews. anyways, that sony is bound to be priced higher than most other monitors. and it looks kinda weird.
 

dionx

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
3,500
1
81
Originally posted by: Waylay00
Originally posted by: dionx
i run UT2004 at 1280x1024 at about normal settings. my general FPS using a Ti4200 is about 40-60 fps. so you are telling me by getting a 12ms panel, that i can get 83FPS now? your logic baffles me.

especially since 1000ms/12ms = 83, but that is unitless. FPS is FRAMES PER SECOND.

Yes, I'm not stupid...But I belive that you are wrong. YOUR logic baffles me. No I'm not telling you that if you get a 12ms panel that you will automatically get 83fps. I'm sayin that the max fps that your MONITOR can generate is 83fps.

Take a look - http://fuhquake.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1575

when dealing with FPS, people talk about video cards, not the monitor. the first person to bring up response time dealing with FPS was talking about the video card aspect, you were talking about the LCD aspect, and i was bringing it back to the video card aspect. FPS from the video card is not governed by the monitor unless vsync is on.

besides response time is a measure of the rise and fall of a pixel. i think its gray to gray times. anyways, if the frame in question doesnt need to go to gray to another color back to gray, but rather stay at gray, then the FPS support for the monitor at that instance is higher. you take the assumption that the next sequential frame goes through the exact same pixel transitions
 

Philippine Mango

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2004
5,594
0
0
Originally posted by: Waylay00
And the human eye can only process about 60fps so anything beyond a 12ms is pointless.

Not true, have you ever looked at a 60HZ screen and a 85HZ screen? If you look off to the side you can actually see the screen refreshing. I think above 120HZ could possibly be useless but it's really like saying "they human eye can only see 16.7million colors".
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
specs look good other than the 8ms response time, 600:1 contrast, which is pretty good for a 17" screen, brightness is 400cd/m^2, also very good. The only "downside" would be the 160/160 degree viewing angle, 170/170 would be ideal, so 160 certainly isn't bad, just not the best.

X-brite is also something that many desire, although I consider it partly gimmick and would never base a descision on it.

I don't really care for the design, but if I could find it for slightly cheaper I'd seriously consider getting it as I'm also looking for an LCD monitor for my desktop that can run games. Certainly I consider functionality over appearance, but if there's another montior that is just as good that looks better to me I'd probably pass on the Sony.
 

dionx

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
3,500
1
81
Originally posted by: IamTHEsnake
Dionx, your wrong.

Stop and think about what he's saying.

your wrong for accusing me i'm wrong.

i know what he is trying to say but he never clarified which FPS he was referring to in the beggining, whether it was video card or monitor.

first he says
yes response time does have to do with fps. 1000ms/25ms = 40fps and 1000ms/12ms = 83fps, so on and so on.

but he doesnt mention that he is talking about the monitor. so my next response is obviously from the standpoint of the video card generating such and such FPS, since i point out UT2004. if i run original UT, my video card is going to generate nearly 100 FPS. if i run UT2004, its about 40-60FPS. just because the monitor can only display 83 FPS doesn't mean it's going to limit my video card from rendering the 100 FPS in original UT.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |