why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
I was browsing the NEC website and noticed that their expensive lcds
($700-$1000) have high response times, like 25ms.  The site also said
that the monitor was great for graphics and video.  How can this be
with such a slow response time?  I guess that there is some other
aspect to the monitor that counteracts this, but I have no idea what.
Could someone enlighten me?

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

cstewar wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's advertising claims, pure and simple!  As a matter of fact 25ms is
piss-poor performance for video, but because it's advertising, they're
going to say the exact opposite since it helps sales.

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

The specific monitor I was looking at is $700 on amazon, the NEC
lcd1980sxi.  There has to be something special about it but I can't see

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

different companies use different methods to measure the ms.  That is
horrible performance though.  If your looking at getting a decent LCD look
up reviews. Here is the one I have and I love it. Viewsonic VP191b


I got a good deal on it is the reason I got it, I still think it is a bit

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is not what I experience.

I use 2 Samsung 213T 21.3" TFTs (25ms)
1600x1200 60Hz native
ATI Radeon 9800XT
 DVI-I Monitor 1 (native)
 VGA Monitor 2 (native)

I play BF1942 & BF2 for example at native and see no artifacts at all.

I am competely satisfied with gaming performance and all other visuals

I will NEVER go back to CRTs for a computer.

Before I bought the Samsungs I was used to some pretty good CRTs.
ie ViewSonic P225f 22" aperture grille and a P817 21" shadow mask
(likely the best monitor that company ever produced).

There is no real standard for Response Time that ALL mfrs follow.
There are different methods and sometimes the lower numbers reflect
only a part of what others list being reported or they may be
measuring something very different.

cstewar google "LCD Respose Time" and you should find a better
explaination of what can be measured.

Happy trailz

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

for games 25ms can be slow, but they build these slower responce time
monitor because they can produce more colors than a 12ms monitor. If you are
a webdesigner you better buy a 20ms,25ms or up lcd monitor (the best for
colorreproduction is still the old crt monitor) because it just looks
better, for games it can be wiser to get 20ms or faster, but you must
consider the faster the responcetime the lesser colors it can show at the
same time. Fast responcetimes arent always better (the most beautiful lcd
screens i have seen were 20ms or 25ms). A friend of mine has an older 50ms
lcd monitor and he enjoys playing games for time to time and doesnt have any
trouble with normal gaming. And its not always that a monitor with the
highest responcetime is the best for games, i have seen in tests that a 20ms
monitor did a better job then a 12 or 16ms monitor. Ask for a demonstration
of the monitor you like in a shop, maybe they have a 3dmark test (always has
some gaming tests). Good luck.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Heres a perfect example. I mentioned this in posts elsewhere. In
Europe and Australia I noticed they are much more savvy. They really
make a big deal about 6 bit panels and 8 bit while in the US everyone
tends to focus totally on response time.  Toms Hardware and Anandtech
both made the point you cant take the figures they give at face value
.. Heres a bit from a review  :

 Just to rehash - we donít have a lot of faith in advertised response
times. If there are significant response time differences, there is
usually a hit in performance somewhere else, like luminance or
contrast ratio. It becomes easy to fall prey to benchmarks that
measure response times in only certain scenarios, which is why all of
our reviews use comprehensive real world comparisons between all of
our displays to set the playing field level.


Heres some bits from a early test of a BenQ FP931 which was popular as
one of the fast 19" coming on the scene a while ago its a 6 bit but it
was faster than the 25ms standard time.

BenQ's FP931 is based on a TN 6-bit LCD panel. While it is advertised
as a 16.2M color display, each pixel can only display 262,000 hues;
the other 16M hues are "simulated" using dithering techniques.

You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board
with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy
for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256
different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of
blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can
render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD.



Thats not to say 6 bits are bad either. I have a 6 bit Viewsonic and I
actually dont notice any problems though a review in the UK where its
was reviewed postively they said they saw banding when they tested it
with LCD test software that shows a zillion shades to show color
accuracy. But then I dont do critical graphics work.  So though people
in the US tend to view greated that 16ms panels as KA KA , in Europe I
see posts at sites where they talk about using an 8 bit to watch
movies and do graphics work and a 6 bit panel for games and even then
as the poster says its not quite as simple as going by reponse times.
Ive seen posts from consumers where they claim some slow reponse time
rated screens were OK with games.

Re: why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Until you use the unit, specs don't mean a thing. And it's personal.
My 25-30ms response time ancient NEC 1860NX outperforms both in image
quality and responsiveness the latest 16ms models from Samsung and
Viewsonic that I tried.

Site Timeline