Upvote Upvoted 0 Downvote Downvoted
Monitor Response Time Questions
posted in Q/A Help
1
#1
0 Frags +

If I have a 144hz monitor and limit the hz* to 120 will it still have a 1ms gtg response time or will it increase because the hz is lower? If it does increase, then how are some older monitors able to have 1ms gtg response time with 120hz?

If I have a 144hz monitor and limit the hz* to 120 will it still have a 1ms gtg response time or will it increase because the hz is lower? If it does increase, then how are some older monitors able to have 1ms gtg response time with 120hz?
2
#2
5 Frags +

Response time and fps are not related.
If you send the monitor one new frame per month and actually changing the pixel from one colour to another takes 1ms the response time is still 1ms.
Of course 120 fps on 144 Hz will look like shit because of screen tearing.

Response time and Hz are related.
For obvious reasons you can't display a new frame every 1/120th of a second if your response time is higher than that. So higher refresh rates require lower response times to work. Not 1ms though.

Also 1ms response times are marketing garbage.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_mg248q/response_1.png

That's a "1ms" 144 Hz monitor.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#detailed_response
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#display_comparisons

Response time and fps are not related.
If you send the monitor one new frame per month and actually changing the pixel from one colour to another takes 1ms the response time is still 1ms.
Of course 120 fps on 144 Hz will look like shit because of screen tearing.

Response time and Hz are related.
For obvious reasons you can't display a new frame every 1/120th of a second if your response time is higher than that. So higher refresh rates require lower response times to work. Not 1ms though.

Also 1ms response times are marketing garbage.
[img]http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_mg248q/response_1.png[/img]
That's a "1ms" 144 Hz monitor.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#detailed_response
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#display_comparisons
3
#3
0 Frags +

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know:
-A monitor's refresh rate is how quickly your monitor displays a new frame
while
-A monitor's response time is how fast the pixels change color.

Also why not just take advantage of the extra hz?

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know:
-A monitor's refresh rate is how quickly your monitor displays a new frame
while
-A monitor's response time is how fast the pixels change color.

Also why not just take advantage of the extra hz?
4
#4
0 Frags +
SetsulResponse time and fps are not related.

yeah, that ended up being a typo on my end; mentioned fps but meant to type hz, fixed it

RavexAlso why not just take advantage of the extra hz?

Its easier for me to get over 120 constant than 144 constant

[quote=Setsul]Response time and fps are not related.
[/quote]
yeah, that ended up being a typo on my end; mentioned fps but meant to type hz, fixed it

[quote=Ravex]
Also why not just take advantage of the extra hz?[/quote]
Its easier for me to get over 120 constant than 144 constant
5
#5
3 Frags +

I wouldn't worry about response time.
Simply getting 120 fps (~8.3ms frametime) instead of 144 fps (~7.9ms) matters more than that. Input lag and everything else will scale roughly with the fps so 144/120 = 1.2 -> about 20% more. Prendered frames and everything else in the chain take multiple frame times so 1ms more or less on the monitor response time is the least of your worries.

You have to choose between terrible screen tearing or slightly higher input lag.
Do you want your eyes to bleed because you believe that the 4ms lower input lag are worth it and will make you a better player or because you paid for 144 Hz and absolutely have to use it?
Or do you want to actually be able to enjoy games while being at an absolutely massive disadvantage compared to all the 144 Hz or even 240 Hz gamers (well their advantage wouldn't change much either way).

I wouldn't worry about response time.
Simply getting 120 fps (~8.3ms frametime) instead of 144 fps (~7.9ms) matters more than that. Input lag and everything else will scale roughly with the fps so 144/120 = 1.2 -> about 20% more. Prendered frames and everything else in the chain take multiple frame times so 1ms more or less on the monitor response time is the least of your worries.

You have to choose between terrible screen tearing or slightly higher input lag.
Do you want your eyes to bleed because you believe that the 4ms lower input lag are worth it and will make you a better player or because you paid for 144 Hz and absolutely have to use it?
Or do you want to actually be able to enjoy games while being at an absolutely massive disadvantage compared to all the 144 Hz or even 240 Hz gamers (well their advantage wouldn't change much either way).
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.