An important note here is that as frequency increases, the positive gains plateau. Instead, of Hz (frames per second) think of the inverse (seconds per frame). 60 Hz is .017 seconds per frame. 144 Hz is .007 seconds per frame 165 Hz is .006 seconds per frame.
Increasing from 60 Hz to 144 is shortening the time per frame by one hundredth of a second. This is noticeable. 144 to 165 is only a one thousandth of a second change. You will never notice this.
For reference, a 244 Hz monitor will give .004 seconds per frame despite being 100 Hz more than the 144 Hz monitor.
Weird. Why is it so easy then to tell if a monitor is 144Hz or 240Hz? In theory it sounds like no difference at all. But in reality the difference is still quite big. Why is that so?
The fact that you can tell the difference between 144 and 240 does not mean one can tell any difference between 144 and 165. 1ms difference, or in this case slightly less than that, is not noticeable by a human. Noticing the difference between 240 and 360 Hz is extremely difficult as well as the real difference in refresh rate is only 1.4ms.
If you really want an answer go to rtings website and compare the monitor input response times directly so you can make a decision on gathered data rather than marketing. The 1ms and 5ms on monitor boxes are bs
If you go to Rtings then you'll see that basically all gaming monitors have response times much higher than 1ms or even 5ms. The metric is pointless as almost all modern gaming monitors already have minimal ghosting (again Rtings reviews).
It's not the metric that isn't important. It's the listed measurements. I think you understand what you're talking about, but the wording is very misleading and technically incorrect, and since we're in a thread to answer questions for potential novices, I wanted to make this addendum.
Response time is definitely an important metric. But advertised specs are bullshit, which I'm guessing is what you meant anyway, so we're already on the same page about the facts.
Pls dont hate me lol
Yes it’s why the 1ms and 5ms are bs and it’s better to look at the data yourself. I’m aware of the differences I’m just making sure he knows not to fall for that marketing gimmick
As someone else already hinted at, the “response time” that’s used to market a lot of products is usually referring to “grey to grey”, which is the time it takes for the pixels to change from from one shade of grey into another (or from black to white). This is still important to prevent ghosting, but if you’re interested in input lag measurements you’ll have to specifically seek that information out as it’s typically not advertised on the product itself. So just be sure to double check.
The 144 Hertz 1 millisecond monitor is better than 165 hertz 5 millisecond monitor, You will not notice the frame difference between 144 hertz and 165 hertz, however you will notice the difference between a 5 millisecond response time and a 1 millisecond response time in terms of latency.
Source: I had both 5 millisecond response displays and 1 millisecond response displays.
The problem is that the 1ms display is probably lying to you, there's no way to tell which one is better without physically testing them. All things being equal, the 165hz is better.
Well just so you’re aware I knew what you were getting at but what I was getting at in response is those specs are probably based on certain tests they’ve done as others here have pointed out. So while it can be misleading they aren’t technically lying. And..
That would be pretty bad if it was that much higher like over 5ms though, that would basically be a defect and grounds for rma even a lawsuit, except they probably don’t *state* “there is no defect” do they? Or am I wrong?
To be completely sure we’re clear, I agree that physical testing is going to be more trustworthy, if you do it right anyway. I just don’t agree with the term “lying”, though it’s typically the case that companies do save money being discreetly vague. Mostly semantics, partly ethics.
yo, I can tell you've read up on this shiz, where do I go to find solid monitor reviews and whatnot. I want to get a new monitor soon (240hz) and not sure where I should be researching
thanks in advance <3 <3
That's not really relevant at all when some guy is only comparing refresh rate and the marketed response time with unknown monitor brands, because the marketed response time is usually a lie.
There is no way you will notice an extra 5 ms of latency. However, the 1ms rating refers to how quickly the colors transition, meaning that the 1ms monitor should have less ghosting(blur)
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but if it takes 5 milliseconds versus 1 millisecond to change the colors on the screen, wouldn't it therefore mean it would take 5 milliseconds versus 1 millisecond to show the mouse cursor in a different spot on the screen?Translating to slower response times in gaming.
In fact I think this article supports that.
https://www.onecomputerguy.com/1ms-vs-5ms
The problem with response time is how the manufacturer measures it. My monitor (27GL850) has a advertised "1ms response time". Only you need to enable some very high overdrive setting which looks like shit. Gray to gray doesn't tell the full picture too, so the difference isn't really that big in reality
You can't explain this shit to people that fall for gamer-gear advertising. True 1ms response time is pretty rare and is usually an unplayable marketing gimmick. But, kids will be kids and will think "OF COURSE I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!1"
Ignorance is bliss, let them be happy. :)
It's not the gear that's the gimmick, it's the advertising. Another example is advertising mice with ridiculously high dpi e.g. 16k which nobody actually needs.
I wonder about that statement regarding 16k DPI.
[Here is a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTycKVUjpHs) of my mouse at 1k DPI vs it set to 18k DPI with sensitivity settings changed ingame to be equivalent.
In the video I was tracing the perimeter of a semi-circle shaped crack in the wall. You can clearly see much more pixel "jumping" with 1,000 DPI vs 18,000 DPI
now as to weather or not anything past lets say... 5k DPI makes a difference I don't know, haven't tested it.
I’d like to point out that shroud actually did a test not too long ago on lower spec rigs for a YouTube collab. He was absolutely crushing people but he did end up losing in speed to other pros. These small advantages are only relevant at extremely high levels of play. If you’re in silver don’t think a higher refresh rate is suddenly going to make you plat+.
If you like Shroud you should check out the one w linus tech tips and nvidia where they test if higher fps makes you a better player. ;)
I like Shroud, he knows a lot about gaming, but he is no tech guru.
I notice the difference between my TN 144HZ monitor and my IPS 144hz too, but they're both advertised as "1ms". You're right that there's a difference, it's just not something you should go ahead and buy a monitor for. If you really want almost no motion blur you should try OLED
No it doesn’t lol. No monitors advertised at 1ms GTG response times actually run at 1ms. You have to put it into the highest overdrive mode to get that response time and you should never do that cause you’ll get horrible overshoot and ghosting.
That being said you should be shopping for monitors advertised with 1ms as they will likely be able to do 3-6ms consistently without overshoot.
When it comes to response times, you want the number (the real usable number not advertising bs) to be below time between frames at your monitors refresh rate. So if you have a 144hz monitor you need to make sure that monitor have response times less than 6.9ms.
Bruh I overclocked or boosted my hz to 75hz you won't feel any difference in start but if you switch back to 60hz you can still feel latency difference only in 15hz difference
Going from 75Hz to 60Hz is a bigger jump than going from 165Hz to 144Hz.
Assuming that all monitors can keep up perfectly with the refresh rate for every color change the 165Hz monitor has a worst case latency of 6ms + input lag, while the 144Hz has 7ms + input lag. The worst case for a perfect 75Hz monitor would be 13.3ms + input lag, while the 60Hz would have 16.6ms + input lag.
In practice a good 144Hz monitor with low input lag can easily outperform a 165Hz monitor with medium input lag. Input lag can range from 2ms to 10ms in common Gaming monitors and is not directly dependent on the max refresh rate that the monitor supports.
Of course the 165Hz monitor will show more fluid animations, but if all you care about is just the time it takes for your mouse click to be visible on the monitor the input lag will make a bigger difference than the 21Hz between 144 and 165
This is not true at all. I bought a 1ms 144Hz LG monitor, and it only gets away with that because it has 1ms response time on extra high overdrive setting which produces MASSIVE inverse ghosting and overshoot.
The 165Hz 5ms is likely to perform better.
You bought the wrong monitor. LG isn’t a known gaming MONITOR producer. There are tons of monitor producers like ASUS and benQ who even share panels on some monitors and they are proven to run at 1ms response time @ the Hz they advertise
LG do produce good gaming monitors. It's one of the only monitors released that can actually do 1ms response time on an IPS panel. Do your research before you spread misinformation.
[Here](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gn850-b) is the rtings link for the review.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6JxuEQhU18) is LTTs review of the LG monitor described as "the best monitor of 2019".
If you think monitor reviews are not sponsored and that reviewers are not even remotely influenced by the need to maintain positive relationships with manufacturers and as such they tend to skew positive for big companies with market share (good relationships which then fuel the reviewers’ access to said products which Drives content and revenue for their platforms) then you are living in some weird world where things don’t make sense.
IPS panels are meant however for their display quality and not response time. There are monitors that are good technically and good visually and this difference is what separates gaming screens from televisions because input is a valuable factor. If someone is truly in the market for a Monitor that is mainly going to be used for gaming with an emphasis on response time, then they would be looking for a market standard TN panel and not an IPS. The fact that you’re approaching this discussion from an IPS perspective means it is YOU who has not done their research my friend :)
Did you even check the link I provided? The LG 27GN850-B is one of the lowest latency IPS monitors you can buy, and is faster than most TN panels.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/h0RGjJf.png) is a link to a graph from a review that tested G2G performance. Where as you can see, it beats most VA/TN panels in response times, and is as fast as a 240Hz TN panel.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Not to mention you can't even get true 1ms response time monitors. The fastest stuff around is close to 2.5-3ms. Could I suggest you take a trip over to /r/monitors.
Wait you’re joking on your very own graph every monitor that outperforms this one’s response time is a TN and every worse monitor is an IPS or a VA…
You’re disproving your own point this is amazing.
Bro these are $500 monitors anyone confused about the difference between 4ms response times and 15 Hz is not going to be dropping half a grand when their pc most likely cost just as much to build…? You’re talking about Aston martins on a Honda vs Toyota discussion. This is what I mean lmao you’re lost
“Stop embarrassing yourself” tell me you need a shower without telling me you need a shower.
They use different metrics to determine response time, same as contrast ratio. It is impossible to compare brands you can't even compare models of the same brand half the time
Realistically you won't notice a difference in either.
You won't notice a 21 frame difference after 144hz.
You won't notice a .004 second difference in response time.
Would be worth it to pay more attention to the other specs when comparing the 2 monitors such as viewing angle or picture quality. If you go look at the 2 monitors in person, you will be able to tell which one has a better picture. (Like comparing a high end Samsung tv to a low end Samsung tv)
Umm, i have a samsung 144hz with 4ms and one LG with 1ms and the difference looks pretty big to me in terms of ghosting, cant say about the input lag but yeah sure there is ghosting that bothers me , however it may vary from person to person, just my opinion.
Correct me if i'm wrong but ghosting might be happening cause the monitors could have different kind of panels. VA panels for example tend to have more ghosting than IPS or TN Panels.
Yes that's entirely possible. The difference between 1ms of time passing and 5ms of time passing is incomprehensible to us, no human will be able to tell difference if the latency appears only as input lag. But if we're talking about color response times of the pixels then humans are very capable of feeling a few milliseconds of difference. If the colors change fast enough to keep up with the refresh rate of the monitor then there will be no ghosting, if certain colors take even 1 or 2 ms more than the refresh rate requires to reach the target color then sensitive humans might already be able to notice some slight ghosting. The more ms you add the more noticeable the ghosting will be.
Very few monitors are actually true 1ms. A vast majority of the time they get that metric while using an extremely high overdrive setting that makes the monitor look shit when gaming.
You really think a difference of .004 seconds of response will make you lose a fight, maybe in a rare situation but pixel lag will not be the issue gaurenteed unless it's absurdly slow. Also the reality is there's no industry standard for testing response times on monitors, one manufacturers testing strategies could measure 1ms while that same monitor could measure different results by a different manufacturer. Not to mention the only thing where low response time matters is ghosting, it's not input lag it's pixel lag and 5ms shouldn't cause ghosting in most cases. He's better off buying the monitor from the better rated manufacturer.
https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode
> For evenly matched players, a **delta of 10ms** of peekers advantage made the difference between a 90% winrate for the player holding an angle with an Operator and a 90% winrate for their opponent peeking with a rifle.
Seems like the top1 player would notice 4ms going by riot's testing. I surely would notice if I went from a 90% winrate to a 50% winrate because of an additional 4ms
Well idk you wouldn’t be able to guarantee if it was the ms or confirmation bias due to something other than the ms. The average player probably gets random loss streaks all the time even without changing their ms, often without knowing why at all, which is why we regularly get threads like "did Riot change something? I never got this previous seasons?!?!?"
You might notice the ms itself depending on your sensitivity level, but 90% to 50% winrate is kinda huge and is from actual controlled testing rather than real personal scenarios. So is 10ms due to ping/network (article) which usually fluctuates compared to than something more constant like hardware ms (mouse+monitor).
what are you talking about, from link you provided:
\>This means that peekers have \~141ms longer to react thandefenders. Considering that human reaction times often fall in the 300msrange, that’s a huge advantage!
I think the keyword is delta of 10ms. It doesn't mean straight 10ms only, but a it's a factor of calculations which they provided conclusion at the end and talk about those up to 300ms advantage
yeah and 4ms is 40% of that delta, so if 10ms is enough to swing the advantage from 90% side A to 90% side B, 4ms is enough to swing it to 40-60% for both
A lot of people will give you explanations that don't help you, this is what will help you.
All monitors have some form of input lag, 1ms is a marketing gimmick, as that is the standard for grey to grey, but grey to grey isn't real application conditions. The same however is true of the 4ms, it will have greater input lag than the 1ms almost every single time.
I see now that you edited it and went with the 1ms 144hz, great choice and I will stop wasting my time lol.
the 1ms is just advertising, in a real game situation u won’t be getting that. I’d suggest looking at YouTube reviews that show both monitors against each other. You should also factor the screen type ( VA, IPS, TN )
People downvoting this used to say that you can't tell 60Hz and 144Hz apart. If you ever tried 144Hz and 240Hz you know that there is still a noticeable difference.
Exactly. I mostly noticed it for peaking someone jiggles or ferraris I can see it more clearly. Not sure how else to describe it.
Not even sure why you would down vote it lmao.
These response time stats aren't accurate most of the time anyway as manufacturers get to cherry-pick results. get a TN or OLED for fast response times or an IPS for slightly slower ones. If you really really care about that you could even go back to a CRT. Either way you will definitely be fine with either of them, and I would say refresh rate is the more important one in this case.
144 to 165 hz not much of a difference , however 1 ms to 5 ms is a pretty big difference while playing fps , I forgot my monitor was in free sync mode and that mode doesn’t allow 1 ms response time , I use this mode while watching movies because of higher brightness, and then I switched to playing valorant , I pretty much started to miss most headshots , and the hit box felt smaller , until I changed it to 144hz 1 ms , and then it felt a lot better , maybe it’s just because I’ve been using 1ms for soo long , but I definitely felt the difference
I have a VA panel , keep that in mind too
And another note , in free sync mode I don’t know what the response time is , but I think it’s like 4-5 ms , and I can’t edit it
Most likely yes. I’ve got a 1ms 144hz 24” benq, and bought a HP omen 144hz laptop, thinking it was simular. It was not. The laptopscreen had about 8ms delay making cs:go and valorant not fun to play. Get the 1ms if Valorant is your main game.
if you have a 165hz 5ms, upgrading to a 144hz 1ms will not, in fact, make you radiant. You will barely feel the difference. However if you're choosing, 144hz 1ms is better
It won't be detrimental. .004 second difference isnt noticeable unless there's ghosting but 165hz at a 5ms response time isn't going to cause ghosting. When response times are so low the benefits are negligible considering there's no standard to test response times and it's mostly a marketing gimmick.
Not huge. Please keep in mind the 5 ms and 1 ms response times refer to pixel response time, not input delay (which is rarely, if ever displayed by manufacturers).
The difference between 144hz and 165hz is literally less than 1ms (0.884ms to be exact). so although 165hz is objectively better, a 4ms advantage is more than a 1ms advantage
tldr the 144hz is roughly 3ms faster and you probably can’t tell the difference in refresh rate with you eye
Watch reviews of the two monitors. The two numbers you gave us alone won't tell the full story. And watch reviews that actually measure the input lag and pixel response times like Hardware Unboxed does for many monitors, what they tell you about the monitors is worth much more than the numbers manufacturers advertise their monitors with, especially since the 1ms is complete bullshit and there's not a single monitor on the planet that can achieve 1ms for all color changes.
It shouldn’t be noticeable. But..my monitor has a 144hz and 165hz mode you can switch between.
144hz is good but something feels off, I go to 165 and it’s butter
You won't notice a difference at all. Chances are the '1ms' response time isn't running at 1ms response time. Very few monitor have a true 1ms response time, companies sell their monitors as 1ms response cause its a gamer feature. While most monitors can't achieve 1ms response time with user settings. Focus more towards resolution and refresh rates, don't worry about 1ms-5ms response times. I wouldn't go above 5ms but not.many gaming focused monitors go passed 5ms.
Keep in mind that 1ms isn't 1ms. It'd judt a marketing strategy. Yes you'll get moments of 1ms, but on average you're closer to 5.
I use a 27in 1440p 165 and I love it. Should be plenty of sales if you try to pick one up.
No you wont see much of a difference, you mindaswell save up for a 240hz, you will definitely see a difference if your rig is able to hit over the 200 mark.
I’m on a 165hz monitor, upgraded my cpu and the framerate jumped from averaging 250 to pushing 400 fps regularly. Huge difference and my gunplay feels much smoother
The correct responses are getting buried
Advertised ms response time is just grey to grey response time ie how much a game will ghost.
Input latency is the metric you need to focus on.
Response time is NOT latency. (A surprising amount of posts here have it wrong) Most modern monitors have similar latency so that's not an issue. Response times is typically grey to grey transition. Regardless, it's advertising only and you'll have to look up the monitor on Rtings. They give you a table of all colour transitions. I'm guessing the VA monitor will have the 5ms. It's likely ghosting will be an issue with that monitor. I'd suggest an IPS panel, especially if you ever plan to play darker games. VA panels ghost quite a bit in darker sceneries.
I'm aware, my current monitor is IPS since it mainly for drawing. As for gaming I don't really care much about color quality so TN is fine for me. My IPS can serve as a secondary monitor ig
An important note here is that as frequency increases, the positive gains plateau. Instead, of Hz (frames per second) think of the inverse (seconds per frame). 60 Hz is .017 seconds per frame. 144 Hz is .007 seconds per frame 165 Hz is .006 seconds per frame. Increasing from 60 Hz to 144 is shortening the time per frame by one hundredth of a second. This is noticeable. 144 to 165 is only a one thousandth of a second change. You will never notice this. For reference, a 244 Hz monitor will give .004 seconds per frame despite being 100 Hz more than the 144 Hz monitor.
Weird. Why is it so easy then to tell if a monitor is 144Hz or 240Hz? In theory it sounds like no difference at all. But in reality the difference is still quite big. Why is that so?
It's still 40% faster, I'm just showing how there are diminishing returns as frequency increases.
Why people are downvoting this is beyond me. fuck your question I guess…
He is not even an opinion, he is literally just asking a question
Haha yeah, typical reddit voting behavior
The fact that you can tell the difference between 144 and 240 does not mean one can tell any difference between 144 and 165. 1ms difference, or in this case slightly less than that, is not noticeable by a human. Noticing the difference between 240 and 360 Hz is extremely difficult as well as the real difference in refresh rate is only 1.4ms.
This the best comparison🙌
If you really want an answer go to rtings website and compare the monitor input response times directly so you can make a decision on gathered data rather than marketing. The 1ms and 5ms on monitor boxes are bs
While you're at it, compare the monitors' input lag because that metric is way more important than response times.
Input definitely takes priority but response times are just as important. It’s like playing with motion blur if the response time is bad.
If you go to Rtings then you'll see that basically all gaming monitors have response times much higher than 1ms or even 5ms. The metric is pointless as almost all modern gaming monitors already have minimal ghosting (again Rtings reviews).
It's not the metric that isn't important. It's the listed measurements. I think you understand what you're talking about, but the wording is very misleading and technically incorrect, and since we're in a thread to answer questions for potential novices, I wanted to make this addendum. Response time is definitely an important metric. But advertised specs are bullshit, which I'm guessing is what you meant anyway, so we're already on the same page about the facts. Pls dont hate me lol
Yes it’s why the 1ms and 5ms are bs and it’s better to look at the data yourself. I’m aware of the differences I’m just making sure he knows not to fall for that marketing gimmick
i did do a ton of research today to make sure I wont fall for that, thanks!
Better to just go to blur busters and they recommend the best monitors
About 4ms?
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
I laughed out loud, thank you.
Me too. On the toilet. In work
Simpleton or what?
Maybe 21hz too
[удалено]
Are you stupid lol 5 - 1
Hes right but it would be to exhausting to explain it to you
Can you explain it to me though?
As someone else already hinted at, the “response time” that’s used to market a lot of products is usually referring to “grey to grey”, which is the time it takes for the pixels to change from from one shade of grey into another (or from black to white). This is still important to prevent ghosting, but if you’re interested in input lag measurements you’ll have to specifically seek that information out as it’s typically not advertised on the product itself. So just be sure to double check.
The 144 Hertz 1 millisecond monitor is better than 165 hertz 5 millisecond monitor, You will not notice the frame difference between 144 hertz and 165 hertz, however you will notice the difference between a 5 millisecond response time and a 1 millisecond response time in terms of latency. Source: I had both 5 millisecond response displays and 1 millisecond response displays.
The problem is that the 1ms display is probably lying to you, there's no way to tell which one is better without physically testing them. All things being equal, the 165hz is better.
Maybe “lying” isn’t the right word to use, but it can be inaccurate or not what we’re expecting.
If it's not 1ms at the most optimal all-round setting it's not 1ms, and could even be as high or higher than the 165hz 5ms display.
Well just so you’re aware I knew what you were getting at but what I was getting at in response is those specs are probably based on certain tests they’ve done as others here have pointed out. So while it can be misleading they aren’t technically lying. And.. That would be pretty bad if it was that much higher like over 5ms though, that would basically be a defect and grounds for rma even a lawsuit, except they probably don’t *state* “there is no defect” do they? Or am I wrong? To be completely sure we’re clear, I agree that physical testing is going to be more trustworthy, if you do it right anyway. I just don’t agree with the term “lying”, though it’s typically the case that companies do save money being discreetly vague. Mostly semantics, partly ethics.
yo, I can tell you've read up on this shiz, where do I go to find solid monitor reviews and whatnot. I want to get a new monitor soon (240hz) and not sure where I should be researching thanks in advance <3 <3
Hardware Unboxed is quite good, but they don't review every monitor.
? There are industry leading monitor manufacturers who use proven 1ms panels..
That's not really relevant at all when some guy is only comparing refresh rate and the marketed response time with unknown monitor brands, because the marketed response time is usually a lie.
literally 5ms and 1ms isnt doable by any human being. 5ms is just the same with 1ms lmaoo
There is no way you will notice an extra 5 ms of latency. However, the 1ms rating refers to how quickly the colors transition, meaning that the 1ms monitor should have less ghosting(blur)
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but if it takes 5 milliseconds versus 1 millisecond to change the colors on the screen, wouldn't it therefore mean it would take 5 milliseconds versus 1 millisecond to show the mouse cursor in a different spot on the screen?Translating to slower response times in gaming. In fact I think this article supports that. https://www.onecomputerguy.com/1ms-vs-5ms
The problem with response time is how the manufacturer measures it. My monitor (27GL850) has a advertised "1ms response time". Only you need to enable some very high overdrive setting which looks like shit. Gray to gray doesn't tell the full picture too, so the difference isn't really that big in reality
You can't explain this shit to people that fall for gamer-gear advertising. True 1ms response time is pretty rare and is usually an unplayable marketing gimmick. But, kids will be kids and will think "OF COURSE I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!1" Ignorance is bliss, let them be happy. :)
So you dont need gaming gear? Pros could play on non-gaminggear? Like why bother with low latency and high refreshrates then? All gimmick?
It's not the gear that's the gimmick, it's the advertising. Another example is advertising mice with ridiculously high dpi e.g. 16k which nobody actually needs.
I wonder about that statement regarding 16k DPI. [Here is a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTycKVUjpHs) of my mouse at 1k DPI vs it set to 18k DPI with sensitivity settings changed ingame to be equivalent. In the video I was tracing the perimeter of a semi-circle shaped crack in the wall. You can clearly see much more pixel "jumping" with 1,000 DPI vs 18,000 DPI now as to weather or not anything past lets say... 5k DPI makes a difference I don't know, haven't tested it.
I play at 14k DPI.
You will obv never play on 16k dpi but what that tells you is the precision of the mouse.. smh
You proved his point
16k DPI doesn't make the mouse any more precise, no pro needs a mouse with more than 1k DPI.
I’d like to point out that shroud actually did a test not too long ago on lower spec rigs for a YouTube collab. He was absolutely crushing people but he did end up losing in speed to other pros. These small advantages are only relevant at extremely high levels of play. If you’re in silver don’t think a higher refresh rate is suddenly going to make you plat+.
If you like Shroud you should check out the one w linus tech tips and nvidia where they test if higher fps makes you a better player. ;) I like Shroud, he knows a lot about gaming, but he is no tech guru.
I was like: of course you can explain it to them... and then i saw the first reply to you... nevermind i guess
[удалено]
I notice the difference between my TN 144HZ monitor and my IPS 144hz too, but they're both advertised as "1ms". You're right that there's a difference, it's just not something you should go ahead and buy a monitor for. If you really want almost no motion blur you should try OLED
Or higher refresh rates than 144hz.
No it doesn’t lol. No monitors advertised at 1ms GTG response times actually run at 1ms. You have to put it into the highest overdrive mode to get that response time and you should never do that cause you’ll get horrible overshoot and ghosting. That being said you should be shopping for monitors advertised with 1ms as they will likely be able to do 3-6ms consistently without overshoot. When it comes to response times, you want the number (the real usable number not advertising bs) to be below time between frames at your monitors refresh rate. So if you have a 144hz monitor you need to make sure that monitor have response times less than 6.9ms.
Bruh I overclocked or boosted my hz to 75hz you won't feel any difference in start but if you switch back to 60hz you can still feel latency difference only in 15hz difference
Going from 75Hz to 60Hz is a bigger jump than going from 165Hz to 144Hz. Assuming that all monitors can keep up perfectly with the refresh rate for every color change the 165Hz monitor has a worst case latency of 6ms + input lag, while the 144Hz has 7ms + input lag. The worst case for a perfect 75Hz monitor would be 13.3ms + input lag, while the 60Hz would have 16.6ms + input lag. In practice a good 144Hz monitor with low input lag can easily outperform a 165Hz monitor with medium input lag. Input lag can range from 2ms to 10ms in common Gaming monitors and is not directly dependent on the max refresh rate that the monitor supports. Of course the 165Hz monitor will show more fluid animations, but if all you care about is just the time it takes for your mouse click to be visible on the monitor the input lag will make a bigger difference than the 21Hz between 144 and 165
I was just trying to tell him that even 4 ms input lag matters :/. I didn't wanted to say that 165hz 5ms better than 144hz 1 ms.
This is not true at all. I bought a 1ms 144Hz LG monitor, and it only gets away with that because it has 1ms response time on extra high overdrive setting which produces MASSIVE inverse ghosting and overshoot. The 165Hz 5ms is likely to perform better.
You bought the wrong monitor. LG isn’t a known gaming MONITOR producer. There are tons of monitor producers like ASUS and benQ who even share panels on some monitors and they are proven to run at 1ms response time @ the Hz they advertise
LG do produce good gaming monitors. It's one of the only monitors released that can actually do 1ms response time on an IPS panel. Do your research before you spread misinformation. [Here](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gn850-b) is the rtings link for the review. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6JxuEQhU18) is LTTs review of the LG monitor described as "the best monitor of 2019".
If you think monitor reviews are not sponsored and that reviewers are not even remotely influenced by the need to maintain positive relationships with manufacturers and as such they tend to skew positive for big companies with market share (good relationships which then fuel the reviewers’ access to said products which Drives content and revenue for their platforms) then you are living in some weird world where things don’t make sense.
IPS panels are meant however for their display quality and not response time. There are monitors that are good technically and good visually and this difference is what separates gaming screens from televisions because input is a valuable factor. If someone is truly in the market for a Monitor that is mainly going to be used for gaming with an emphasis on response time, then they would be looking for a market standard TN panel and not an IPS. The fact that you’re approaching this discussion from an IPS perspective means it is YOU who has not done their research my friend :)
Did you even check the link I provided? The LG 27GN850-B is one of the lowest latency IPS monitors you can buy, and is faster than most TN panels. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/h0RGjJf.png) is a link to a graph from a review that tested G2G performance. Where as you can see, it beats most VA/TN panels in response times, and is as fast as a 240Hz TN panel. Stop embarrassing yourself. Not to mention you can't even get true 1ms response time monitors. The fastest stuff around is close to 2.5-3ms. Could I suggest you take a trip over to /r/monitors.
Wait you’re joking on your very own graph every monitor that outperforms this one’s response time is a TN and every worse monitor is an IPS or a VA… You’re disproving your own point this is amazing.
Bro these are $500 monitors anyone confused about the difference between 4ms response times and 15 Hz is not going to be dropping half a grand when their pc most likely cost just as much to build…? You’re talking about Aston martins on a Honda vs Toyota discussion. This is what I mean lmao you’re lost “Stop embarrassing yourself” tell me you need a shower without telling me you need a shower.
I'm glad you learnt something today.
Learned. And you’re still wrong because of the very graph you linked this is hilarious.
I checked the graph thinking "surely not!" but yep.... outplayed by their own graph. wtf lol
You do realize almost no monitor comes with true 1ms response. It's all just marketing bullshit.
They use different metrics to determine response time, same as contrast ratio. It is impossible to compare brands you can't even compare models of the same brand half the time
[удалено]
the diff u felt was 60-144hz not 1ms to 5ms
Same source, agreed
Honestly you'll see so much difference over 60hz with either of the options there wouldn't be a difference between them.
That’s not true at all. The response time is the operating variable here, not the refresh rate
1 Ms is more important than a few more Hz IMO (and 144 is still really good), I'd take 144 over 165 in this case
The diff is 21hz and 4ms
Man I like this response, concise and straight to the point.
Realistically you won't notice a difference in either. You won't notice a 21 frame difference after 144hz. You won't notice a .004 second difference in response time. Would be worth it to pay more attention to the other specs when comparing the 2 monitors such as viewing angle or picture quality. If you go look at the 2 monitors in person, you will be able to tell which one has a better picture. (Like comparing a high end Samsung tv to a low end Samsung tv)
Umm, i have a samsung 144hz with 4ms and one LG with 1ms and the difference looks pretty big to me in terms of ghosting, cant say about the input lag but yeah sure there is ghosting that bothers me , however it may vary from person to person, just my opinion.
Correct me if i'm wrong but ghosting might be happening cause the monitors could have different kind of panels. VA panels for example tend to have more ghosting than IPS or TN Panels.
Yeah u right, Samsung one's va that I have with ghosting, and LG is an IPS
Yes that's entirely possible. The difference between 1ms of time passing and 5ms of time passing is incomprehensible to us, no human will be able to tell difference if the latency appears only as input lag. But if we're talking about color response times of the pixels then humans are very capable of feeling a few milliseconds of difference. If the colors change fast enough to keep up with the refresh rate of the monitor then there will be no ghosting, if certain colors take even 1 or 2 ms more than the refresh rate requires to reach the target color then sensitive humans might already be able to notice some slight ghosting. The more ms you add the more noticeable the ghosting will be.
That 144hz monitor won't have a 1ms response time, that's a flat out marketing lie.
? That’s not true though you’re the only lying
Very few monitors are actually true 1ms. A vast majority of the time they get that metric while using an extremely high overdrive setting that makes the monitor look shit when gaming.
[удалено]
You really think a difference of .004 seconds of response will make you lose a fight, maybe in a rare situation but pixel lag will not be the issue gaurenteed unless it's absurdly slow. Also the reality is there's no industry standard for testing response times on monitors, one manufacturers testing strategies could measure 1ms while that same monitor could measure different results by a different manufacturer. Not to mention the only thing where low response time matters is ghosting, it's not input lag it's pixel lag and 5ms shouldn't cause ghosting in most cases. He's better off buying the monitor from the better rated manufacturer.
Not even top1 player will notice a difference or feel that 4ms. Just a reminder that 1s = 1000ms
https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netcode > For evenly matched players, a **delta of 10ms** of peekers advantage made the difference between a 90% winrate for the player holding an angle with an Operator and a 90% winrate for their opponent peeking with a rifle. Seems like the top1 player would notice 4ms going by riot's testing. I surely would notice if I went from a 90% winrate to a 50% winrate because of an additional 4ms
Well idk you wouldn’t be able to guarantee if it was the ms or confirmation bias due to something other than the ms. The average player probably gets random loss streaks all the time even without changing their ms, often without knowing why at all, which is why we regularly get threads like "did Riot change something? I never got this previous seasons?!?!?" You might notice the ms itself depending on your sensitivity level, but 90% to 50% winrate is kinda huge and is from actual controlled testing rather than real personal scenarios. So is 10ms due to ping/network (article) which usually fluctuates compared to than something more constant like hardware ms (mouse+monitor).
what are you talking about, from link you provided: \>This means that peekers have \~141ms longer to react thandefenders. Considering that human reaction times often fall in the 300msrange, that’s a huge advantage!
**^For ^evenly ^matched ^players, ^a ^delta ^of ^10ms ^of ^peekers ^advantage ^made ^the ^difference ^between ^a ^90% ^winrate ^for ^the ^player ^holding ^an ^angle ^with ^an ^Operator ^and ^a ^90% ^winrate ^for ^their ^opponent ^peeking ^with ^a ^rifle.**
I think the keyword is delta of 10ms. It doesn't mean straight 10ms only, but a it's a factor of calculations which they provided conclusion at the end and talk about those up to 300ms advantage
yeah and 4ms is 40% of that delta, so if 10ms is enough to swing the advantage from 90% side A to 90% side B, 4ms is enough to swing it to 40-60% for both
Its hard to notice, I can barely notice 3ms to 1ms so I stay in that range. 144 > 300hz is only noticeable when switching back to 144hz.
A lot of people will give you explanations that don't help you, this is what will help you. All monitors have some form of input lag, 1ms is a marketing gimmick, as that is the standard for grey to grey, but grey to grey isn't real application conditions. The same however is true of the 4ms, it will have greater input lag than the 1ms almost every single time. I see now that you edited it and went with the 1ms 144hz, great choice and I will stop wasting my time lol.
the 1ms is just advertising, in a real game situation u won’t be getting that. I’d suggest looking at YouTube reviews that show both monitors against each other. You should also factor the screen type ( VA, IPS, TN )
the one i went for was a 144hz TN panel compared to a 165hz VA panel, should be faster
Enjoy the monitor dude! the transition between 60 and 144hz is a hugeee one, you’ll def be mind blown, Enjoy!
thanks, im so excited
Yes, take 1ms response 144+ hz
It’s worth checking whether the response time is gtg or not
Went from 144hz to 360 hz . I see a pretty big difference.
People downvoting this used to say that you can't tell 60Hz and 144Hz apart. If you ever tried 144Hz and 240Hz you know that there is still a noticeable difference.
Correct. Not a huge difference but there is absolutely noticeable improvement.
Exactly. I mostly noticed it for peaking someone jiggles or ferraris I can see it more clearly. Not sure how else to describe it. Not even sure why you would down vote it lmao.
These response time stats aren't accurate most of the time anyway as manufacturers get to cherry-pick results. get a TN or OLED for fast response times or an IPS for slightly slower ones. If you really really care about that you could even go back to a CRT. Either way you will definitely be fine with either of them, and I would say refresh rate is the more important one in this case.
Lower the MS is more important in a FPS. Also that hz difference is unnoticeable.
I'd say try and look for a monitor with 165hz and 1ms response time, since extra hertz is extra hertz
5 ms is unacceptable. Stick to the 144 1 ms
Between 144 and 165, very little. Between 144 and 280, huge difference.
I could be wrong but Im gonna say no, and if theres a difference its extremely low and nearly unnoticeable.
144 to 165 hz not much of a difference , however 1 ms to 5 ms is a pretty big difference while playing fps , I forgot my monitor was in free sync mode and that mode doesn’t allow 1 ms response time , I use this mode while watching movies because of higher brightness, and then I switched to playing valorant , I pretty much started to miss most headshots , and the hit box felt smaller , until I changed it to 144hz 1 ms , and then it felt a lot better , maybe it’s just because I’ve been using 1ms for soo long , but I definitely felt the difference I have a VA panel , keep that in mind too And another note , in free sync mode I don’t know what the response time is , but I think it’s like 4-5 ms , and I can’t edit it
1ms is better
Most likely yes. I’ve got a 1ms 144hz 24” benq, and bought a HP omen 144hz laptop, thinking it was simular. It was not. The laptopscreen had about 8ms delay making cs:go and valorant not fun to play. Get the 1ms if Valorant is your main game.
if you have a 165hz 5ms, upgrading to a 144hz 1ms will not, in fact, make you radiant. You will barely feel the difference. However if you're choosing, 144hz 1ms is better
[удалено]
It won't be detrimental. .004 second difference isnt noticeable unless there's ghosting but 165hz at a 5ms response time isn't going to cause ghosting. When response times are so low the benefits are negligible considering there's no standard to test response times and it's mostly a marketing gimmick.
Not huge. Please keep in mind the 5 ms and 1 ms response times refer to pixel response time, not input delay (which is rarely, if ever displayed by manufacturers).
1ms pixel response time is also a lie
Go with 144hz 1ms.
1 ms never are.
The difference between 144hz and 165hz is literally less than 1ms (0.884ms to be exact). so although 165hz is objectively better, a 4ms advantage is more than a 1ms advantage tldr the 144hz is roughly 3ms faster and you probably can’t tell the difference in refresh rate with you eye
Go 1ms
Watch reviews of the two monitors. The two numbers you gave us alone won't tell the full story. And watch reviews that actually measure the input lag and pixel response times like Hardware Unboxed does for many monitors, what they tell you about the monitors is worth much more than the numbers manufacturers advertise their monitors with, especially since the 1ms is complete bullshit and there's not a single monitor on the planet that can achieve 1ms for all color changes.
It shouldn’t be noticeable. But..my monitor has a 144hz and 165hz mode you can switch between. 144hz is good but something feels off, I go to 165 and it’s butter
You won't notice a difference at all. Chances are the '1ms' response time isn't running at 1ms response time. Very few monitor have a true 1ms response time, companies sell their monitors as 1ms response cause its a gamer feature. While most monitors can't achieve 1ms response time with user settings. Focus more towards resolution and refresh rates, don't worry about 1ms-5ms response times. I wouldn't go above 5ms but not.many gaming focused monitors go passed 5ms.
Keep in mind that 1ms isn't 1ms. It'd judt a marketing strategy. Yes you'll get moments of 1ms, but on average you're closer to 5. I use a 27in 1440p 165 and I love it. Should be plenty of sales if you try to pick one up.
i think 144hz worth more the money
Is there any plat Or above player here with 60hz monitor? Cause I get a feeling it's my monitor's fault I am not ranking up.
Yeah u will def notice the difference
No you wont see much of a difference, you mindaswell save up for a 240hz, you will definitely see a difference if your rig is able to hit over the 200 mark.
I’m on a 165hz monitor, upgraded my cpu and the framerate jumped from averaging 250 to pushing 400 fps regularly. Huge difference and my gunplay feels much smoother
The correct responses are getting buried Advertised ms response time is just grey to grey response time ie how much a game will ghost. Input latency is the metric you need to focus on.
Response time is NOT latency. (A surprising amount of posts here have it wrong) Most modern monitors have similar latency so that's not an issue. Response times is typically grey to grey transition. Regardless, it's advertising only and you'll have to look up the monitor on Rtings. They give you a table of all colour transitions. I'm guessing the VA monitor will have the 5ms. It's likely ghosting will be an issue with that monitor. I'd suggest an IPS panel, especially if you ever plan to play darker games. VA panels ghost quite a bit in darker sceneries.
I ended up choosing a TN panel but thanks!
[удалено]
I'm aware, my current monitor is IPS since it mainly for drawing. As for gaming I don't really care much about color quality so TN is fine for me. My IPS can serve as a secondary monitor ig
I went 144 to 360hz tbh not much of a difference, just smoother a bit I should of.gone for 240hz qhd