Main > Main Forum
How important is response time for LCD cabs?
(1/2) > >>
thebyter:
I'm planning out my first cab, and have decided on a slim LCD-based design for various reasons.  I know that large 4:3 LCD's are hard to come by, but I have an extra 19" Philips 190b monitor I'd settled on.

However, I've just been offered a 21.3" Syncmaster 213T for free from work.  It's in good shape and I'm happy about the larger size, but unfortunately it's response time is three times slower than the 19" monitor (25ms versus 8ms). 

So I'm wondering if the extra size is worth the slower performance?  When I do the math, I make it an extra 23% of screen area, so it's significant -- but I don't want to make the games unplayable.

If it matters, I think I'll mostly be playing "classic" MAME games, but I also have a Dreamcast I was planning on adding for occasional play.  Thanks for any opinions!
SNAAKE:
response time has nothing to do with lag. more response time = jaggy/pixeled picture for fast motion scenes. its noticeable in movies and sports. 25 is pretty bad even for games. but its not a deal breaker.

just get this monitor instead. its the official evo tournament monitor with 0 lag and only 2ms response time which looks amazing for anything. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236059&Tpk=VH236H

lilshawn:
worry about viewing angle more than "lag"

lag is an excuse that lousy gamers use as an excuse for their suckyness.
amendonz:
lag is very real, although you most likely won't notice a little bit if you play at a low level.
lilshawn:
keep in mind that the response time listed on the box is nearly meaningless. It does not truly measure the response times of the monitor's colors. even though it's a measureable occurence, nothing is stated from what to what... often ridiculously low "2ms" monitors are measured from grey to grey, not blak to white or white to black or even black to color.... i mean WTF?! Technically 16ms would equal 60fps, but it is possible that monitors that list a response time of 8ms could have response times higher than 16ms.

10 yeaqrs ago ghosting was an issue with damn near 200ms response time but forget about it. my old LG1951 with a 12ms response time looks the same as my acer al2016w with a 8ms response time... not that i'm going to notice 4 milliseconds. makers of LCDs have turned this into a brilliant marketing strategy, offering increasingly sophisticated and enhanced motion processing and ever higher 120- and 240-Hz screen refresh rates to repeatedly oversell a solution to a problem that is no longer a problem.

I would be more worried the the monitor employs some sort of post processing to the image before displaying that is going to introduce an ACTUAL delay in displaying the image. (deinterlacing, motion interpolation etc)
Navigation
Message Index
Next page

Go to full version