How important is response time in monitors and how distinguishable is it?
I'm currently looking for a new monitor and I have the ASUS MG279Q, the ASUS PG248Q and the ASUS MG278Q. Now, my setup is not the highest end, but decent with an i7 and a 1060 3GB, and there are three concerns I have currently not found an answer for:
- The (potential) difference in quality between the MG279Q's IPS panel and the MG278's TN panel
- And the delay difference, the TN panel having a 1ms response time and the IPS' 4ms
- If my setup can even handle 1440p/144Hz (I don't need to play on the highest settings, nor do I need to reach those 144 FPS), in which case I would tend more towards the PG248Q
I'd love to upgrade towards 1440p as the screen real estate would be good for working (which I do a lot on the PC) and I would, I could later upgrade my GPU if the performance in games isn't satisfactory. I think my setup wouldn't have any issue handling day to day tasks and if need be I can play on lower resolutions or lower graphic settings. Also I wonder how large the difference between the IPS and TN panel is and if it's noticeable, particularly with colours.
Does anyone of you have experience with the subject or with the monitors named in particular?
To put it in perspective most VR headsets have about 20ms of latency and they're right in front of your face.(Thank you to @zlsa & @papasquat below for the correction) You still won't notice a difference though.My suggestion is to go for the MG279Q, you'll appreciate the IPS panel and the physical size of screen over the other ones. You will always have to upgrade your GPU eventually but monitors tend to follow you around for a long time and 1440p is the way to go.
Wow, 20ms sounds kind of high for a system expected to run at 90fps (11ms/frame) or better
When talking about response time of a 2D (pancake) monitor, it's the time for a new frame to be displayed (basically, how fast the display can react.) When talking about VR headsets, it's the motion-to-photon latency, which is how long it takes from getting the current pose (head and hands), getting that data to the computer, rendering the next frames, and displaying it on the headset.
In your opinion does that invalidate my comparison? Just curious if I should correct that.
To get a similar comparison between a 2d game and a VR game, you would need to measure the latency of the whole system.
What is the latency between the mouse and the PC, what is the processing latency of that mouse movement. How quickly can the hardware process that into screen changes, and finally, how quickly can the monitor display those changes. Display latency is only one aspect of that. VR Headsets put all that stuff together into one metric.
To add to this, it's because motion-to-photon latency is very, very important when the image is dependent on the pose. In normal usage, the mouse being a few frames behind is bad for the experience but not really a dealbreaker. On the other hand, if you move your head and the image doesn't update for a few frames, it gives practically everyone extreme nausea. That's why Oculus and Valve are working so hard on software interpolation; if they didn't have software interpolation and the application dropped frames, VR would very quickly devolve into a nauseating, stuttering mess.
I second the recommendation of the MG279Q, but I must remark how unclear ASUS's model number scheme is—I purchased an ASUS gaming monitor this year, but originally acquired a different one than I intended, all because of a 1 character difference in the model: a I/1 type of scenario.
Thank you for the detailed answer. I was contemplating on wherever the response time is significant or not. Apparently the difference is 1 frame between the two, I don't play and will never play on a level where it could make a difference. And you're right with the monitors, those are the ones that stay with you even when you switch computers.
I'm going to have to disagree: When it comes to gaming high frame-rate wins over resolution every time. I went from a large 4k 60Hz monitor like the one linked to a 27" 1440p 144Hz monitor and even though I do zero competitive gaming I'll never go back to 60Hz.
For your reference @Grzmot, I run a mid-tier i5 6600k + 1070 and will consistently push over 90FPS @ 1440 in games at "High" settings (I was also driving most games 60FPS @ 4k on "Medium"). Freesync / Gsync is a huge benefit, since with zero screen tearing you can simply appreciate the frames your GPU is putting out.
One thing about 4k monitors that are IMO incredibly annoying is that you think you're getting a ton of screen real estate, however all text and UIs are now so tiny they have to be scaled to be useable, defeating the purpose.
All valid points. Ultimately it all comes down to user preferences since there are tradeoffs for every monitor out there.
I just thought I'd float my experiences out there from a "gamer first, workflow second" use case, since it wasn't clear in the OP what @Grzmot is considering priority.
That depends on the person - I still have my text unscaled, and it works fine for me, and I end up with a ton of real estate. Great for programming and browser usage, IMO.
I was hyped up on 144Hz by a friend, and bought a 144Hz TN panel for gaming. Later I bought a nice IPS display as a "second" monitor. The colors are much better and that's actually the monitor I use to game on now, because the additional frames made almost no difference to me.
So far everyone I've spoken to on the internet and in real life has told me that the jump from 60Hz to 144Hz is very noticeable and highly recommended. Reviews on 240Hz monitors tell that the jump there is barely noticeable and that unless you're in the esports scene, it's just a gimmick.
Unfortunately, I game a lot, it is (aside from reading) my primary hobby and I originally went for a 1080p/144Hz monitor for performance but the MG249Q caught my eye since it seems to be a very good middle ground. The monitor you linked is too large for me, I'd honestly draw the line at ~28" as anything larger would be broader than my desk. Ultimately it comes down to preference. If I weren't a gamer, I'd absolutely go for something large in 4k with a beautiful screen, but I'd like to see 144Hz for myself. If it isn't good enough, I can always return it without any problems.
Thank you for your response, if anything, it helps a great deal to have someone with a different perspective reply.
144hz is absolutely worth it if you're at a 60hz monitor. I play a lot of FPS, and it's absolutely noticeable. The difference between 60 and 144 is night and day. I doubt I'd be able to even tell the difference between 144 and 240 though.
I have the MG279Q, 2 of them, bought those specifically because they had freesync and I have an AMD GPU and because they are IPS and the iMac which it replaced had the same. I know the colors are less good but I don't think I would have noticed anything if I went for TN. For gaming I honestly can't go back and will now lose CS:GO matches if the screen defaults back to 60hz. You don't notice it consciously, but do feel it in your controls. For text & movies it doesn't make (that much) of a difference in my experience. You'll see it if you do a direct comparison of scrolling text on 2 monitors, but not in daily use.
keep in mind that response time != input lag
input lag is how long it takes for the screen to display something after given an input
response time is how long it takes for a pixel to change from one color to the next---ghosting.
manufacturers use gtg, or, "grey to grey" measurements which are next to meaningless---they are the best case scenario and not realistic at all.
I saw that one and liked it a lot, unfortunately it's a little outside my price range.