Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

THinking of getting a new monitor


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 NegNoodles

NegNoodles

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Local time:07:32 PM

Posted 14 February 2016 - 07:18 AM

Hi, its been a while since I have gotten any new hardware for my computer and I have had my eyes on 2 monitors within my budget which I'm considering on getting. Normally, I do some casual/medium gaming and I use my computer for a wide variety of stuff, such as photoshop, video editing, and just casual activities like web browsing, youtube, social media etc.

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_1195_700_1429&item_id=082981

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_1195_700_1104&item_id=084385

I was wondering if someone can kindly explain the difference between these two, aside from the actual monitor size difference? 

Also, I have read on other sites like amazon/NCIX that the 34UM67 is a 14MS response time rather than the 5MS the 29" comes in. Is this true? And if so, is this bad? I understand that the lower the better for gaming and stuff, but I"ve also read the comments on the NCIX page of this monitor that you can actually adjust it to become 5MS. I am leaning more towards the 34" since it'll be a true upgrade from my Samsung 24" LED monitor, but I wish to be able to upgrade to one that's an actual improvement for gaming and other stuff other than just the size. Thus, I would like you guys' input on the 34" inch, how it differs from the 29" (hopefully it'll explain the big price difference), and also if its REALLY 14MS and if so, any chance of making it 5MS (some sites say its 5, some say its 14, this is too confusing).

If either are bad, can someone recommend something similar, ultra widescreen, around the same price range (within 600 CAD)?


Thanks so much



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 1PW

1PW

  • Members
  • 316 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North of the 38th parallel.
  • Local time:05:32 PM

Posted 15 February 2016 - 01:26 AM

Hello NegNoodles and :welcome:

 

I apologize if my post adds to the complexity and anxiety of your buying decision.

 

You may wish to take into account the growing popularity of 4K or Ultra HD TV with its a minimum resolution of 3840×2160 pixels as YouTube, and other sources, fill their libraries with the new media.

 

So if you would like to temporarily future proof your monitor purchase, you may wish to re-examine your choice now.

 

Cheers


Edited by 1PW, 15 February 2016 - 01:26 AM.

All viruses are malware but not all malware are viruses and if the malware doesn't self replicate it just isn't a virus.


#3 NegNoodles

NegNoodles
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Local time:07:32 PM

Posted 15 February 2016 - 02:37 AM

Hello NegNoodles and :welcome:

 

I apologize if my post adds to the complexity and anxiety of your buying decision.

 

You may wish to take into account the growing popularity of 4K or Ultra HD TV with its a minimum resolution of 3840×2160 pixels as YouTube, and other sources, fill their libraries with the new media.

 

So if you would like to temporarily future proof your monitor purchase, you may wish to re-examine your choice now.

 

Cheers

Hey, thanks for the reply.

 

And I do realize that the 1080p vertical res is pretty much obsolete now, but I am also considering my budget. If I do get 4k or UHD in the future, itll be a TV since I cant imagine enjoying the 4k/UHD greatness on a screen under 50", and thus, I am fine with having the limited option of only 1080p. Plus, I currently only have a 770 GTX and I'm not sure to what extent can gaming be enhanced if I do have a 4k monitor, since 1080p on max settings doesnt guarantee me 60FPS anymore for newer games, and as I dont plan to upgrade for the time being and the fact that I have a relatively tight budget, I guess my options are limited since I am only willing to upgrade to a widescreen and not to anything else



#4 Captain_Chicken

Captain_Chicken

  • BC Advisor
  • 1,366 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:32 PM

Posted 19 February 2016 - 10:34 PM

Define casual gaming: what games do you play? You may want to up your gpu before purchasing a higher res monitor.

Computer Collection:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

#5 moldieToast

moldieToast

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:32 AM

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:00 PM

First off, at the links you have provided, in the specification tabs, both monitors are also listed as having a 5 ms respons time.

 

so even though the question no longer seems to be "14 or 5ms?" i'll still tell you this.

A response time of 14ms would be able to comfortably show you 70 fps. 70 fps is perfectly fine for most if not all uses.

A response time of 5ms would be able to show you 200 fps. 200 fps is A LOT!!!

It is said that for gaming the higher frame rate is beneficial because you can respond quicker when you see something sooner, but this assumes we are actually able to perceive more frames. There is a reason why refresh rates on monitors have stagnated for a long time at 60-70 hertz (fps). Normal people are not able to catch those gaps. Even if a higher frame rate is produced, normal people won't perceive the extra frames. 

 

There is a reason why i said "normal people" above:

"Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second. That is identifying. So it's pretty safe to say, that recognizing, that SOME light was there is possible with 1/300th of a second." 

 

For the "hardcore" gamer this is good news because it means that they can actually attain that edge through training.

For the "casual/medium" gamer however, it means you will not benefit from the higher frame rate unless you happen to be an air force pilot. :)

 

Another thing to consider is how much fps your gfx-card is able to produce when you are playing your favorite game. If your card produces 80-90 fps you might find it silly to invest in a 200 fps monitor for an actual fps increase of only 10-20.

 

Now lets say your card produces 100 fps and you have learned to perceive all these frames. If at this point another process or heat causes the fps to drop to 90, you will also perceive this drop and experience slight lag even though your still running at 90 fps :) Which means you might still end up capping your fps a bit lower than what would actually be possible to ensure your experience stays smooth.

 

so, taking all that into consideration i would not recommend paying extra for a 5ms response time over 14ms response time unless you are very serious about your gaming endeavors. 

 

the only other benefit of a monitor with a response time of 5 ms i can think of aside from the competetive gaming argument, is that you'll no longer experience screen tearing or artifacts. Most games however have a v-synch or max fps option that will prevent this as well. 

 

Disclaimer: I am no expert. Perhaps this would be a question for the game section of this forum.


Edited by moldieToast, 24 February 2016 - 10:11 PM.


#6 NegNoodles

NegNoodles
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Local time:07:32 PM

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:30 PM

First off, at the links you have provided, in the specification tabs, both monitors are also listed as having a 5 ms respons time.

 

so even though the question no longer seems to be "14 or 5ms?" i'll still tell you this.

A response time of 14ms would be able to comfortably show you 70 fps. 70 fps is perfectly fine for most if not all uses.

A response time of 5ms would be able to show you 200 fps. 200 fps is A LOT!!!

It is said that for gaming the higher frame rate is beneficial because you can respond quicker when you see something sooner, but this assumes we are actually able to perceive more frames. There is a reason why refresh rates on monitors have stagnated for a long time at 60-70 hertz (fps). Normal people are not able to catch those gaps. Even if a higher frame rate is produced, normal people won't perceive the extra frames. 

 

There is a reason why i said "normal people" above:

"Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second. That is identifying. So it's pretty safe to say, that recognizing, that SOME light was there is possible with 1/300th of a second." 

 

For the "hardcore" gamer this is good news because it means that they can actually attain that edge through training.

For the "casual/medium" gamer however, it means you will not benefit from the higher frame rate unless you happen to be an air force pilot. :)

 

Another thing to consider is how much fps your gfx-card is able to produce when you are playing your favorite game. If your card produces 80-90 fps you might find it silly to invest in a 200 fps monitor for an actual fps increase of only 10-20.

 

Now lets say your card produces 100 fps and you have learned to perceive all these frames. If at this point another process or heat causes the fps to drop to 90, you will also perceive this drop and experience slight lag even though your still running at 90 fps :) Which means you might still end up capping your fps a bit lower than what would actually be possible to ensure your experience stays smooth.

 

so, taking all that into consideration i would not recommend paying extra for a 5ms response time over 14ms response time unless you are very serious about your gaming endeavors. 

 

the only other benefit of a monitor with a response time of 5 ms i can think of aside from the competetive gaming argument, is that you'll no longer experience screen tearing or artifacts. Most games however have a v-synch or max fps option that will prevent this as well. 

 

Disclaimer: I am no expert. Perhaps this would be a question for the game section of this forum.

Thanks so much for this reply. TBH, this is what I needed to hear. NOt necessarily professional advise or anything, just someone to identify a fine line between 14 and 5MS. Also, although it identifies itself as 5MS (34UM67), the LG site states that its actually 14MS. I mean this is just bad marketing I guess, since the box says 5MS, the site says 14MS, and some carriers say 14 and some say 5. IDK who to believe at this point.

 

And in response to the person above, casual gaming in this sense just means moderate amount of gaming, maybe 2-3 hours a day max? Thats just the average, sometimes more, sometimes less. That being said, I have all the requirement to be able to run any game I wish to play, its just a matter of picking out a new monitor to achieve a hopefully more immersive gameplay experience. That being said, my graphics card is only a 970 so I wont really be able to run 90FPS anyways, and I tend to lock my games at 60FPS, so IM guessing 14MS should be fine.



#7 Captain_Chicken

Captain_Chicken

  • BC Advisor
  • 1,366 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:32 PM

Posted 25 February 2016 - 03:36 PM

First off, at the links you have provided, in the specification tabs, both monitors are also listed as having a 5 ms respons time.
 
so even though the question no longer seems to be "14 or 5ms?" i'll still tell you this.
A response time of 14ms would be able to comfortably show you 70 fps. 70 fps is perfectly fine for most if not all uses.
A response time of 5ms would be able to show you 200 fps. 200 fps is A LOT!!!
It is said that for gaming the higher frame rate is beneficial because you can respond quicker when you see something sooner, but this assumes we are actually able to perceive more frames. There is a reason why refresh rates on monitors have stagnated for a long time at 60-70 hertz (fps). Normal people are not able to catch those gaps. Even if a higher frame rate is produced, normal people won't perceive the extra frames. 
 
There is a reason why i said "normal people" above:
"Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second. That is identifying. So it's pretty safe to say, that recognizing, that SOME light was there is possible with 1/300th of a second." 
 
For the "hardcore" gamer this is good news because it means that they can actually attain that edge through training.
For the "casual/medium" gamer however, it means you will not benefit from the higher frame rate unless you happen to be an air force pilot. :)
 
Another thing to consider is how much fps your gfx-card is able to produce when you are playing your favorite game. If your card produces 80-90 fps you might find it silly to invest in a 200 fps monitor for an actual fps increase of only 10-20.
 
Now lets say your card produces 100 fps and you have learned to perceive all these frames. If at this point another process or heat causes the fps to drop to 90, you will also perceive this drop and experience slight lag even though your still running at 90 fps :) Which means you might still end up capping your fps a bit lower than what would actually be possible to ensure your experience stays smooth.
 
so, taking all that into consideration i would not recommend paying extra for a 5ms response time over 14ms response time unless you are very serious about your gaming endeavors. 
 
the only other benefit of a monitor with a response time of 5 ms i can think of aside from the competetive gaming argument, is that you'll no longer experience screen tearing or artifacts. Most games however have a v-synch or max fps option that will prevent this as well. 
 
Disclaimer: I am no expert. Perhaps this would be a question for the game section of this forum.

Thanks so much for this reply. TBH, this is what I needed to hear. NOt necessarily professional advise or anything, just someone to identify a fine line between 14 and 5MS. Also, although it identifies itself as 5MS (34UM67), the LG site states that its actually 14MS. I mean this is just bad marketing I guess, since the box says 5MS, the site says 14MS, and some carriers say 14 and some say 5. IDK who to believe at this point.
 
And in response to the person above, casual gaming in this sense just means moderate amount of gaming, maybe 2-3 hours a day max? Thats just the average, sometimes more, sometimes less. That being said, I have all the requirement to be able to run any game I wish to play, its just a matter of picking out a new monitor to achieve a hopefully more immersive gameplay experience. That being said, my graphics card is only a 970 so I wont really be able to run 90FPS anyways, and I tend to lock my games at 60FPS, so IM guessing 14MS should be fine.
No No NO!

You guys have mixed up two things: refresh rate and response time. Let me clear this up: they have very little to do with each other.

Refresh rate: how many times the monitor updates its image. Basically how many fps you can see in a game. 60hz is standard, while some monitors go up to 144hz or higher. Hz=fps you can see.

Response time: the delay between the gpu outputting the image and it appearing onscreen. 5ms is standard, some monitors are faster or slower. Most gamers prefer 5 or under. Ms= milliseconds of delay.

Computer Collection:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users