2007-08-05 16:32:42 · 4 answers · asked by Simon J 1 in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Monitors
The difference can be nothing. Every manufacturer measures and markets their specs in a different way. Sometimes the spec is an average or minimum response time.
Unless you are comparing the same manufacturing and generation of LCDs, you can't really say the 2ms monitor is faster (better) than the 5ms.
Generally speaking, if we are comparing two monitors between 2ms and 5ms, I would not let this be your only criteria. I would look at the brightness and contrast ratio, which I can almost guarantee will be different. You are not going to see a difference between 2ms and 5ms. You could see a difference between 5ms and 12ms. Anything under 8ms, you should not see any motion blur.
2007-08-05 16:52:06 · answer #1 · answered by techman2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
3 milliseconds. Not enough to notice. Either latency is great for gaming. The 2 millisecond monitor is just better, but just slightly.
2007-08-05 16:36:48 · answer #2 · answered by Collin L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2ms is better. the pixels are able to change at that speed. that is important on an lcd.
2007-08-05 17:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by agello24 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
response time does not really matter its the amount of time between black and white screens. check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_time
any lcd with 60 HZ of better will do just fine
2007-08-05 16:46:26 · answer #4 · answered by s w 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋