This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Does the response time on IPS monitors really impact competitive games?

#1iscareu13Posted 8/16/2014 6:44:10 AM
In short, I know a lot of people talk about how awesome IPS monitors are, but then I also here about how 120hz/144hz/+ refresh rate monitors are best for competitive gaming. I spend most of my time now mixed between sandbox games such as Simcity 4 and Minecraft, and then the other half with competitive games such as CS:GO, DotA 2, and Starcraft 2.

If I am in the market for a new monitor, would an IPS display really hurt my performance in those competitive games? I do play CS:GO competitively (in leagues), but DotA2 and SC2 are more for fun.
#2capgamerPosted 8/16/2014 6:50:40 AM
It does make a difference. You won't suddenly become bad at these games or anything (and with Dota 2 in particular, I see no reason why you would need more than IPS since the game is all about timing anyway). With a game like CS where you die instantly because some guy pulled the trigger across the map you might not want to have an IPS.
---
The man keeps us down
because he likes to see us frown
#3GunmaN1905Posted 8/16/2014 6:53:38 AM
I don't really think you need 120hz for anything other than CS.
In dota it wouldn't even be noticable, in starcraft it would be totally useless.

But for CS, if you play competitively as you say, you should really get 120hz.
#4ClouddxPosted 8/21/2014 2:59:27 AM
CS competitive? Yeh you need a 120hz monitor; it actually makes a huge difference if you are playing at a high skill level.

If you're just playing for fun then it doesn't really matter, but if you wanna go pro you deftly need a 120hz monitor.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12GB G.Skill Ram //My Setup: https://imgur.com/a/2Gd8M
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S // PS3/360
#5aak57Posted 8/21/2014 4:19:23 AM
You shouldn't generalize. Some IPS monitors have a lower total response time than most monitors (120/144HZ stuff is always at the top, but still). Some are bad. Same with 60Hz TNs, which nobody makes generalizations about. I blame this on companies displaying grey to grey response time and making it seem like that's the entire story, when realistically input lag is far more important since it varies widlly and by much more than the 1-8ms you see for G2G (which doesn't even have a consistent method of measurement between companies).

Use something like the U2312HM (IPS with near zero input lag) and you won't be gimped. It'll be not as good as one of the 120Hz monitors, yeah, but I'm confident in saying it wouldn't matter. What would is the higher frame rate, though that's another matter.
---
May thine...strength...help the world be mended
http://i.imgur.com/HdBP0.jpg
#6ClouddxPosted 8/21/2014 6:31:15 AM
aak57 posted...
You shouldn't generalize. Some IPS monitors have a lower total response time than most monitors (120/144HZ stuff is always at the top, but still). Some are bad. Same with 60Hz TNs, which nobody makes generalizations about. I blame this on companies displaying grey to grey response time and making it seem like that's the entire story, when realistically input lag is far more important since it varies widlly and by much more than the 1-8ms you see for G2G (which doesn't even have a consistent method of measurement between companies).

Use something like the U2312HM (IPS with near zero input lag) and you won't be gimped. It'll be not as good as one of the 120Hz monitors, yeah, but I'm confident in saying it wouldn't matter. What would is the higher frame rate, though that's another matter.


Very true as I have the monitor.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12GB G.Skill Ram //My Setup: https://imgur.com/a/2Gd8M
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S // PS3/360
#7ElDudorinoPosted 8/21/2014 6:43:52 AM(edited)
Are you talking about response time or input lag? Response time has nothing to do with gaming performance.

Even if 120Hz makes a difference, there's no way it makes a "huge" difference. One frame at 60FPS is 16.7 milliseconds. One frame at 120FPS is 8 milliseconds. So, you'd have a 50% chance of seeing something 8ms before your opponent at any given moment. If you think that would consistently give you a real-world advantage, I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

Input lag of several frames can be a real-world disadvantage, but that's a different discussion. Input lag can also be higher on 120Hz sets than on 60Hz sets, or lower, as it's not affected by the output refresh rate.
#8JKatarnPosted 8/21/2014 12:04:11 PM
ElDudorino posted...
Are you talking about response time or input lag? Response time has nothing to do with gaming performance.

Even if 120Hz makes a difference, there's no way it makes a "huge" difference. One frame at 60FPS is 16.7 milliseconds. One frame at 120FPS is 8 milliseconds. So, you'd have a 50% chance of seeing something 8ms before your opponent at any given moment. If you think that would consistently give you a real-world advantage, I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

Input lag of several frames can be a real-world disadvantage, but that's a different discussion. Input lag can also be higher on 120Hz sets than on 60Hz sets, or lower, as it's not affected by the output refresh rate.


Seriously, lol, if your reflexes are so fast that 8ms would make a "huge" difference for you you're probably in the top 1% of a game.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES