Are gaming monitors *actually* better?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. Are gaming monitors *actually* better?

User Info: gamer12321

gamer12321
1 month ago#1
Suppose I am playing Halo 5 on my xbox 1 and it runs at 60fps. This implies 60/1000 frames per millisecond, which is .06frames per millisecond. This means that it takes 16.6 milliseconds before my monitor receives a new frame. Why, then, do professional gamers use monitors that have ~1ms response time? If they used something that had, say, a 10ms response time, anything they would have done in that time will translate to the monitor only after 16.6ms, thereby rendering the two monitors identical in terms of performance. I am considering getting a gaming monitor, but should i waste my money considering anything with <16.6ms response time should work equally well?

User Info: EvilGiygas

EvilGiygas
1 month ago#2
What are you playing on currently? And to answer you question quickly - yes. They're a whole hell of a lot better.
i7 7700K|EVGA GTX 1070 FTW Edition|Corsair Vengeance 16GB|960 EVO 1TB|850 EVO 1TB|840 EVO 500GB|EVGA G3 750w|NZXT H440|ASUS SWIFT PG278Q 27"

User Info: gamer12321

gamer12321
1 month ago#3
I have seen other people comment on other threads stating "I can only play on a gaming monitor and I will never go back", but I am looking for an argument as to why or why not a low response time monitor (~1ms) could possibly be better. Anything placebo-effect related is unhelpful.

User Info: gamer12321

gamer12321
1 month ago#4
How could they possibly be better though? I am playing on a HP monitor with ~7ms response time

User Info: EvilGiygas

EvilGiygas
1 month ago#5
First, lets make this clear. Manufacturer spec sheets claiming response times are never truly accurate. This goes for all the specs. They're never true specs. That monitor you're playing on probably has 2-3 times more response time than the manufacturer states.
i7 7700K|EVGA GTX 1070 FTW Edition|Corsair Vengeance 16GB|960 EVO 1TB|850 EVO 1TB|840 EVO 500GB|EVGA G3 750w|NZXT H440|ASUS SWIFT PG278Q 27"

User Info: Chargrilled

Chargrilled
1 month ago#6
Summit1g on twitch swears by his 144hz asus monitors

Says its impossible to play at 60fps using them

but the response times are definitely up there and zero ghosting helps.
GT : DeadJericho/PSN : Focalpoint/WiiU : FocalpointUK
Correct terminology is 'Could NOT care less'. Learn English!

User Info: gamer12321

gamer12321
1 month ago#7
Even so EvilGiygas, how then is a 5ms monitor different from a 1ms monitor?

User Info: Masamune_6969

Masamune_6969
1 month ago#8
I don't play any games that requires lighting quick input lag on a display. For me, nothing beats playing on a >75" 4K HDR flagship model, best on the market tv.

User Info: Beasthunt

Beasthunt
1 month ago#9
Most professional gamers wouldn't even touch a 60fps game. If you play PC at 100+ fps you would find 60fps slow. Personally I cannot tell much of a difference after 85 fps.

Visually my LG C7 curb stomps my Dell s2716dg. So where pixel density would once reign supreme on monitors is no longer the case with these fancy 4k televisions.
Gamertag: Beasthunt, PSN: Beasthunt, Steam: Beasthunt
Acts 2:38

User Info: gamer12321

gamer12321
1 month ago#10
So is the consensus that I'm correct? Why would a pro halo player use a 1ms gaming monitor? I don't play higher fps games like overwatch, so is there a reason for me to upgrade?
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. Are gaming monitors *actually* better?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived