isn't 2ms prefered for gaming?
cattb/Tim O
All else being equal, the lower the better.
The problem is that you can't tell from the published specifications what the response time actually is any more.... so how can you tell which are lower? It's also subjective - what one person doesn't notice can cause another to have a siezure. In the past - when they were really measuring it - a good rule of thumb that anything more than 16 was likely to produce noticable blurring and ghosting, but that differences between panels that were (ACTUALLY) less than 16 would be undetectable. This is because the panel itself operates at a 60 hz refresh, and any blurring would last for less than a single frame. Again, it's subjective, so there's really no "hard and fast" rule.
In practice now however.... it appears that 8 can mean 8, or (apparently) 40 or so. So what exactly does 2 mean these days?
And unfortunately, even if I'd have seen this before I'd bought it I'd probably still have been suckered - it's truly better than any LCD I've seen to date for color saturation, spectrum, sharpness, and evenness. Since I doubt I'd have been able to detect the ghosting/blurring issue on the sales floor - even though it was instantly "in your face" when started AH - I probably have still done stupid. The kicker is, if it was rated "properly" for response time, I'd have rated it as 5 stars - because I'd only use it for the things at which it appears to be top-notch.
No, the real problem is not the monitor, but the misleading specification - which means that people are going to be "suckered" into using it for gaming, for which it's (clearly!) not suited.
<S>!
