Apple displays' response time?
Contrary to pretty much every other manufacturer, Apple does not publish the response times for their flat panels.
I haven't found any reviews from hardcore FPS players. How movies and DVD's work is not the same at all, this is evident when you look at Tom's Hardware Guide reviews, the same screen can be reasonably good at showing video but still bad at gaming.
How do you perceive Apple's 20" and 23" displays' response times compared to the competition? Is there ghosting in FPS's, etc.? (of course, if you had objective data such as the name of the panel component used in the display, that would be even better)
I'm not concerned about brightness and colors, there's plenty of reviews and info on those, they're easy to verify in store, and most modern screens have them right.
So far Samsung's SyncMaster 213T seems like a fairly safe investment.. but I do like Apple's bigger widescreens as well :-/
I haven't found any reviews from hardcore FPS players. How movies and DVD's work is not the same at all, this is evident when you look at Tom's Hardware Guide reviews, the same screen can be reasonably good at showing video but still bad at gaming.
How do you perceive Apple's 20" and 23" displays' response times compared to the competition? Is there ghosting in FPS's, etc.? (of course, if you had objective data such as the name of the panel component used in the display, that would be even better)
I'm not concerned about brightness and colors, there's plenty of reviews and info on those, they're easy to verify in store, and most modern screens have them right.
So far Samsung's SyncMaster 213T seems like a fairly safe investment.. but I do like Apple's bigger widescreens as well :-/
Comments
I've found this test that shows that the 15" apple display response time was inadequate for gamming...
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display...22/lcd-02.html
I know Apple displays were improved this year, but i would like to know from anyone that plays ut2003 ou q3 on the actual displays if it still shows trail after fast movements ...
Is it better to buy an crt ?
Originally posted by Gon
Contrary to pretty much every other manufacturer, Apple does not publish the response times for their flat panels.
I haven't found any reviews from hardcore FPS players. How movies and DVD's work is not the same at all, this is evident when you look at Tom's Hardware Guide reviews, the same screen can be reasonably good at showing video but still bad at gaming.
well :-/
While I dont use any of the apple displays you mention, I play games all the time on my 1ghz imac, max settings, and games are fine. crystal clear, smooth,ect. no ghosting or anything like that, its good in movies too.
Originally posted by Gon
How do you perceive Apple's 20" and 23" displays' response times compared to the competition?
Some LCDs from a test in c't #6 2003.
Apple - Cinema Display 20" 20.2 + 26.2 {341/270}
Apple - Cinema Display 23" 23 + 23.5 {338/273}
Arp Datacon - Claxan CL-LCD-8231C (23.1") 9.1 + 23.3 {375/257}
Dell - 2000FP (20.1") 14 + 23 {279/235}
Eizo - FlexScan L985EX (21.3") 27.9 + 34 {395/312}
Formac - Gallery 2010 (20.1") 13 + 15 {603/448}
LG - Flatron L2010P (20.1") 5.9 + 28.2 {248/181}
NEC - Multisync LCD 2080UX (20.1") 17.5 + 19.5 {343/280}
Philips - Brilliance 200P3M (20.1") 15.5 + 22 {340/269}
Sharp - LL-T 2020H (20.1") 10 + 19 {520/367}
Sony - SDM-X 202 (20.1") 14 + 21 {264/215}
All non Apple LCDs are 1600x1200
Times in ms (fall + rise) measured at 100 cd/qm
Contrast with {narrow/wide} field of view (average)
Originally posted by Gon
Contrary to pretty much every other manufacturer, Apple does not publish the response times for their flat panels.
I haven't found any reviews from hardcore FPS players. How movies and DVD's work is not the same at all, this is evident when you look at Tom's Hardware Guide reviews, the same screen can be reasonably good at showing video but still bad at gaming.
How do you perceive Apple's 20" and 23" displays' response times compared to the competition? Is there ghosting in FPS's, etc.? (of course, if you had objective data such as the name of the panel component used in the display, that would be even better)
I'm not concerned about brightness and colors, there's plenty of reviews and info on those, they're easy to verify in store, and most modern screens have them right.
So far Samsung's SyncMaster 213T seems like a fairly safe investment.. but I do like Apple's bigger widescreens as well :-/
You should read Apple's Display Tech Overview:
http://a736.g.akamai.net/7/736/51/ba...isplays_TO.pdf
That's a clear explanation about every concerning point of LCD technology.
That made me feel much better !
Now i have no doubt, i will buy the 17" apple studio display.
Hope it helps
Note: u should read that even if u're not going to buy an APPLE display!
They are so funny when it comes to marketing
Originally posted by n3o
You should read Apple's Display Tech Overview:
http://a736.g.akamai.net/7/736/51/ba...isplays_TO.pdf
That's a clear explanation about every concerning point of LCD technology.
That made me feel much better !
Now i have no doubt, i will buy the 17" apple studio display.
Hope it helps
Note: u should read that even if u're not going to buy an APPLE display!
Thanks for the kind thought, but I didn't think much of the info in that PDF. It was rather a recap of what Apple says on their website. I'll quote the part that is relevant to this thread.
Pixel Response Time
For media professionals, the ability to render full-motion video or 3D graphics clearly enough to view precise details is key. Today's advanced LCDs such as the Apple flat-panel displays meet this demanding requirement.
The specification used by LCD manufacturers to define this ability is pixel response time. However, that specification doesn't tell the whole story. Fast pixel response time for transitioning between black and white is important, but so is the response time for transitioning between midtones. A specification that measures only black to white transitions is insufficient. Apple LCD displays have been designed to offer fast pixel response across the entire spectrum, working well with fast-moving details in multi-hued images.
It may very well be that the black-white transition is an insufficient benchmark. In that case, Apple should 1) give us the black-white transition value, 2) give us graphs and values of the measurements Apple considers more important, and 3) compare to well-known competitors and show that Apple displays fare better when measured by Apple's own criteria. As it stands, this looks like they are desperately covering up a bad black-white transition time by a lot of handwaving and zero actual data. The hairs on the back of my neck always stand up when I see excuses like this with no hard numbers.
Originally posted by smalM
Some LCDs from a test in c't #6 2003.
...
All non Apple LCDs are 1600x1200
Times in ms (fall + rise) measured at 100 cd/qm
Contrast with {narrow/wide} field of view (average)
Excellent info, lots of thanks!