0.4ms monitor

[Zireth]

While researching for a future build, I came across a 1440p 165hz monitor with 0.4ms response time. Is this actually a good thing or a niche gimmick?

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/YygQzy/asus-tuf-gaming-vg27bq-270-2560x1440-165-hz-monitor-vg27bq

[Komrade]

It's just grey to grey time, advertising gimmick.

[Zireth]

Messaggio originale di christmaS:

It's just grey to grey time, advertising gimmick.

Fair enough.

[Cathulhu]

Marketing male cow excrement as there is never a grey to grey colorchange in a pixel. Or any other color change to the same color. If that's the case, the pixel never changes and stays that color.
Sure, if you'd force it, it would be that fast, but that's a synthetic scenario that never happens. The numbers simply look good because they are small.

[nullable]

Messaggio originale di christmaS:

It's just grey to grey time, advertising gimmick.

I'm actually surprised this hasn't already started happening, seems like they've been pimping 1ms for so long I though we'd start seeing 0.9 or 0.8ms. But yes, it's just 99% flim flam.

[Snow]

Even at 300 FPS you've got more than 3ms frame time and 1ms usb response time, which already makes the difference between 1ms and 0.4ms screens impossible to notice.

[InfinityJosh]

Response time means nothing.
You should look for INPUNT LAG.
That's the real delay.

[_I_]

faster panel responce reduces ghosting

even watching a 30fps video on an older 20ms display vs a 4ms or faster delay is very noticable

[Autumn_]

Messaggio originale di Infinity Josh:

Response time means nothing.
You should look for INPUNT LAG.
That's the real delay.

This.

Edit ; Clarifiying, it doesn't matter so long as the average pixel response time is below how long it takes for the display to update.
<15ms on a 60hz, <7ms on a 120hz, and <6ms on a 144hz.

Remember, AVERAGE pixel response time, not their ratings (which are almost always ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, just marketing garbage.)