IPS vs TN

[✪XeonHETRO]

Do IPS panels have more motion blur as compared to TN panels?

[r.linder]

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

blur depends on the pixel response time
20+ms = ghosting with any moving image
<2ms = sharp image with moving objects

No, it depends on Hz and response time.
If pixel response time is below the update rate time (hz) then there will be no ghosting. If it's above it whill ghost.

60hz is 16.66ms, 120hz is 8.3ms, 144hz is 6.9ms, 165hz is 6ms, and 240hz is 4.1ms.

So for a 144hz monitor, make sure response time is below 7ms.
(Note, not marketed response time, get the actual number from a reviewer like Rtings.)

눈Yoriichi Tsugikuni言님이 먼저 게시:

I think since my first priority is competitive gaming I should with a TN panel.
I am thinking about the Lenovo G Series G25-10.
Looks great has 1ms response time, with TN panel.

I would argue that a monitor is the most important part of your build, you look at it constantly, doing any task, when using the computer. Buy something good, it'll last you a decade if not more.

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Like I said, advertised response times are misleading. They're mostly listed between 1~4ms these days but the ACTUAL response times with games averages around 5ms for TN, 6ms for newer IPS, and 8ms for VA.

There is no monitor with a true consistent response time of ~1ms. The only time it ever gets that low is when the screen changes between two colors (GtG). This never applies to typical usage. It's manufacturers just setting the field for advertising faster looking numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOb523rNBw&

Majority of VA panels I've seen are closer to 12ms.

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

^
TN is a rather pointless niche because you can get an expensive IPS with fast response times and really high refresh without the ugly look of TN. You just have to pay more, but it's worth it for a better looking gaming experience.

IPS used to be a lot slower but it's usually as fast as TN these days, just about.

Though with IPS, you have issues with BLB and glow.
Kind of anecdotal, but recently a friend went through 3 or 4 panels, all from different makers, because they all had horrendous BLB.
A couple were visable in daylight, it was that bad.

So, TN, while it has worse colours, doesn't suffer the issues of poor dark uniformity as badly as IPS.

I just want a viable OLED 'gaming' monitor, best of every world -- great colours, perfect blacks, low response time, and no BLB or glow issues. Should have higher brightness too.

They do exist IIRC but they're expensive as ♥♥♥♥ and the ones that come to mind are usually TV size like ASUS' massive ROG gaming monitor

[Washell]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

TN is a rather pointless niche

You just have to pay more

Lower cost isn't pointless. Because for most people, the budget for a hobby is limited by choice or by necessity.

[Illusion of Progress]

IPS makes LCD acceptable to me. My initial foray into LCDs involved nothing but TN panels and I went back to my CRT every time. Granted, this was the mid to late 2000s, so modern TN might be a bit better, but they still have unacceptable viewing angles to me. Yeah, the slower response of IPS was also a concern and yes the IPS I went with (and still use) isn't the fastest and has some ghosting (less than one of the much older TN panels I tried ironically enough) but between the two, it was the overall better one for me. I can't stand inconsistent images from color shifting, and the low quality LED backlit TN panel of my laptop is the worst part about it to me (not the low 1366 x 768 resolution it has or low end Haswell Core i3 or even the integrated graphics, but the TN panel type).

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

I would argue that a monitor is the most important part of your build, you look at it constantly, doing any task, when using the computer. Buy something good, it'll last you a decade if not more.

Absolutely. The display, the keyboard, and mouse (or whatever other input methods you use) and speaker or headphones are really the "interactive" parts and sometimes get overlooked. But performance does matter more to some people. I've known of people (most, probably) who won't really notice things like ghosting, screen tearing, higher refresh rates, aliasing, or even differences between two displays unless side by side, sometimes even when explained and pointed out to them, so I understand why people wouldn't put focus to it if they are fine with whatever, basically.

[r.linder]

Washell님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

TN is a rather pointless niche

You just have to pay more

Lower cost isn't pointless. Because for most people, the budget for a hobby is limited by choice or by necessity.

You can get IPS panels for stupid cheap in a similar price range these days, TN isn't some ultra budget option, it's partially obsolete technology and will inevitably be obsolete as better panel types like OLED become more available to the high end market. IPS will get cheaper.

These days a lot of people are after better visuals, and IPS isn't much more in cost at all now, so there is actually no point in TN unless there isn't a single IPS panel available that you can feasibly afford. If you're not playing fast paced games, VA can be adequate since it has very good color quality and viewing angles for curved panels.

[✪XeonHETRO]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Washell님이 먼저 게시:

Lower cost isn't pointless. Because for most people, the budget for a hobby is limited by choice or by necessity.

You can get IPS panels for stupid cheap in a similar price range these days, TN isn't some ultra budget option, it's partially obsolete technology and will inevitably be obsolete as better panel types like OLED become more available to the high end market. IPS will get cheaper.

These days a lot of people are after better visuals, and IPS isn't much more in cost at all now, so there is actually no point in TN unless there isn't a single IPS panel available that you can feasibly afford. If you're not playing fast paced games, VA can be adequate since it has very good color quality and viewing angles for curved panels.

Hmm maybe it's hugely based on the monitor itself. How would rate a TN panel vs an IPS panel out of 100, on the basis of:-
1) Display
2) Response time (In fast paced esport titles like csgo, overwatch etc)
Consider that both cost around 230$

[r.linder]

눈Yoriichi Tsugikuni言님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

You can get IPS panels for stupid cheap in a similar price range these days, TN isn't some ultra budget option, it's partially obsolete technology and will inevitably be obsolete as better panel types like OLED become more available to the high end market. IPS will get cheaper.

These days a lot of people are after better visuals, and IPS isn't much more in cost at all now, so there is actually no point in TN unless there isn't a single IPS panel available that you can feasibly afford. If you're not playing fast paced games, VA can be adequate since it has very good color quality and viewing angles for curved panels.

Hmm maybe it's hugely based on the monitor itself. How would rate a TN panel vs an IPS panel out of 100, on the basis of:-
1) Display
2) Response time (In fast paced esport titles like csgo, overwatch etc)
Consider that both cost around 230$

TN looks worse in terms of color; TN is washed out, but a lot of IPS have bleeding and BLB issues. IPS is generally better for most gamers, while TN is really only better if you get the fastest available TN panels for serious competitive play, assuming you're actually going to win, consistently, with an actual team. Which is a rare thing and it's not all that it's cracked up to be, same with streaming/YouTube.

Most of the time, just go IPS.

[✪XeonHETRO]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

눈Yoriichi Tsugikuni言님이 먼저 게시:

Hmm maybe it's hugely based on the monitor itself. How would rate a TN panel vs an IPS panel out of 100, on the basis of:-
1) Display
2) Response time (In fast paced esport titles like csgo, overwatch etc)
Consider that both cost around 230$

TN looks worse in terms of color; TN is washed out, but a lot of IPS have bleeding and BLB issues. IPS is generally better for most gamers, while TN is really only better if you get the fastest available TN panels for serious competitive play, assuming you're actually going to win, consistently, with an actual team. Which is a rare thing and it's not all that it's cracked up to be, same with streaming/YouTube.

Most of the time, just go IPS.

Ok got it
So if i get good ~230$ IPS monitor with 144hz and 1080p display, it will still be good for CSGO if i play on ranks such as MG or DMG?

[Pocahawtness]

Ultra legend pro max님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

TN looks worse in terms of color; TN is washed out, but a lot of IPS have bleeding and BLB issues. IPS is generally better for most gamers, while TN is really only better if you get the fastest available TN panels for serious competitive play, assuming you're actually going to win, consistently, with an actual team. Which is a rare thing and it's not all that it's cracked up to be, same with streaming/YouTube.

Most of the time, just go IPS.

Ok got it
So if i get good ~230$ IPS monitor with 144hz and 1080p display, it will still be good for CSGO if i play on ranks such as MG or DMG?

People seem to get upset about things that just don't bother me, whereas I get upset about things that don't bother them! IPS bleed is one thing that tends to get people going. There is no such thing as a perfect monitor, rather I think it is a case of trying to settle on a specification that will least annoy you and is a good overall compromise.

[Illusion of Progress]

｢C❤️A｣ Pocahawtness님이 먼저 게시:

People seem to get upset about things that just don't bother me, whereas I get upset about things that don't bother them! IPS bleed is one thing that tends to get people going. There is no such thing as a perfect monitor, rather I think it is a case of trying to settle on a specification that will least annoy you and is a good overall compromise.

Either my current IPS doesn't have backlight bleed too bad, or if it does, I don't notice.

The poor handling of dark scenes is a drawback to IPS that does stand out to me though.

Everything has trade-offs, you have to decide which is the one you're most willing to make.

[mtono]

in my opinion ips isnt for gaming. TN is fast and you dont need all the beauty for gaming immersion in esports.

[Tezzious]

I purchased the MSI G271 27" IPS 144hz screen, love the responsiveness of this screen, had a va panel which was 144hz but suffered with flicker when using freesync as they don't like fps drops to much and you get massive brightness flickering.

my screen has a slight bleed bottom corners but does not really affect me that much, the colours pop amazingly.

[✪XeonHETRO]

Tezzarrific님이 먼저 게시:

I purchased the MSI G271 27" IPS 144hz screen, love the responsiveness of this screen, had a va panel which was 144hz but suffered with flicker when using freesync as they don't like fps drops to much and you get massive brightness flickering.

my screen has a slight bleed bottom corners but does not really affect me that much, the colours pop amazingly.

What CSGO rank do you have?

[Autumn_]

owl rly?님이 먼저 게시:

in my opinion ips isnt for gaming. TN is fast and you dont need all the beauty for gaming immersion in esports.

IPS and TN are both fast enough for 165hz displays, if you buy a good panel.
The argument for 'speed' doesn't exist anymore, it's an old notion that was around in the old days.
Even VA are becoming faster, albeit only one currently on the market, being Samsungs Odyssey G9.
So soon the 'speed' argument will be completely gone.

As for 'immersion', having a better colour range, more accurate colours, and brightness can help in competitive situations in regards to target identification and acquisition.
An IPS display would be BETTER for competitive games.

Just at things like 240+hz, what the pros use, there is only one panel type that can do those refresh rates so far, TN.

a^m / a^n = a^m-n님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

TN looks worse in terms of color; TN is washed out, but a lot of IPS have bleeding and BLB issues. IPS is generally better for most gamers, while TN is really only better if you get the fastest available TN panels for serious competitive play, assuming you're actually going to win, consistently, with an actual team. Which is a rare thing and it's not all that it's cracked up to be, same with streaming/YouTube.

Most of the time, just go IPS.

Ok got it
So if i get good ~230$ IPS monitor with 144hz and 1080p display, it will still be good for CSGO if i play on ranks such as MG or DMG?

The hardware doesn't make the man.
You can do good regardless of hardware. Good hardware just moves your skill ceiling higher, and makes it easier to do what you already do.
Don't think a new monitor will increase your skill overnight, it will barely impact you at first, may even make you worse (did for me, for like half an hour.)

[76561198343548661]

Bear in mind your brain cant process more than 75FPS , despite some devices can deliver more FPS . Anything above is useless and is a marketing trick . In the old days of CRT monitors , i ascertained this on my own too . It was all known fact though , So , IPS monitor 144Hz is more than enough . Also , studies showed it was desputable whether more Hz would improve the gaming success - 60Hz vs 240Hz . Our mind functions at about 7-13Hz (max 35Hz), trying to click the mouse repeatedly wont give more than 3-4 clicks , What is that hype - 240+Hz monitors !

[Autumn_]

littlecat20160님이 먼저 게시:

Bear in mind your brain cant process more than 75FPS , despite some devices can deliver more FPS . Anything above is useless and is a marketing trick . In the old days of CRT monitors , i ascertained this on my own too . It was all known fact though , So , IPS monitor 144Hz is more than enough . Also , studies showed it was desputable whether more Hz would improve the gaming success - 60Hz vs 240Hz . Our mind functions at about 7-13Hz (max 35Hz), trying to click the mouse repeatedly wont give more than 3-4 clicks , What is that hype - 240+Hz monitors !

That's simply untrue -- there's been tests on fighter pilots, they were flashed an image of a plane, high refresh rate, (100+hz), and they were able to identify the plane, and it's arment from 1 image at 100+hz.
People, not all, can see gains to 360hz. This means the brain has to process more than 240hz, otherwise they would see no gains.

Anything above is NOT useless, it can be argued as to it's value in anything except specific applications though.
It's not a marketing trick, why would they make something no human could reasonably make use of, if it just means increasing the production cost?

>I ascertained this on my own.
So, it's anecdotal evidence, your OPINION.

It's not a well known fact, because it's wrong.

There's been loads of studdies that show gains on monitors up-to 240hz. So could you link your sources?

Our mind does not 'function at 7-13hz' hahahha, that would mean we're basically vegetables, and wouldn't see gains between update rates on our monitor past 24hz (not 240, 24), and between the polling rate of mice, 125-250-500hz, we would see no difference.
Humans wouldn't have reactions times (visual or audio) of less than ~100ms, which is simply untrue. There are people with <80ms visual reaction times, and even lower for that for audio stimuli.
I personally have a reaction time of ~75-90ms. So, this makes me able to 'break' biology, or your information is wrong. So, again, could you provide a source?

And, clicking a mouse, more than 3-4 clicks a second? That's bait right?
I can click ~11 times a second, and I know people that can click 18-24 times a second.
So again, either me, and the people I know are defying biological abilities, or your information is wrong.
(Here's a link, after a little warming up, because I haven't had to click that fast in a while, I got ~12CPS -- https://i.imgur.com/Ha0YFne.png )