How much of a difference between 8ms and 5ms when gaming on a LCD HDTV

[XGamer95]

I'm going to be purchasing an LCD HDTV and I'm deciding between two identical TVs of the same brand. I will be gaming on it. One is a 42" with a 5ms response time and the other is a 39" with an 8ms response time. The thing is if I go with the 39", I save $50 and I am on a budget so is it worth the $50 extra to go with the 42" 5ms TV?

 

[XGamer95]

Bump. Not anyone has an opinion? I don't care about that size difference and the prices are $350 for the 42" and $300 for the 39".

 

[M1GU31]

not much but I would get the 42inch since it's a bit bigger but if you want to save money then 39inch

 

[profdlp]

When LCD monitors and TVs were in their early stages and the ghosting problem was a big deal, the rule of thumb was that anything under 10ms was not going to be noticeable. Nowadays I don't seem to see anything higher than 10ms anyway, at least when it comes to major brands.

Having said that, someone is bound to come along and say that they can spot a big difference between 4ms and 2ms or whatever. Independent tests say that is not possible.

 

[MagusMagnus]

Honestly, there is only so much the human eye can take in. I guarantee if you line up a few dozen people and have them blindly pick which TV they think is the 5ms or the 8ms, half or more of them would choose incorrectly. I myself for example see absolutely no difference between standard definition and bluray, or high definition and regular old TV (but over a 1080P HDTV, not an old tube TV which unarguably relay terrible quality). Same for 1080P vs 720P video quality. I physically am incapable of seeing the least bit of difference.

But that is me and my sight, you might be different though. So if you have immaculate sight, why not go and physically examine these two TV's yourself to decide which you like best, and if you are one of few who can actually, physically, notice the 2ms difference?

That said, personally, I would save myself the $50 and go with the 39" because $50 for a mere extra 3" all around is a total waste that you'll not even really notice on such an already large TV. In fact, I could have gotten a 27" instead of a 23" but I chose the 23" because it was about $50 less and I couldn't justify that highway robbery for a mere extra 2" on all sides. If we were talking a 8+" difference, then I'd have stepped up and shelled out that extra dough.

 

[Trucidation]

Yeah, doubt it. Was recently monitor-shopping myself, all of the popular models fell into either 5ms or 2ms response times. Couldn't tell just from looking at the displays, as profdlp just mentioned ghosting was only an issue on older models. I'd go for the 42" though, even if it's 'only' a 3ms difference... just to be safe. Unless you can get a refund and exchange them later if you're not satisfied.

Edit: I'm actually with MagusMagnus on this, except that I like to pick higher rather than save a few dollars. I mean, if it was like a couple hundred bucks difference then yeah, but $50 is just a coupla lunches. Shrug. It's your call.

 

[profdlp]

You might want to have a look at this:

TV Calculator

(Make sure you choose the proper aspect ratio for each.)

Keep in mind that with a diagonal measurement the good old Pythagorean theorem goes to work for you and can add a lot of real estate for what seems like a small increase in size. I just compared my 25" monitor to my housemate's 28" monitor and was surprised. I've always thought her monitor looked a little bigger, but the side-by-side comparison is striking.