The new display has 14ms?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by definitive, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. definitive macrumors 68000


    Aug 4, 2008
    Shouldn't it have been lower by now, or am I missing something? I always thought that the lower the number, the better it performs in motion video, etc... Tons of today's new screens come with 8ms or less...
  2. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    Most LCD panels quote the gray to gray response time, which can be misleading. ;)
    Take a look at this. Wiki is your friend. :)
  3. definitive thread starter macrumors 68000


    Aug 4, 2008
    Yes, Wiki is my friend, and according to it, 14ms is not good...

    Anyone else care to enlighten me? Do these "LED" screens have a different standard for refresh rate?
  4. xraydoc macrumors demi-god


    Oct 9, 2005
    The "LED" part is simply the backlight source (versus the more common CCLF fluorescent tubes). They get to full brightness nearly instantly, last longer, use less power and don't degrade over time as much as the CCFLs do. They can also be packaged into thinner screens. The actual pixels are still produced by a thin-film LCD, same as current screens.

    The ultrafast response times quoted for many "gamer" LCDs are for lower quality TN or MVA panel technology. Bright and fast, but poorer viewing angles and less accurate color and greyscale.

    High quality PVA and IPS panels tend to be slower but far superior in image quality (viewing angle, gamma, consistency, etc.). Besides, 14ms is likely to be fast enough for all but the most serious gamer (who wouldn't be buying an Apple display anyway for $900).

    However, I do have to say that I believe the DisplayPort-only connection was a poor choice on Apple's part. And why wouldn't Apple release a 20" equivalent display? Sure, the 24" is nice, but what about people who don't want to spend $900 on a display to go with their new $1200 laptop?

Share This Page