Principle Matter 32" Curved 165Hz QHD 1ms Monitor Discussions | Drop

Dec 7, 2018

It looks fine, it's definetely not "too good to be true," but the MSI AG32CQ with very similar specs, only 144hz but a 1 ms response time (and the 2ms gtg is gonna matter more than the 0.8 ms difference between 144hz and the 165), from a brand name, is on amazon for $389 rn. I'd definitely spend the extra $90 for better specs and a reputable brand.

(Edited)

lolzlolz6

Dec 7, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologylol ms time is the last thing you need to look in a monitor, theres now difference between 1-10 that our eye can notice, even in slow motion its not noticeable.

Vote

Dec 7, 2018

lolzlolz6You don't seem to understand response time. It's the period of time from when the monitor receives the signal to when it gets displayed. It's crucial to high level gamers, and peripheral input lag, ping, and a thousand other factors all add up. And yes, you can see input lag.

Nickhett

Dec 7, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologydude, ping has literally nothing to do with response time of the monitor.

(Edited)

Dec 8, 2018

NickhettThey all add to the total time between when you see something on the screen, move your mouse/hit a key, and the action happens in game. He's saying that response time doesn't matter, in which case you should do all your gaming on a 50ms TV no problem, right? Of course not. That's stupid. Response time matters just as much as Hertz, and is in this case more important, as the difference between 144 hz and 165 is less than 1 ms between frames (0.8 to be exact).

PrincipleMatter

196

Principle Matter

Dec 8, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyI think the most importance is all about the panel used in a monitor. This 32" Principle Matter disclose what panel implemented, which is capable of a higher refresh rate. I don't think MSI will never able to tell what panel is implemented. Anyhow, like the brand's name Principle Matter; what's your principle?

andythecao

Dec 10, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyIt definitely won’t apply to you. Like you said high level gamers

andythecao

Dec 10, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyAnd how are you gonna use a 50ms tv to argue that the 1-2ms differences in panel types even matter LOL.

Vote

Dec 11, 2018

andythecao1. He said that response time doesn't matter, I was pointing out that it does by using the hyperbole of a slow tv 2. You don't know who I am, you don't know what level I game at 3. The argument was whether the MSI monitor is better. 144 hz 1 ms is objectively better than 165hz 3 ms, because the 15 hz difference equates to just 0.8 ms more frame time as opposed to a 2 ms delay. I prefer a better monitor from a more reputable brand, that's all.

Dec 12, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyresponse time has to do with the brain perceiving actions performed by the user translating into images, if the monitor had a 100ms response time, you'd be able to perceive a lag between actions. between 1-3ms you're splitting hairs, this has been discussed thoroughly on blurbusters. funny enough, the Asus and Acer 1440p IPS gsync models have the lowest net response time aside from 240hz monitors. "high level gamers" arent buying products on mass drop, they have sponsors or are leased a computer from their team. Seriously if you aren't literally being paid to win competitions in FPS there is absolutely no need to debate between 1-3ms response times.

Vote

Dec 12, 2018

SchmuckOr maybe, just maybe, I'm allowed to split hairs for a better experience if I have the money. If I want a monitor that's 0.0012 ms faster, I'm allowed to get it, it's my money. If I want to recommend a monitor that's $80 more, slightly faster, brighter, and from a better brand, I can do so. Not to mention that the faster monitor is from a brand everyone knows and trusts rather than 'Principle Matter.'

(Edited)

Thisisntbic

Dec 12, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyYou are also allowed to admit you're argument is flawed and that you didn't even comprehend what lolzlolz6 even said.... but you did not. 1. He said that response time doesn't matter - incorrect 2. You don't know who I am, you don't know what level I game at - doesn't matter, unless you are an AI chatbot on here, and can process/react as quickly as a machine, it makes no difference. Humans are not capable of distinguishing between 1ms (1000 refreshes a second) and 4ms (250 refreshes a second). 3. This monitor is 1ms delay, so your entire argument is that paying 30% more for a brand name monitor is worth it to you. Congrats.

Vote

Dec 12, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyResponse time and input latency are different though.

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

Thisisntbic"Humans can't distinguish between 1 ms and 4 ms" proceeds to talk about refresh rates, which are different... you clearly don't understand Hz vs Input lag, and the layer is far more important. 1ms vs 4ms of input lag is not about whether you can distinguish it, it means that you'll see the frames 3/1000 if a second earlier. He also did say that response time doesn't matter: "ms time is the last thing you need to look for in a monitor." This monitor is also a 4ms delay, not 1ms. Where are you getting 1 ms? You don't know what you're talking about, but if you're so confident, why don't you buy from sketchy, obscure companies like "Principal Matter?" No different than MSI, which has transferrable warranties, quality-controlled components, millions of good reviews, and international distribution, right?

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

skaweNo shit sherlock

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnology I'm not trying to stir anything up. It just seems some part of your argument, which would be referencing response time, is actually input lag.

(Edited)

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

ModernPerpectiveTechnologyLol are you actually trying to flex on us over a 300 dollar monitor? Child, the backbone of this website are 6 figure earning millenials. Stay in your lane. The point of my post is that there is NO real world perceivable difference in performance. This monitor falls flat for two reasons despite their great effort adding a joystick OSM controller: The design is gawdy, ditch flair, that red bottom border is asymmetric and distracting. No name companies need to push their value. Secondly, 32" will render the resolution gains pointless, this is 4k territory. There's always a niche but I suspect it's not large enough to float a business on. You made it sound like you demand the best, so go to the local electronics store, get an Asus pg27uq and be done with it.

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

SchmuckTrue, about 32" faring better with 2160p. 32" 1440p would have a similar PPI to a 24" 1080p monitor. I'm honestly still on the fence with this one because of the price and panel with gripes to the size. If it were the Nixeus EDG27, it would have been a done deal.

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

skawehttps://www.blurbusters.com/human-reflex-input-lag-and-the-limits-of-human-reaction-time/4/ Here's the article from blurbusters. The take away, personally, is that latency trumps ALL, it doesn't matter if I have a 240hz 0.5ms panel if the opponent has a 30ms faster ping and is on a 5ms monitor, I'm dead, all things equal. The net draw time, adding all the delays involved from the video card to the pixel finally switching are secondary to server latency, barring massive disparities in response times. A 5ms difference saw a 57% win increase in a "first to fire" test (poorly dubbed Quickdraw). Which would mean they won almost 75% of the matches of a 5ms VS 10ms with nearly identical reaction speeds. The test was basically who's monitor shows a flash of light first and therefore clicks mouse 1 first. As the disparities become less, it's quite obvious there will be real world diminishing returns on the impacts. I'm willing to bet 2ms falls into the category of non-impactful. Especially when the difference between a professional FPS players reaction speed and an average person's is about 80ms. I'd say that response times are now neglible to all but 0.1% of gamers.

Vote

Dec 13, 2018

skawe1080p on a 24" is pretty nice, the question comes to sacrifice at this price point. No personal experience but with the physical size of all onscreen objects increasing along with the wider dimensions, you'd still have a much better experience. You just won't get that near uncanny realistic visual acuity of a 4k monitor at a similar size.

Dec 13, 2018

SchmuckI'm not sure why you tagged me (for blurbusters post), but it seems like you're mixing up display latency/input lag with response time, going by the article. edit: oop, didn't see your follow up post. at least with 32" 1440p, you'd still get the extra workspace because of the increased resolution

(Edited)

Vote