2ms vs. 5ms For Monitor Response Time

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Get In Get Out, Jan 11, 2011.

  1. I am in the market for an 8 screen monitor display. I would like to know what the difference is between 2ms vs. 5ms while selecting a montor ? Which one is better for trading with? I was going to go with the Samsung BX2440. Thank you
  2. In general the faster the response time the better.

    From wiki:


    This picture illustrated the difference in response times:


    I don't think 5ms versus 2ms is all that different in trading (charting). Unless you plan to use your monitors to watch movies or sports. I have a few Samsang 2243BWX and 2343BWX. They have 5ms response time and chart displays on them work fine.
  3. Roark


    That extra 3 ms makes all the difference in the world to my trading lol. Isn't, human reaction time greater than 100 ms?
  4. I don't understand why people like ninjatrader and others use lines like :

    We delay our chart data (in NT7) by minimum 100ms because human response time is 100ms

    Don't these morons at ninjatrader don't understand that you need to add THEIR delay on top of the human reaction time ?
  5. Dang good question. I would like to see Ray answer this one.
  6. kenten


    i am no expert but i researched enough when buying.
    the answer is you can not see the difference unless you play one those fast fps games. even than 5 ms and 2 ms is same for most of the eyes. for charting and trading (maybe a little movie play) 5 ms is more than enough .
    on the other hand 24inch monitor may cause some headache. 21"-22" will be ideal , according to my research.
  7. Using sierracharts gives me a 100ms edge, my orders will come first of yours.

    Default setting in NT7 is even 500ms, that gives me half a second of edge.
  8. Seems like we have a mix discussion on the LCD monitor hardware response time with the trading software delay response time.
  9. LeeD


    First, for normal use even 15 ms response time is totally adequate and in trading you won't see any difference whatsoever between 10ms and 3ms. The only area where repsonse time makes tiny bit of difference is the 3D monitors where one eye is supposed to see odd frames and the other eye sees even frames. In this case the whole picture on the screen is fully replaced with a different picture every frame. Further, "fast response" screens are chartacterized by "overshooting" where a black pixel becomes nearly white before becoming the expected dark grey. So, fast response is not always better picture.

    Second, monitors also have input lag - the time between a monitor receiving a picture and displaying it. This time reaches 30 ms for some modern screens.

    Then data feeds don't deliver data instanteneously either. Retail feeds deliver data 100ms and later after the event (it's not the feed, it's the way network infrastructure works). Even in prop environment, below 50ms would be quite exceptional.

    Finally, good charting software has redraw frequency on charts. It is not a "delay" as other posters suggested but rather a chart displays a snapshot fo the cuirrent state of the market (after the datfeed lag) every 100ms or with other specified frequency. The reason charting packages have to do it is during spikes of activity in busy instruments like S&P 500 E-minis there can be a few thousand ticks arriving in a second. Trying to re-draw the whole chart with this frequency will bring to its knees the fastest computers. Then redraw interval is chosen conservatively so that users with an old slow computer who open 20-30 charts simultaneously still feel the charting is quite snappy. Those who need faster charts can always reduce redraw interval at their own risk.

    Conclusion. 7 years ago response time was an important consideration. Since then the technology matured and currently response time is pure fad.