I had provided the following answer in another thread and thought that my little guide could prove useful for those debating between Plasma and LCD displays, specifically for gaming use:
1) Reponse Time is the time taken for a pixel to change value and back again (effectively in an LCD display, how quickly the pixels shift to allow different amounts of light to pass through).
- In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the pixels will shift quicker; therefore displaying fast-paced motion with less visual artefacts than a display with a higher pixel response time.
==> Response Times tend to decrease with advances in display technology
2) Input Lag is the delay in time between a signal being input to a display and that same signal being displayed on-screen.
- In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the display will take less time to display what you are inputting (a typical example is when moving the mouse cursor on a display with high input lag, the cursor appears to lag slightly behind your own hand movement). Even milliseconds make a difference to those highly susceptible to input lag.
==> Input Lag tends to increase with advances in display technology
Input lag is caused (partially but significantly) by digital signal processing (post-processing of an input signal before it is displayed on screen).
TV manufacturers tend to develop newer and more processing-power demanding DSP techniques over time, which add to input lag when active.
For this reason, newer TV models tend to have higher input lag figures than their previous generation counterparts (however, nearly all TVs nowadays have a 'Game Mode" picture preset which disables most of the post-processing effects in order to reduce input lag).
To avoid confusion, it is important to note that the two are independent of each other.
A display can have a high response time but low input lag, and vice-versa. Ideally, you should be looking for a display with both a low response time and low input lag.
As mentioned previously in this thread, Plasma displays will beat nearly all LCD displays hands down when it comes to BOTH response time and input lag. However, part of the reason that Plasma displays are not the industry leading technology (that title belongs to LCD) is due to a phenomenon called "Image Retention"; permanent IR is called "Screen Burn-In".
If a static image (an image that doesn't move, like the TV channel logo displayed usually in the top right-hand corner or your health bar in a videogame) is displayed for extended periods of time, the Phosphor components may overheat causing a "shadow" image that remains visible on-screen at all times, even with the power off.
Early Plasma displays were plagued by this phenomenon making them completely unsuitable for videogames and computer monitor usage due to the amount of static images displayed.
However most recent Plasma displays have built-in techniques to avoid Image Retention (such as pixel-shifting, among others) making them much less susceptible to burn-in.
A typical modern-day Plasma display will have a higher contrast ratio, a lower response time and lower input lag than a typical LCD display.
Considering the display size you are looking for (40-42"), a Full HD Plasma display will also be A LOT less expensive than the equivalent LED backlit LCD.
However energy consumption is much higher among Plasma displays.
For what you are looking for (a low response time, low input lag display for use with Xbox 360) I would have to agree with vickster, go with Plasma and you certainly won't be disappointed!
That's why, in your own words you "feel a big difference motion wise when playing Fifa on the Xbox 360 for eg. from my 50hz to my mams 600hz?? "
But if you are dead-set on LCD as you mentioned, try and find an LCD with IPS panel technology.
IPS panels (generally) tend to have the lowest response times and lowest amounts of input lag among all three LCD panel technologies (TN, IPS and xVA). I will not go into detail on LCD panel technology as it will more than triple the length of my post...
The major TV manufacturers that use IPS panels are LG, Panasonic and Philips (only the European Philips models).
Hint: LCD displays in sizes of 37" and 42" are a safe bet for those coveted IPS panels, neither of the other two panel technologies are manufactured in those exact sizes.
Plasma
Pros:
- Less expensive
- Low response times
- Low input lag
- High contrast ratio
Cons:
- High energy consumption
- Still susceptible to IR and burn-in
- Some people can notice the "screen flicker" effect
- Harder to find specific models nowadays due to the increasing popularity of LED backlit LCDs
LCD
Pros: - Low energy consumption
- Much less susceptible to IR and burn-in
- Easy to find specific models
Cons: - Higher Reponse times causing motion blur
- Higher Input lag can make gaming unenjoyable on some models
- More expensive
- Contrast ratios still not quite up-to-par with Plasma
At the end of the day though it's very subjective, everyone has their own preferences / thoughts as to what constitutes a good display.
Do further research before you purchase, don't just run into your local retailer and let the salesman convince you that your Xbox will cause a Plasma display to have a permanent ammo-counter; that's unlikely to happen nowadays.
One important question to ask yourself before deciding on Plasma or LCD:
Will you take the time to properly calibrate the TV after your purchase? (this can take more than a couple of hours to get it right)
If your answer is no, you need to seriously consider Plasma. Out-of-the-box performance of Plasmas will not disappoint you, whereas I can't say the same for LCDs.
Even though I have been unashamedly promoting Plasma displays thoughout my post, a properly calibrated LCD with a high-quality panel will reach similar levels of performance. I have a 42" LCD with an AS-IPS panel that makes my trousers feel tighter everytime I spin up Crysis
1) Reponse Time is the time taken for a pixel to change value and back again (effectively in an LCD display, how quickly the pixels shift to allow different amounts of light to pass through).
- In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the pixels will shift quicker; therefore displaying fast-paced motion with less visual artefacts than a display with a higher pixel response time.
==> Response Times tend to decrease with advances in display technology
2) Input Lag is the delay in time between a signal being input to a display and that same signal being displayed on-screen.
- In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the display will take less time to display what you are inputting (a typical example is when moving the mouse cursor on a display with high input lag, the cursor appears to lag slightly behind your own hand movement). Even milliseconds make a difference to those highly susceptible to input lag.
==> Input Lag tends to increase with advances in display technology
Input lag is caused (partially but significantly) by digital signal processing (post-processing of an input signal before it is displayed on screen).
TV manufacturers tend to develop newer and more processing-power demanding DSP techniques over time, which add to input lag when active.
For this reason, newer TV models tend to have higher input lag figures than their previous generation counterparts (however, nearly all TVs nowadays have a 'Game Mode" picture preset which disables most of the post-processing effects in order to reduce input lag).
To avoid confusion, it is important to note that the two are independent of each other.
A display can have a high response time but low input lag, and vice-versa. Ideally, you should be looking for a display with both a low response time and low input lag.
As mentioned previously in this thread, Plasma displays will beat nearly all LCD displays hands down when it comes to BOTH response time and input lag. However, part of the reason that Plasma displays are not the industry leading technology (that title belongs to LCD) is due to a phenomenon called "Image Retention"; permanent IR is called "Screen Burn-In".
If a static image (an image that doesn't move, like the TV channel logo displayed usually in the top right-hand corner or your health bar in a videogame) is displayed for extended periods of time, the Phosphor components may overheat causing a "shadow" image that remains visible on-screen at all times, even with the power off.
Early Plasma displays were plagued by this phenomenon making them completely unsuitable for videogames and computer monitor usage due to the amount of static images displayed.
However most recent Plasma displays have built-in techniques to avoid Image Retention (such as pixel-shifting, among others) making them much less susceptible to burn-in.
A typical modern-day Plasma display will have a higher contrast ratio, a lower response time and lower input lag than a typical LCD display.
Considering the display size you are looking for (40-42"), a Full HD Plasma display will also be A LOT less expensive than the equivalent LED backlit LCD.
However energy consumption is much higher among Plasma displays.
For what you are looking for (a low response time, low input lag display for use with Xbox 360) I would have to agree with vickster, go with Plasma and you certainly won't be disappointed!
That's why, in your own words you "feel a big difference motion wise when playing Fifa on the Xbox 360 for eg. from my 50hz to my mams 600hz?? "
But if you are dead-set on LCD as you mentioned, try and find an LCD with IPS panel technology.
IPS panels (generally) tend to have the lowest response times and lowest amounts of input lag among all three LCD panel technologies (TN, IPS and xVA). I will not go into detail on LCD panel technology as it will more than triple the length of my post...
The major TV manufacturers that use IPS panels are LG, Panasonic and Philips (only the European Philips models).
Hint: LCD displays in sizes of 37" and 42" are a safe bet for those coveted IPS panels, neither of the other two panel technologies are manufactured in those exact sizes.
Plasma
Pros:
- Less expensive
- Low response times
- Low input lag
- High contrast ratio
Cons:
- High energy consumption
- Still susceptible to IR and burn-in
- Some people can notice the "screen flicker" effect
- Harder to find specific models nowadays due to the increasing popularity of LED backlit LCDs
LCD
Pros: - Low energy consumption
- Much less susceptible to IR and burn-in
- Easy to find specific models
Cons: - Higher Reponse times causing motion blur
- Higher Input lag can make gaming unenjoyable on some models
- More expensive
- Contrast ratios still not quite up-to-par with Plasma
At the end of the day though it's very subjective, everyone has their own preferences / thoughts as to what constitutes a good display.
Do further research before you purchase, don't just run into your local retailer and let the salesman convince you that your Xbox will cause a Plasma display to have a permanent ammo-counter; that's unlikely to happen nowadays.
One important question to ask yourself before deciding on Plasma or LCD:
Will you take the time to properly calibrate the TV after your purchase? (this can take more than a couple of hours to get it right)
If your answer is no, you need to seriously consider Plasma. Out-of-the-box performance of Plasmas will not disappoint you, whereas I can't say the same for LCDs.
Even though I have been unashamedly promoting Plasma displays thoughout my post, a properly calibrated LCD with a high-quality panel will reach similar levels of performance. I have a 42" LCD with an AS-IPS panel that makes my trousers feel tighter everytime I spin up Crysis