its been a while since we have a Monitor vs HDTV thread.
post brands and preferences
also pros and cos
Why no both?
For gaming monitors, it seems the only reasonable choice is between Acer and Asus if you want as many nice features as possible and don't mind spending 5-600$.
HDTVs can be difficult to assess because things like input lag aren't necessarily advertised, so you need to do a bit of research. When I shop for HDTVs I want something not more expensive than 1000$, LED (OLED is still too expensive), not higher resolution than what I need for consoles (hence 4K is still not something worth paying extra for), as low input lag as possible (below 30 at least), solid pixel response times, and the best overall image quality you can get at that price point. A nice assortment of apps are a nice bonus, but with a ps4/Xbone you can do without. I got a 2014 model Sony Bravia with 14ms input lag that I think meets all these requirements quite nicely while still being affordable.
I do all my gaming in a big TV,also note that reading visuals novels on a tv is great and really pleasant
>>344589565
HDTVs are better than monitors because they are bigger.
>>344590393
The more the merrier. Also, different screens for different purposes; and never throw away a screen that you can repurpose and/or repair in any conceivable way.
It's very, VERY game-specific.
I've got a setup where my computer is connected to a smaller, 25 inch 1080p monitor in my office, and then I drilled a hole to connect it via HDMI to my 50 inch TV in my living room. I can swap between the two on the fly with very little hassle, which is nice.
I've found that differences in image quality between the two displays is negigible at best, and it really comes down to whether I prefer the home theater, surround sound and booming bass with the controller, or headphones and KB&M.
So Street Fighter, Dark Souls, Rocket League, literally any emulated game ever, that shit is best on the couch. Homeworld, Overwatch, Counterstrike, Basically any First Person shooter, just doesn't feel right unless I'm at my desk.
It's nice to have the options, though.
Honestly I just have my computer plugged into both, but I spend 99% of my time sitting on the couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse on a lap tray I made out of a plank of wood.
Shit's comfy.
What are you playing, first off? If you're going to be using this thing for like hardcore CS:GO then, yes, go with the monitor. If you're just going to be playing some Witcher 3, retro games or other single player games like that then you should be 100% if using the TV
Definitely a TV. I don't like being so close to a screen (I do it for a job, I don't want to do it for fun as well).
>>344591404
>he cant afford a 72 inch monitor
TVs are for poorfags.
>>344592238
The thing is though, good monitors are much better than TVs in almost all ways except the size. <5ms input lag, IPS, 1440p (actually playable with 60+fps on a good GPU unlike 4k atm), and glorious g-sync/freesync.
>>344592742
>IPS
But IPS is shit for gaming.
horrible response time also grey blacks killed me.-
>>344589565
>TV
Pros:
-built in speakers
-good price/size ratio
Cons:
-shitty pixel density
-slow response time (25+ ms in some cases)
-overscan which may/may not be user disabled
-limited useful connection options (RCA, S-Video, & Component, who the fuck still uses those?)
>Monitor
Pros:
-good pixel density
-multitude of connection options (DVI, HDMI, DP, etc)
-quick response time
-no overscan
Cons:
-Start getting very expensive around 30 inches
-usually no built-in speaker options
>>344592742
>The thing is though, good monitors are much better than TVs in almost all ways except the size. <5ms input lag, IPS, 1440p (actually playable with 60+fps on a good GPU unlike 4k atm), and glorious g-sync/freesync.
I play Witcher 3 at 4k60 on my 1070 on Med/Low settings. But the crispness of the visuals offsets the lowered graphical flourish
GTA V just runs at very high at 4k. A smaller 1440p screen would look laughable in comparison. Once you've played GTA V at 4k there's no going back.
I've got a 40 inch 2160p super VA monitor, I think its a decent compromise. You have what is a huge monitor up close, and from 10 feet you still have a decent sized screen that has a lot better response time than a typical TV and it has some advantages over both TN and IPS panels.
Everything about a tv is worse at a given price point except for size.
>color reproduction
worse
>input lag
worse
>response time
worse
>ppi
worse
>>344593053
That IPS's input lag shit's all over the tv's, while the TV is only marginally better at grey to grey.
>>344593219
fucking shit response time on must new panel, they are slow as fuck and blur games so bad.
damn i miss plasmas, perfect response time, perfect resolution.... they were great.
>>344593053
Good gaming IPS monitors can have around 5ms response time, which should be more than good enough considering how much pretty much all HDTVs have even at the minimum.
Blacks aren't great, I agree, and that's part of the tradeoff, in addition to IPS glow and backlight bleeding issues. The TN panels I've experience with weren't much better in terms of blacks or greys, and there was still some backlight bleed, so as of now IPS is the better options. I honestly cannot tell the difference between 1ms and 5 ms response times. For really great blacks we need to wait for OLED to become viable.
I prefer a big TV and a comfortable couch. I think for PC a desk and the monitor is the way to go since you can handle the keyboard and mouse much better.
Bit who plays on PC this days lol
>>344593579
It seems to be an intentional thing on the part of the TV makers, especially for cheap 4k screens. They want people to buy the $600 'monitor' instead of the $400 'tv' so they neuter the hardware so even if its the same panel you'll get input lag and framerate input restrictions that wouldn't normally be in there.
>>344593240
I would rather play Witcher 3 on 1440p ultra at a solid 60fps than to go 4k and then have to turn down settings to med/low. That's why 1440p is still the sweet spot imo, at least for the card I have (980ti).
144hz>4k
tvs belong in the trash
lately l only play JRPGs on the ps3, games that are not on PC (a lot to tell the truth) and note that on my monitor games look really bad, while the TV look pretty good, very clear and sharp.
>>344594227
>144hz>4k
>tvs belong in the trash
1440p is a meme resolution for tiny little ant screens
"1440p is the best" - guy with hunched back and rolled shoulders from squinting at his midget panel
"4k60 today, 4k120 tomorrow, as big as possible" - normal people
>>344594209
You can still run stuff in 1440p on most 2160p displays, you will be dealing with non-integer scaling, but at least my display seems to set the base resolution to 720p (divding the resolution by 9) and then uses the extra pixels to interpolate for the extra resolution.
What we really need are 8k displays, because then 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p will all be supported by simply by integer scaling.
>>344594379
>lately l only play JRPGs on the ps3, games that are not on PC (a lot to tell the truth) and note that on my monitor games look really bad, while the TV look pretty good, very clear and sharp.
these panels all come out the same chink factories but the midget screen crowd think there's black magic involved
I have both hooked up to my computer side by side since I use it to watch a lot of anime. I have iirc a 24" led 1080p monitor on the desk and a 50" LG plasma screen TV on a TV stand, which sits in front of my bed.
Playing on a TV can suck for certain genres, especially if you need precision. I only play Overwatch on the monitor. The TV I tend to use for console gaming, whether it's a PC port, emulation, or I'm playing on my old PS2.
I'd say a TV is more useful for watching media than playing video games. The smaller screen makes seeing all the information you need that much easier.
>>344594825
There is no advantage that a smaller screen can convey that cannot be provided by simply using a smaller window on a larger/higher density display.
In a few years 40"+ monitors should be the norm for PCs.
>>344594750
But when I already have a native 1440p screen that also has 144hz (not possible with 4k screens right now), and 1440p@120ish fps actually is possible (In Doom I easily got 110-140 fps, even on nightmare), I don't see a reason to get neither a 4k monitor nor TV until 4k gaming becomes just as solid as 1440p gaming is at the moment.
>>344594689
"Normal" people work on 4k, and play at 120hz.
>>344594787
l have a realy dice Dell Ips 1080p, 5ms response time, low input lag and comes with color calibration certificate.
and in the end, PS3 looks like complete shit on it
>>344594689
>Want to do 4k
>Don't want to upgrade everything in my fucking rig to do it
I can do 2k just fine, but at 4k I have to lower all my god damn settings and at that point it's not fucking worth it.
>I don't want to shell out 900 for a god damn monitor
>>344595494
I got mine a year ago for $700, and I drive it with a card that was $200 two years ago. You do realize that with a 2160p monitor you can still run games in 1080p just fine?
>>344589565
>its been a while since we have a Monitor vs HDTV thread.
No, it hasn't.
I'll be building my first gaming PC in a few months.
I've seen a 1080p curved monitor for little more than 250 bucks. Is it a good choice, or am I falling for a meme? The curved effect looks really immersive and comfy.
>>344595827
900 dollar monitors are 4k. I really don't want to pay that for a 2k monitor.
What card do you have? Also, what's the point of having a 2160p monitor for 1080? Just for browsing?
>>344596303
21:9 curved displays are supposed to be very good for racing games and space sims, but some consider it a gimmick and not worth it for gaming in general. One reason is that 21:9 is not necessarily supported, another is that in many games the FOV doesn't seem right, and too much of the screen gets stretched out horizontally. I'd say test it and see for yourself before you buy.
Two questions about monitors.
1) The amount of input lag isn't advertised, so how do you know the amount of input lag on any given monitor if that information isn't available online? Do monitors inherently have lower input lag compared to HDTVs?
2) If a monitor is advertised as having 1ms GTG response time, what is the actual practical response time? Does response time affect input lag at all?
>>344597110
Work. A 40" 2160p monitor is like the best of both worlds when it comes to the question of two monitors side by side where you have to pick between having a usable amount of vertical space, or a usable amount of vertical space. 16x10 monitors are expensive, a single 40" 16x9 display is relatively speaking not that much more and gives you the ability to have two windows that are 1920x2160 without also locking you into a specific window layout or size like multiple monitors do.
Its a R9 280/7950, amazingly it can actually run a fair number of games in native mode full speed, but I'm largely playing older titles. In the games that it can't run full resolution 1080p still tends to look halfway decent. It works exceptionally well from 10 feet, I've got a couch in my home office and it works well for movies and console style games.
The plan is to upgrade my system for 2160p gaming later this year / early next year.
>>344597894
1. Review sites. For monitors I'd recommend tftcentral.co.uk
2. Actual practical response time can be tested, which a quality review should do. Pixel response time is different from input lag, but you'd want as little as possible of both. The worst displays will both not be able to keep up with your in-game motion, and there will be perceivable lag between when you push the buttons and the corresponding effect is displayed on screen.
I use my HDTV, a Vizio E Series to be exact. Take a look at a site called rtings.com and they can give you great statistics on stuff like input lag, clouding, colour range, etc.
>>344599687
Okay, one more question. I've been looking into getting an Asus monitor, and I keep reading about the "trace free" overdrive settting that they use. Does that have to be enabled to get the advertised response time, or does that have nothing to do with response time?
>>344600947
"Trace free" overdrive is anti-ghosting technology. "Ghosting" is basically a blurry effect caused by high pixel response times. In later years it doesn't seem to be much of a problem with decent monitors. I'm not sure whether your specific model and sample would give exactly the advertised response time either with or without that setting enabled, but you should check reviews for that.
>>344591162
Anon your room looks cozy af
Replace 360 with a PS3 and that's my current set up
>>344599608
If I blow on a 390 / 390x do you think it'll run 2k? I know that's a stupid fucking question because it's got 8gb of fucking vram but I just want to fucking buy a card and be done looking to upgrade for a few years.
What's a decent 40" 2K monitor? I like the sound of having a fuckhuge monitor like that.
>>344594227
why not get a 4k 200hz tv for 13k? you're not a povo cunt are you?
