PC gaming TV

answer him

>>344963191

Oled obviously. Color over anything

>>344963191
If you can afford an OLED TV, fucking get it

>PC gaming
>TV
please do not fall for the meme.
TVs are cheaper than monitors for a reason, they're designed to make footage look better instead of accurately monitoring pixels.
Input latency, fuzziness and lying about the refresh rate are just some of the problems TVs have.
Sure you can find some decent ones if you really do your research but 9/10 TVs are a terrible idea for PC gaming.

>>344963191
>oled
have they progressed with this very far? Last I heard the blue lighting had a short lifespan and, it was prohibitively expensive.

File: csm_vergleich_1_gerade_d0f5b81bca.jpg (118KB, 1920x576px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

118KB, 1920x576px

OLED/AMOLED:

More number of colors.
Superior black, great for movies.
Better viewing angles.
Power saving considering black pixels don't need energy.

IPS:

More realistic looking images.
Display has a good life (OLED starts burning in pixels after 4000+ hrs).
More sharpness.
Better sunlight readability.
Cheaper than OLED.

Though oleds are expensive as fuck. A monitor would be better but if you're dead set on a tv I would go with oled if you can afford it.

>>344964615

Forgot to mention left is ips right is oled

>>344964615
>more realistic looking images.
What does this mean?

>>344964615
Contrast ratio is usually agreed upon to be the most important factor in image quality.

>>344964816

what did he mean by this?

http://timedwatcher.blogspot.com/