Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Using 32" tv for pc gaming monitor 1080p vs 720p

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 12, 2013 11:04:37 PM

I have just built my first computer and i hooked up my 720p 32" tv to it. (native resolution=1366x768) I sit a little over 2 feet away from it. I was going to get a 24 inch monitor, but i actually quite like having this big of a screen, so will i see any difference playing games and such if I did buy a 32" with native resolution at 1080p? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... Or would i just be better off with the 24" monitor? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Answers are very appreciated :) 
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:09:37 PM

pcnoob1911 said:
I have just built my first computer and i hooked up my 720p 32" tv to it. (native resolution=1366x768) I sit a little over 2 feet away from it. I was going to get a Benq xl2420te monitor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... , but i actually quite like having this big of a screen, so will i see any difference playing games and such if I did buy a 32" with native resolution at 1080p?


1080p will look clearer, as you would probably expect. The closer you are to any screen, the more you will be able to see the pixels. Everyone has their own preference on screen size, so use what you like best. Don't go with a smaller monitor if you enjoy a 32" TV. Although I really do think your overall experience will be better if you did have a 1080p screen, but hey some people might not care.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:13:08 PM

I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!
m
0
l
Related resources
December 12, 2013 11:27:42 PM

dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:36:19 PM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


720p, it just didn't feel crisp and clear to me. Plus it was too big for my preference, not a big fan on really big screens because you have to move your head more to see everything. On a smaller monitor, you just have to move your eyes.

This is what my desktop looks like, you can try comparing it to yours to see what you prefer:
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:40:45 PM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


Probably because of 720p. Not that 720p is bad, but 1080p is just better. And the bigger the screen, the worse 720p looks. It's just a nicer and crisper experience gaming on 1080p. Especially on that large of a screen. Monitors often give you a much better gaming experience. Chances are, your TV has pretty bad response time, which impacts game fluidity. Also your TV most likely isn't an IPS panel, which is becoming somewhat common in monitors. IPS give you a brighter and more vivid color palette, making gaming more enjoyable as well. I use two 24" IPS 2ms response time monitors, and as far as gaming goes, I really enjoy them much more than a TV.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:42:31 PM

dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


720p, it just didn't feel crisp and clear to me. Plus it was too big for my preference, not a big fan on really big screens because you have to move your head more to see everything. On a smaller monitor, you just have to move your eyes.

This is what my desktop looks like, you can try comparing it to yours to see what you prefer:


mmmmMMMmmmm Titanfall ;) 
Also, he won't get to experience this 1080p picture on his 720p screen, silly. lol
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2013 11:45:01 PM

Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


720p, it just didn't feel crisp and clear to me. Plus it was too big for my preference, not a big fan on really big screens because you have to move your head more to see everything. On a smaller monitor, you just have to move your eyes.

This is what my desktop looks like, you can try comparing it to yours to see what you prefer:


mmmmMMMmmmm Titanfall ;) 
Also, he won't get to experience this 1080p picture on his 720p screen, silly. lol


You already know :bounce: 
Yep, I don't know if this is the right way to put it but 1080p just feels bigger without being bigger.... compared to 720p on a 32" baha.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 12:26:34 AM

dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


720p, it just didn't feel crisp and clear to me. Plus it was too big for my preference, not a big fan on really big screens because you have to move your head more to see everything. On a smaller monitor, you just have to move your eyes.

This is what my desktop looks like, you can try comparing it to yours to see what you prefer:


dopeysaidso said:
Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
I personally will never go 720p and will ALWAYS elect to go 1080p.I like the wider view and it's a lot more crispier.
I have a 24" monitor (I actually played on 720p on MY 32" TV 2 ft away, same as you! I hated it though but it was what I had before I received my new monitor in the mail).
I guess it's just personal preference; if you're comfortable with it.. stick with it!


You didn't like it because it was too big? or because it was 720p?


720p, it just didn't feel crisp and clear to me. Plus it was too big for my preference, not a big fan on really big screens because you have to move your head more to see everything. On a smaller monitor, you just have to move your eyes.

This is what my desktop looks like, you can try comparing it to yours to see what you prefer:


mmmmMMMmmmm Titanfall ;) 
Also, he won't get to experience this 1080p picture on his 720p screen, silly. lol


You already know :bounce: 
Yep, I don't know if this is the right way to put it but 1080p just feels bigger without being bigger.... compared to 720p on a 32" baha.


Well, now I have to get a 1080p monitor. Now i'm so undecided as to get either 24" or 32" :??:  maybe i should just bite the bullet and buy a 27" monitor as a compromise and pay some extra $$$.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:29:56 AM

Entirely up to you! It's just my personal opinion.
I just never really felt TV's displaying as well as a computer monitor because well... the monitor is made for a computer.
And usually TV 1080p is usually never really 1080p (at most times).
It all depends on what you like, if you really want to go for the 27" go ahead but if you're going above that size I'd maybe look at 1440p.
1080p is fine for monitors that size though.

edit:
Here's a 27" 1080p the same prices as the TV/monitor you linked.
http://www.amazon.com/MX279H-27-Inch-Screen-LED-Lit-Mon...
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 12:41:25 AM

dopeysaidso said:
Entirely up to you! It's just my personal opinion.
I just never really felt TV's displaying as well as a computer monitor because well... the monitor is made for a computer.
And usually TV 1080p is usually never really 1080p (at most times).
It all depends on what you like, if you really want to go for the 27" go ahead but if you're going above that size I'd maybe look at 1440p.
1080p is fine for monitors that size though.

edit:
Here's a 27" 1080p the same prices as the TV/monitor you linked.
http://www.amazon.com/MX279H-27-Inch-Screen-LED-Lit-Mon...


That's actually a pretty good price for an ips panel if i'm not mistaken :love:  One last question: Do you know if asus makes a durable monitor?
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:44:02 AM

27" is a nice size for single monitor gaming. I prefer 24" but then again I sit within about 2 feet of them and I use two of them. You can find decent 24" models for around 150$~ and decent 27" models starting at 200$. Either way I suggest you go with 1080p (obviously) and an IPS panel. You really don't need anything about 60hz either, unless your system is just so amazing ridiculous that you get 100+ FPS in ultra quality games.
m
0
l

Best solution

December 13, 2013 12:46:03 AM

The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.
Share
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:46:15 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
Entirely up to you! It's just my personal opinion.
I just never really felt TV's displaying as well as a computer monitor because well... the monitor is made for a computer.
And usually TV 1080p is usually never really 1080p (at most times).
It all depends on what you like, if you really want to go for the 27" go ahead but if you're going above that size I'd maybe look at 1440p.
1080p is fine for monitors that size though.

edit:
Here's a 27" 1080p the same prices as the TV/monitor you linked.
http://www.amazon.com/MX279H-27-Inch-Screen-LED-Lit-Mon...


That's actually a pretty good price for an ips panel if i'm not mistaken :love:  One last question: Do you know if asus makes a durable monitor?


I have like 5 monitors in my house and every one of them is ASUS, never had a single problem or dead pixel. The one he linked is pretty sexy if I do say so myself. It's still kinda pricey though consider you can get a 24" IPS with a 2ms response time for 150-180$ from ASUS.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:46:27 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
Entirely up to you! It's just my personal opinion.
I just never really felt TV's displaying as well as a computer monitor because well... the monitor is made for a computer.
And usually TV 1080p is usually never really 1080p (at most times).
It all depends on what you like, if you really want to go for the 27" go ahead but if you're going above that size I'd maybe look at 1440p.
1080p is fine for monitors that size though.

edit:
Here's a 27" 1080p the same prices as the TV/monitor you linked.
http://www.amazon.com/MX279H-27-Inch-Screen-LED-Lit-Mon...


That's actually a pretty good price for an ips panel if i'm not mistaken :love:  One last question: Do you know if asus makes a durable monitor?


YES! A definite yes, I LOVE Asus.
When it comes to monitors, the top brands include Samsung, LG, Asus, and others that I can't think to name (I usually choose from those 3).
I'm actually using a Asus VS247H-P and I'm planning on buying another one to run dual monitors.
I sit about 2ft away from mine.

That monitor also looks sexy.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:48:33 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 12:48:55 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


Really? I've never heard of this before. That makes the choice really obvious then :D 
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 12:50:12 AM

dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 12:51:35 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


Really? I've never heard of this before. That makes the choice really obvious then :D 


Yes TVs are designed to be watched from 6-12 feet away where as monitors are made for much closer use. Hence the reason why the pixels are lower quality, because you would not be able to tell the difference at that far away.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:53:26 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


I use two of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS248H-P-24-Inch-Full-HD-Mon...

You get great performance for the price. OR you could go with the slightly older but cheaper model which is also a solid choice:

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS247H-P-23-6-Inch-Full-HD-L...

Both are about the same size and offer 2ms response time as well as an IPS panel, HDMI input, etc.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:56:12 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 12:57:11 AM

Quakemz said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


I use two of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS248H-P-24-Inch-Full-HD-Mon...

You get great performance for the price. OR you could go with the slightly older but cheaper model which is also a solid choice:

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS247H-P-23-6-Inch-Full-HD-L...

Both are about the same size and offer 2ms response time as well as an IPS panel, HDMI input, etc.


I have the older 247H-P.
Both are basically the same, just get whatever is cheaper at the time :-) because the prices seem to always jump.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 1:00:22 AM

Just don't buy an HP LV2311. That monitor is a piece of junk for gaming.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 1:02:15 AM

dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...


Wow, not bad reviews either on newegg. Maybe I need to pick up one of these. Its tough to find 1440p monitors under the 400$ range that are actually good.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 1:05:03 AM

Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...


Wow, not bad reviews either on newegg. Maybe I need to pick up one of these. Its tough to find 1440p monitors under the 400$ range that are actually good.


I'm actually considering picking it up also once the cash rolls around :-)
According to Kyle (Associate Producer at Newegg), it's a huge steal!
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 1:06:28 AM

Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...


Wow, not bad reviews either on newegg. Maybe I need to pick up one of these. Its tough to find 1440p monitors under the 400$ range that are actually good.


Yes it is the best 1440p Korean monitor on the market. Overclockable to 120hz as well. Does have problems with bezel causing backlight bleed and 8ms response time though. Also most come with 1-3 dead pixels.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 1:09:55 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...


Wow, not bad reviews either on newegg. Maybe I need to pick up one of these. Its tough to find 1440p monitors under the 400$ range that are actually good.


Yes it is the best 1440p Korean monitor on the market. Overclockable to 120hz as well. Does have problems with bezel causing backlight bleed and 8ms response time though. Also most come with 1-3 dead pixels.



Well backlight bleed is to be expected, but you really only notice it on a black screen. Also, I read all the newegg reviews and even though there was only 20, none complained of dead pixels, and 4 out of 5 was the lowest rating. 8ms is a little rough though. :/ 
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 1:10:19 AM

The human eye can't really tell the difference when it comes to response time. The response time is also measured differently pending the manufacturer.
Response time is usually just a spec manufacturers add in to attract customers but you shouldn't really pay much attention to it.
You should never really pay attention to response time, but look at refresh rates.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 1:11:19 AM

Quakemz said:
MapRef41N93W said:
Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


Kyle via 'Awesomesauce News' just gave a review of a 27" 1440p monitor not too long ago..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
On Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...


Wow, not bad reviews either on newegg. Maybe I need to pick up one of these. Its tough to find 1440p monitors under the 400$ range that are actually good.


Yes it is the best 1440p Korean monitor on the market. Overclockable to 120hz as well. Does have problems with bezel causing backlight bleed and 8ms response time though. Also most come with 1-3 dead pixels.



Well backlight bleed is to be expected, but you really only notice it on a black screen. Also, I read all the newegg reviews and even though there was only 20, none complained of dead pixels, and 4 out of 5 was the lowest rating. 8ms is a little rough though. :/ 


The Newegg ones are apparently the best batch. Most who buy from ebay (from basically the same 2 sellers as Newegg) get ones with a few dead pixels.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:03:24 AM

dopeysaidso said:
Quakemz said:
pcnoob1911 said:
dopeysaidso said:
MapRef41N93W said:
The worst thing is that you are gaming on a 720p TV. That is kind of like gaming on a 600p monitor. Not to mention the fact that the TV probably has a 30 ms+ response time. TV's have far lower quality pixels than a monitor and to get them to fit on that 32" screen they are blown up to be larger reducing the quality more.


+1, once you get a monitor you'll see a HUGE difference.
If you want to go cheap and get a 24" (or exactly 23.6") monitor with 2ms response at 1080p with an HDMI port, the one I have (Asus VS 247H-P) can be found at around $130 (bought mine from Amazon warehouse open box).


Decisions.....Decisions...


I use two of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS248H-P-24-Inch-Full-HD-Mon...

You get great performance for the price. OR you could go with the slightly older but cheaper model which is also a solid choice:

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS247H-P-23-6-Inch-Full-HD-L...

Both are about the same size and offer 2ms response time as well as an IPS panel, HDMI input, etc.


I have the older 247H-P.
Both are basically the same, just get whatever is cheaper at the time :-) because the prices seem to always jump.


Thoughts on this monitor? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-c750-series-27-34-l... Or is ips kind of mandatory? When I type the product # into newegg it shows a slightly different monitor, but i assume they use the same panel, which is an ad-pls?
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:05:42 AM

PLS is Samsung's inhouse IPS technology. You won't notice much of a difference.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:24:48 AM

According to Best Buy that Samsung has no DVI-D port, which would be a deal sealer for me. Personally I would recommend you just buy the QNIX at that price point, as they only take about 3 days to ship from Korea anyways. Also you get matte coating with the QNIX which is fantastic if you have bad glare issues like I do.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:28:07 AM

dopeysaidso said:
The human eye can't really tell the difference when it comes to response time. The response time is also measured differently pending the manufacturer.
Response time is usually just a spec manufacturers add in to attract customers but you shouldn't really pay much attention to it.
You should never really pay attention to response time, but look at refresh rates.


I completely disagree, to a point. I noticed a MASSIVE difference when I went from 23ms TV to a 2ms monitor. 8ms isn't bad, but it's still not ideal for gaming. Now I do agree that people probably won't notice a small difference, say 8ms to 5ms, but its possible to feel a difference from 8ms to 2ms. Depending on eye sensitivity maybe. When I played on a TV it was horrendous compared to a monitor. I could literally see a gap between when I entered a command, and it got executed.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:29:48 AM

I'd also probably get the Qnix 1440p monitor if you're planning on spending 300$+ anyway...seems almost like a waste not to.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:30:03 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
According to Best Buy that Samsung has no DVI-D port, which would be a deal sealer for me. Personally I would recommend you just buy the QNIX at that price point, as they only take about 3 days to ship from Korea anyways. Also you get matte coating with the QNIX which is fantastic if you have bad glare issues like I do.


So, what's the overall difference between hdmi and dvi, audio right? whats the difference between dvi and dvi-d? I've always just used hdmi, so i really don't know much at all about dvi...
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:30:11 AM

Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
The human eye can't really tell the difference when it comes to response time. The response time is also measured differently pending the manufacturer.
Response time is usually just a spec manufacturers add in to attract customers but you shouldn't really pay much attention to it.
You should never really pay attention to response time, but look at refresh rates.


I completely disagree, to a point. I noticed a MASSIVE difference when I went from 23ms TV to a 2ms monitor. 8ms isn't bad, but it's still not ideal for gaming. Now I do agree that people probably won't notice a small difference, say 8ms to 5ms, but its possible to feel a difference from 8ms to 2ms. Depending on eye sensitivity maybe. When I played on a TV it was horrendous compared to a monitor. I could literally see a gap between when I entered a command, and it got executed.


Sorry, forgot to mention the fact that if its a change from like 5ms to like 30ms, it's noticeable.
but 2ms compared to 8ms doesn't really matter.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:33:48 AM

dopeysaidso said:
Quakemz said:
dopeysaidso said:
The human eye can't really tell the difference when it comes to response time. The response time is also measured differently pending the manufacturer.
Response time is usually just a spec manufacturers add in to attract customers but you shouldn't really pay much attention to it.
You should never really pay attention to response time, but look at refresh rates.


I completely disagree, to a point. I noticed a MASSIVE difference when I went from 23ms TV to a 2ms monitor. 8ms isn't bad, but it's still not ideal for gaming. Now I do agree that people probably won't notice a small difference, say 8ms to 5ms, but its possible to feel a difference from 8ms to 2ms. Depending on eye sensitivity maybe. When I played on a TV it was horrendous compared to a monitor. I could literally see a gap between when I entered a command, and it got executed.


Sorry, forgot to mention the fact that if its a change from like 5ms to like 30ms, it's noticeable.
but 2ms compared to 8ms doesn't really matter.


I think it might be dependent on the person viewing it. but you might be right. The competitive gamer in me kinda just took over.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:35:57 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
MapRef41N93W said:
According to Best Buy that Samsung has no DVI-D port, which would be a deal sealer for me. Personally I would recommend you just buy the QNIX at that price point, as they only take about 3 days to ship from Korea anyways. Also you get matte coating with the QNIX which is fantastic if you have bad glare issues like I do.


So, what's the overall difference between hdmi and dvi, audio right? whats the difference between dvi and dvi-d? I've always just used hdmi, so i really don't know much at all about dvi...


Generally you need DVI to attain higher than 1080p. So for a 1440p screen, I think its a necessity.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:39:42 AM

Up to 1080p it doesn't matter which one you use, but above that like 1440p DVI comes into place.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:41:38 AM

How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:41:53 AM

Correct there is no real difference. It's just a personal preference.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:45:36 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?


It depends on the game obviously. A 280x would handle decently at 1440p and allow you to play most non graphically intensive games at max settings 60 fps. For more intense must play games like Metro: LL and BF4 I think it gets around 30 fps at ultra 4x aa. You could always turn down or off AA (though why build a pimped out PC and not run AA...) and get up to 50-60 fps.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 13, 2013 2:48:07 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
pcnoob1911 said:
How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?


It depends on the game obviously. A 280x would handle decently at 1440p and allow you to play most non graphically intensive games at max settings 60 fps. For more intense must play games like Metro: LL and BF4 I think it gets around 30 fps at ultra 4x aa. You could always turn down or off AA (though why build a pimped out PC and not run AA...) and get up to 50-60 fps.


BF4 actually isn't as graphically intensive as people think. It's a bit like BF3.
The 280x is a rebranded 7970 GHz ed. I have a Sapphire 7950 (a bit overclocked) and I run BF4 on ultra with 4xaa at ~60fps (obviously can only see 60fps).
This was a bit unnecessary but thought I'd point that out :-P.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:53:37 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
pcnoob1911 said:
How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?


It depends on the game obviously. A 280x would handle decently at 1440p and allow you to play most non graphically intensive games at max settings 60 fps. For more intense must play games like Metro: LL and BF4 I think it gets around 30 fps at ultra 4x aa. You could always turn down or off AA (though why build a pimped out PC and not run AA...) and get up to 50-60 fps.


Alright, you pretty much talked me into it :D  , just hope it doesn't crap out shortly after 90 days, because there's no warranty :ouch: 
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:56:10 AM

pcnoob1911 said:
MapRef41N93W said:
pcnoob1911 said:
How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?


It depends on the game obviously. A 280x would handle decently at 1440p and allow you to play most non graphically intensive games at max settings 60 fps. For more intense must play games like Metro: LL and BF4 I think it gets around 30 fps at ultra 4x aa. You could always turn down or off AA (though why build a pimped out PC and not run AA...) and get up to 50-60 fps.


Alright, you pretty much talked me into it :D  , just hope it doesn't crap out shortly after 90 days, because there's no warranty :ouch: 


Newegg allows you to buy a warranty from their department don't they? Even at like 40$ that is about the same price as the other 2 monitors you are looking into.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 2:59:33 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
pcnoob1911 said:
MapRef41N93W said:
pcnoob1911 said:
How would an r9 280x handle 1440p? idk if that would be optimal for gaming for me, i guess i could always just set the resolution to 1080p, but would it fit on the screen correctly then?


It depends on the game obviously. A 280x would handle decently at 1440p and allow you to play most non graphically intensive games at max settings 60 fps. For more intense must play games like Metro: LL and BF4 I think it gets around 30 fps at ultra 4x aa. You could always turn down or off AA (though why build a pimped out PC and not run AA...) and get up to 50-60 fps.


Alright, you pretty much talked me into it :D  , just hope it doesn't crap out shortly after 90 days, because there's no warranty :ouch: 


Newegg allows you to buy a warranty from their department don't they? Even at like 40$ that is about the same price as the other 2 monitors you are looking into.


I actually don't see an "extended warranty" option.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 3:04:51 AM

You can buy a warranty from Squaretrade's website. They are showing a price of 49.99 for a monitor priced at 339.99.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 3:20:04 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
You can buy a warranty from Squaretrade's website. They are showing a price of 49.99 for a monitor priced at 339.99.


never heard of squaretrader. Thanks for the tip :D 
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 3:23:09 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
You can buy a warranty from Squaretrade's website. They are showing a price of 49.99 for a monitor priced at 339.99.


under tvs?
m
0
l
!