Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Thinking about a significant monitor upgrade...

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Displays
September 4, 2012 4:44:33 AM

Hello all,

I'm thinking about buying this tv, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0039RV0DM/ref=ox_sc_a... , and using it as a monitor for my rig. I have a few questions about this:

Will adding 18 inches of screen increase the load on my graphics cards? I have gigabyte 5850 x2

Is the 120hz going to further increase that strain? or is that something that the processor in the monitor deals with?

Finally does anybody else here use a similar setup? (40+ inch screen with slightly older cards)

I play bf3, Arkham City, Witcher 2, and many other games on ultra settings and usually stay above 50fps in all of them on my 24in 1080p 60hz viewsonic

I'll post the rest of my specs in anybody needs them

More about : thinking significant monitor upgrade

a c 133 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 4, 2012 4:57:12 AM

Never use TVs as your primary display. The pixel pitch on a display like that is huge, they're meant to be viewed from a distance. TN style LCDs also have problems reproducing deep blacks and bright whites, a problem that gets worse with screen size. The resolution will also be a problem
Score
0
a c 326 U Graphics card
a c 259 C Monitor
September 4, 2012 4:58:14 AM

Inches is irrelevant, just the resolution matters so you will see no performance difference vs a 24 inch. Hz is also irrelevant and is just how fast the monitor can refresh so you have a higher max fps potential. Of course if you are rendering those extra frames your gpu is doing more work.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 4, 2012 5:06:25 AM

Pinhedd: Alright yea I was a little worried about sitting so close to a giant radiation box anyway xD

k1114: So do you think my performance would suffer badly with a 120hz monitor of any size?
Score
0

Best solution

a c 326 U Graphics card
a c 259 C Monitor
September 4, 2012 3:17:30 PM

I thought I was clear, hz and inches is irrelevant. There is no performance difference vs a 24" 60hz 1080p vs a 40" 120hz 1080p.
Share
September 4, 2012 3:37:51 PM

Also, 99% of 120Hz TVs can't accept 120Hz input from your computer... they're not the same as 120 Hz monitors. TVs take 60Hz input and interpolate between frames to get 120 Hz, which isn't what you want for a PC.

Best to steer clear of TVs as primary displays for your computer in most cases.

And as k1114 has indicated, only resolution affects your performance - screen size and refresh rate doesn't affect it.

If you're looking for a nice monitor upgrade, I'd recommend picking up a 27" 120 Hz display like this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Although in my opinion, monitors are behind the times and as long as you have something decent you should wait until someone releases a 27" 120 Hz 1440p or 1600p monitor.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2012 3:41:16 PM

There is no radiation from lcd or plasma. Thinking of the old crt, it does not exist today.

Pixel density is so tiny you will not notice viewing a 42" from 2 ft away. Hell i have an 65inch plasma in the lounge and you need to put your face in it to see the pixels.

Differences between an lcd tv and that of an lcd monitor is the monitor uses a TN panel (Twisted Nematic) and gives fast response times while MVA/IPS in tv's allows excellent color reproduction as well as preventing colors from shifting when viewed at an angle but at a cost of reduced latency causing input lag.

Before buying, try to research first on the LCD tv's input lag and response times, since these will be the factors most readily apparent in everyday computer use.

El Monstero29, consider plasma if youre worried about input lag. Least with plasma there is none.


Score
0
September 4, 2012 3:49:14 PM

boju said:
Pixel density is so tiny you will not notice viewing a 42" from 2 ft away. Hell i have an 65inch plasma in the lounge and you need to put your face in it to see the pixels.


That's nonsense I can see pixels on my 27" monitor from 3 feet away.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2012 3:49:16 PM

sorry, considering the size differences you'll be impressed :) 
Score
0
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2012 3:50:51 PM

not a very good monitor is it.
Score
0
a c 530 U Graphics card
a c 193 C Monitor
September 4, 2012 3:56:19 PM

I would suggest looking at a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor. They go for $700 or so.
The 2560 x 1600 30" monitors are a bit nicer, but they are $1200.

If you are willing to take a bit of a risk, there are some Korean 2560 x 1440 27" monitors selling for $400 or so on e-bay.
Read this set of forum posts on that:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232496/crossover-27q-led-le...
Score
0
September 4, 2012 4:03:57 PM

boju said:
not a very good monitor is it.


It has nothing to do with the monitor. Maybe your eyesight just isn't very good, because at 3 feet away, your eye can resolve objects roughly ~.01 inches wide and the pixels on a 1920x1080/1200 27" monitor are roughly ~.014 inches wide.

If you had 20/20 vision, you should be able to see the pixels on a 42" TV from about 6 feet away.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4...
Score
0
September 4, 2012 4:09:29 PM

Thanks to everybody who has posted so far :) 

I wasn't planning on sitting so close to the 42" tv I have a decent 5.1 speaker system that fills the room so I can sit pretty far back.

But after reading all of your comments and doing a little bit more research myself I think I'm going to try and find a BenQ 120hz that seems to be the best option for me at the moment
Score
0
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2012 4:16:15 PM

BigMack70 said:
It has nothing to do with the monitor. Maybe your eyesight just isn't very good, because at 3 feet away, your eye can resolve objects roughly ~.01 inches wide and the pixels on a 1920x1080/1200 27" monitor are roughly ~.014 inches wide.

If you had 20/20 vision, you should be able to see the pixels on a 42" TV from about 6 feet away.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4...



nevermind we'll just have to agree to disagree :) 

Good luck El :) 
Score
0
September 4, 2012 4:17:43 PM

Best answer selected by El Monstero29.
Score
0
a c 326 U Graphics card
a c 259 C Monitor
September 4, 2012 4:21:14 PM

Some people have better vision than others. Even on 30" 2560x1600 that I work on, you can see pixels at a normal sitting distance and that's .25mm pixel pitch. It's easy to just go to a store and see for yourself if it will matter. I use my 42" plasma (nearly .5mm) and truthfully when you're playing a game it won't make a difference with things moving around. But if you are still you can easily see it. Being a good monitor is irrelevant as pixel pitch would be a result of screen size and resolution.

More inches and hz isn't really a significant monitor upgrade. I'd have to go with geofelt, a larger res monitor would be better but I think this is a personal opinion. You need to make sure the tv is hdmi 1.4 if you want 1080p/120hz.
Score
0
a c 530 U Graphics card
a c 193 C Monitor
September 4, 2012 4:21:51 PM

BigMack70 said:
It has nothing to do with the monitor. Maybe your eyesight just isn't very good, because at 3 feet away, your eye can resolve objects roughly ~.01 inches wide and the pixels on a 1920x1080/1200 27" monitor are roughly ~.014 inches wide.

If you had 20/20 vision, you should be able to see the pixels on a 42" TV from about 6 feet away.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4...


Interesting reading on the link about 4K tv's.
They make the point that 4k is not needed for tv's which are viewed from 7-10 feet away and more.
But, for a desktop gamer,sitting 2 feet away, I think a 42" monitor would be very immersive. To do that, a 4k or 3840 x 2160 resolution seems about right.
Score
0
a c 332 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 4, 2012 6:36:50 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0