Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

HDMI 1080p TV vs PC monitor

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • TV
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 9, 2012 10:19:20 AM

Okay so this question has been plaguing me for a while now.

If i have a high end graphics card/multiple graphics cards am i going to notice considerable resolution/quality improvements by owning a PC monitor compared to my 52" TV connected via HDMI?

I've tried to research this however all i can find is backwards information like people saying that monitors are cheaper
than TV's :S

This makes no sense when a 52" monitor costs between $2000-$4000 and my 52" TV only cost $450....

So does forking out an extra $1550 make any difference for gaming?

I understand if you have extreme frame rates you need to have 120hz monitor to take full advantage of that but if i'm sitting on an average of 60-70fps how does it make any difference?

More about : hdmi 1080p monitor

September 9, 2012 10:36:28 AM

Nope. Same resolution = same framerates. I think only response time, pixel pitch, and maybe color range will differ.
Score
0
a c 133 U Graphics card
a b x TV
a c 97 C Monitor
September 9, 2012 10:51:35 AM

Perceived image quality will be different because its different size screen (so the pixels will be bigger), but from a performance perspective its exactly the same. You are still pushing that many pixels, regardless of their physical size.

Many people will say monitors look better than TV's because of better panels and smaller pixels compared to TV sets. Monitors are supposed to be viewed up close after all, while TV's can up to 2-3m away. Also as you scale a monitors physical size, generally the resolution goes up as well. Not so much with TV's.

Lets just say that if you have $1500 and want to improve your gaming, a better graphics card and a Triple monitor set-up is a better option than a large TV.

If you are getting ~60FPS, then a 120Hz monitor would largely go to waste. You will need some graphics power to maintain a 60+ (probably higher to be worth it) frame rate if you want the full benefit of the screen.
Score
0
Related resources
September 9, 2012 11:03:15 AM

I also wanna add this:

'120Hz sets mainly benefit input sources that originally came from film. The standard film frame rate is 24 fps. Most movie theaters use projectors that display each frame of film twice, making the viewing speed 48 fps. On a standard TV that runs at 60Hz, some frames are shown three times, some are shown twice -- it follows a 3,2,3,2,3,2 pattern, meaning that there's a choppiness introduced into the picture. With 120Hz sets, the pattern can go 5,5,5,5,5 letting each image have the same time visible on screen, making the action smoother.

For standard video sources that run at 30fps, 60Hz and 120Hz won't show much difference, since there's no choppiness there to begin with. Some sets may be able to smooth out action a little, but the big benefit is with high-def films played off of a Blu-Ray player that can output a 24p signal.'
Score
0
September 9, 2012 11:16:04 AM

I just wanna add:
The major difference I see between monitors and TV is the input. Typically TV's have only HDMI and VGA inputs where high-end monitors have Displayport, HDMI, and DVI. For me the advantage therein lies that DVI and Displayport support full HD @ 120 Hz. Hdmi 1.4 is limited to 24 Hz. Though apparently HDMI 1.4a supports 120 Hz but I'm not really sure what hardware you need to support it and exactly how it works. (Please correct me if any of what I said is incorrect. This is just what I gathered from various things I read all over the place. :)  )
Score
0
September 9, 2012 12:23:05 PM

Smaller displays, all other things being equal, have always looked sharper to me.

Of course two displays with the same resolution might not have the same quality for various reasons.

I think the comment on connections could also be relevant, if you could run 120hz on a monitor, but not the TV (even if it's internal refresh was better.)

I thought HDMI could do up to 60hz, but been awhile since I read the spec (and that might only be interlaced.)

Presumably, HDMI could support better than 1080, as I thought it could do up to 4k


Score
0
September 9, 2012 1:57:17 PM

It has me baffled too. I read somewhere that if you use HDMI then you're capped at 24 Hz. It appears there are many different specifications.
Score
0
September 10, 2012 7:01:07 AM

manofchalk said:


Lets just say that if you have $1500 and want to improve your gaming, a better graphics card and a Triple monitor set-up is a better option than a large TV.




Are you saying i can get 3 monitors and a graphics card for $1500 ? I can't do that in Australia..... Maybe in your country?

3 TV's and a graphics card sure.....

I'm still confused as to how anybody can justify spending $2000 more for a monitor that theoretically has less
benefits such as watching TV, playing ps3 and xbox and now better yet, smart TV's. (still cheaper than a monitor) :S

If switching from a TV to a monitor is going to make me go "Holy ***!!! How have i survived this long without you in my life!!!!" then yes maybe its worth it. Otherwise I'm going to start calling everybody who owns a monitor either a rich bitch or a massive retard.
Score
0
a c 133 U Graphics card
a b x TV
a c 97 C Monitor
September 10, 2012 7:30:56 AM

Hah, I am well aware of how expensive things are in Australia, I do live there after all :lol: 

You can afford a triple monitor set-up and a powerful graphics card for $1500 quite easily, even here.

Gigabyte HD7970 Ghz. $479
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
If you had a bit extra cash, you could get another in Crossfire and really push some great visuals.

ASUS VS248H. $195 x 3 = $585
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
24" in size (which is perfect IMO), 1080p resolution, 2ms response time and LED backlighting. 100mm VESA mounting for a stand.
Admittedly its not perfect for a triple monitor set-up with its bezels around the screen, but couldnt find any that didn't have them. Sure if you looked harder than I did you could find some.

Wicked Wire Active Mini-Displayport to DVI-D adapter. $59
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
Active Displayport adapter (need this for Eyefinity to work unless you have a Displayport monitor).

Total: $1124
That will serve up a very adequate triple monitor Eyefinity.

You even have enough budget left to get a decent stand.
Asara TS743 Triple monitor stand. $229
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...

New total: $1353

Also, you seem to be stuck in the mindset of a 52" monitor. A normal person will never get a monitor that big, 27" is as large as standard consumer monitors get. To make a monitor that large is ridiculously expensive, so its universally better to go with a TV of equivalent size.
For general/gaming use, a small screen is better. If you have ever used a computer hooked up to a large TV for a while, you will understand why (except in HTPC situations where you will be sitting far enough away from it so you don't notice the quality degradation).
Score
0
September 10, 2012 11:53:26 AM

^+1
Score
0
September 10, 2012 12:54:50 PM

manofchalk said:
Hah, I am well aware of how expensive things are in Australia, I do live there after all :lol: 

You can afford a triple monitor set-up and a powerful graphics card for $1500 quite easily, even here.

Gigabyte HD7970 Ghz. $479
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
If you had a bit extra cash, you could get another in Crossfire and really push some great visuals.

ASUS VS248H. $195 x 3 = $585
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
24" in size (which is perfect IMO), 1080p resolution, 2ms response time and LED backlighting. 100mm VESA mounting for a stand.
Admittedly its not perfect for a triple monitor set-up with its bezels around the screen, but couldnt find any that didn't have them. Sure if you looked harder than I did you could find some.

Wicked Wire Active Mini-Displayport to DVI-D adapter. $59
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...
Active Displayport adapter (need this for Eyefinity to work unless you have a Displayport monitor).

Total: $1124
That will serve up a very adequate triple monitor Eyefinity.

You even have enough budget left to get a decent stand.
Asara TS743 Triple monitor stand. $229
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_i...

New total: $1353

Also, you seem to be stuck in the mindset of a 52" monitor. A normal person will never get a monitor that big, 27" is as large as standard consumer monitors get. To make a monitor that large is ridiculously expensive, so its universally better to go with a TV of equivalent size.
For general/gaming use, a small screen is be better. If you have ever used a computer hooked up to a large TV for a while, you will understand why (except in HTPC situations where you will be sitting far enough away from it so you don't notice the quality degradation).


Thanks for going through the trouble of the write up, I'm really not interested in 24" monitors though, even in surround. I've never enjoyed putting my face inside the screen just to tell the difference between an enemy and a tree in the distance.... Certainly not a gaming advantage ( For me :S).

A 40" monitor or even 2x40" monitors would be great (If they weren't so expensive and i had a valid reason to buy one over a larger, cheaper and more functional TV) but i feel like I'm going off topic here.

Just want to know the most common differences between the two and in which way/s a monitor is meant to out perform a TV.

Oh btw I've got 2 Radeon HD 7850 OC's coming in the mail so i think i should see some substantial gain over my current GTX570, 2x7850's = $20 cheaper than 7970 and should out perform the 7970? correct me if I'm wrong. Thats one of the reasons I made this topic :) 
Score
0

Best solution

a c 133 U Graphics card
a b x TV
a c 97 C Monitor
September 10, 2012 1:00:57 PM

Monitors look better, that simple.
But unless you are loaded, getting a monitor above 27" (even that's expensive) just isnt a possibility.

If you are looking for for a screen at 40" in size, a TV is your only realistic option.
Share
a c 133 U Graphics card
a b x TV
a c 97 C Monitor
September 10, 2012 1:14:42 PM

It should, but for single screen 1080p, getting Crossfire/SLI is largely a waste. A HD7850 on its own already performs quite well at 1080p in most games.

Also in an Eyefinity type situation, the amount of VRAM does become a factor. Those 7850's have 2GB of it, while the 7970 has 3GB (note that you only have 2GB of it in Crossfire, the VRAM doesnt add on to each other).
Score
0
September 10, 2012 1:56:35 PM

Best answer selected by KrueltyNTheBeast.
Score
0
September 10, 2012 2:03:40 PM

manofchalk said:
It should, but for single screen 1080p, getting Crossfire/SLI is largely a waste. A HD7850 on its own already performs quite well at 1080p in most games.

Also in an Eyefinity type situation, the amount of VRAM does become a factor. Those 7850's have 2GB of it, while the 7970 has 3GB (note that you only have 2GB of it in Crossfire, the VRAM doesnt add on to each other).


Yeah i know about the vram, most ill ever have is 2 tv/monitors... 1 for games n 1 for browsing/movies so i think the 2gb vram should be fine. At least till i see some price drops on the higher end cards. Thanks for your help.
Score
0
a c 274 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 10, 2012 2:14:49 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!