Monitor vs T.V.

[Graeme404]

Right, so I'm seeing games being played on T.V. monitors just fine, and movies too when they are hooked up onto the Computer and played off from there.

My question is this: Aside from price is there really a good reason to NOT plug a nice T.V. (which is cheaper) up to my computer and play it off of there?

I'm working with this.
~ i7 2700k
~ ASRock Z77 extreme
~ gtx 660 ti 2gb
~ 16gb ddr3 ram
~ windows 7 professional
~ 60g SSD C: drive

So If I were to specifically get a 1080p, 120hrtz refresh rate T.V. with something like 4 to 6 ms response time, even though its something like 30 to 40 inches in diameter for about $400 why is i that I still see people using monitors?

This question is bugging the hell out of me.

 

[ssddx]

for starters if you plan on hooking the tv up to your computer you specifically DO NOT want a 120hz television. or, if you do get a 120hz television you want one which has a WORKING 60hz/game mode.

the reason for this is that these televisions accept only a 60hz input and NOT 120hz. they have post processing which fakes in the extra frames. this post processing can cause a slight delay in the signal from pc to display on screen which we perceive as slight lag.

in movies this is not noticible so much as normally we do not constantly input commands but in windows and in games where on screen elements are expected to be displayed instantly this is a different matter.

--

i still have yet to find any concrete source proving this but my opinion is that televisions and monitors dont always share the same pixel arrangements. i seem to recall reading somewhere that monitors are more ideal for text and that tvs are more ideal for shapes and that definitely does seem true but since i dont have an equal sized monitor and tv i can not really test it out. the reason is because i cannot rule out the increase in size and therefore sharpness as the cause.

take this one with a grain of salt.

--

personally i use a 40" sony bravia 60hz 1080p ccfl backlit television and it works fine. led variants should work fine as well. text is a bit harder to read and i need to enlarge windows fonts and some game fonts slightly but overall since i use the pc for mostly gaming and movie watching this is no big deal.

i would however caution against buying cheap brand televisions such as vizio, olevia, emerson, etcetera. often you do get what you pay for: a disposable tv. i would recommend sony, samsung and lg in that order.

my sony tv has a wide viewing angle similar to what is found on ips monitors and the new 60hz led model seems the same. color accuracy seems fine (gradients seem smooth and not broken) and any input lag/response time is not noticible. i also have not noticed any ghosting.

now, sony tvs may use ips technology. i am not sure on that.

what i do know is that some tvs do use different panel technologies than monitors.

---

overall i would say a television is not a bad choice at all provided you buy the right one.

 

[Graeme404]

Alright so if I went with a T.V. the standard 60hz would be better to get rather than the 120hz, that'll save money. Should I still make it a point to find one with a Gaming mode?

The point of interest here though is the response time. Having something in the range of 5/6 ms response time is good, most manufacturers don't just tell you what it is though which makes me a little iffy. I suppose this is where monitors become more dependable? Or am I not looking at this right?

 

[ssddx]

if you get a 60hz tv there is no game mode as game mode is essentially "60hz mode" on 120hz and 240hz television models. in theory this should work except that there are numerous reports that it doesnt quite work as advertised.

this is why i suggest staying with 60hz. either ccfl or led backlighting is fine. media features really arent needed since you will have a pc hooked up anyways.

honestly the whole response time issue is mostly hype. manufacturers try to make people think they actually need 1-2ms or 5ms response times which just is not true. on monitors some ips panels which are superior in color quality and generally regarded as the best you can buy are up around the 12-14ms range.

i've used a crt monitor, television and ips panel for the most demanding test of this: fps gaming and movies and honestly i never once had an issue. perhaps one reason for this is because i do not buy low end crappy knock off products which i've seen in person and definitely have noticed rather bad ghosting on.

my uncle bought a sony bravia 46" 60hz led tv last year for about $700. you should be able to find a 40" for about $6-- and a 32" for $5--. honestly if i was in the market for a new television that is the first thing i would buy.

next up would be one of the bezel-less designs samsung has out but only because its the only one i've seen of that design so far.

--

in terms of monitors the numbers for response times vary greatly. what they report may not even be accurate. honestly its a crapshoot.

generally speaking tn panels have the fastest response times but the worst quality. ips panels have slower response times but far greater quality. i own one rated at 16ms (which i definitely believe is faster) which is pretty much at the maximum response time before you would notice issues and i never had one problem with it even in demanding scenarios. then again it was a $650 monitor new.

the only monitors which should be more expensive are IPS as they are designed to be color accurate. for instance my old monitor. some are even more expensive but keep in mind the top of the line ips panels now days are 10bit compared with a low end tn being only 6bit. that is quite a few extra colors they can display.

dont quote me here but i believe televisions are either 6bit or 8bit.

 

[bystander]

Response time is a lot more important when there is action. For productivity, it may not matter, but it does matter with action and it especially matters with 3D, as it causes crosstalk. Poor response times will cause colors to take much longer to change, and it varies depending on how much it changes.

14-15ms response time means that it can take almost an entire frame at 60hz before it changes color. That would make action look quite poor, as by the time it changes color, it is changing to another color and it would cause the color to be off the majority of the time. People complain about ghosting when using monitors with this type of response time in games.

For gaming, response time matters. Even for video it'll matter and especially for 3D.

Those IPS panels that are so great, are not gaming monitors and are generally used for graphics artist, CAD and other uses that doesn't need high response times.

Note: I would like to mention that the generic term "high quality" may kind of be misleading. "High color quality" would be more accurate. Color isn't the only quality of a monitor.

As far as how good of response time you need, at 60hz, most people are quite happy with response times below 8ms for gaming, some want below 5ms. What is considered distracting varies from person to person. At 120hz, you want even better response times. If you aren't gaming, 120hz may not mean anything to you and response times mean less.

 

[Graeme404]

Right so that's something I got backwards, LESS IS MORE for refresh rate. I thought having a higher response time would mean faster times, I must have gotten caught up in the whole "BIG NUMBERS IS BETTER" mindset there.

It should have been obvious then, looking back on it, its does say "response TIME", the less time it takes to respond the better.

Alright so for the REFRESH RATE more hertz is better but with Response Time less is more. Glad I got that cleared up.

But with T.V.'s if we have a 120hz screen we want a 60hz gaming mode; do they even make a 120hz gaming mode on T.V's?

On one tentacle, I found a Westinghouse (opinion on them?) 32" 1080p, 60hz with 2000:1 contrast ratio. Response Times on it from other websites suggest about 6 to 6.5 ms
http://westinghousedigital.com/products/led/32-40/ld3280/

On the other tentacle, that Samsung 27" 1080p, LED with 2ms Response Time seems quite good. (but doesn't have DVI?)

I'm pretty much swinging between these two.

 

[bystander]

The only reason TV's do not game at 120hz or higher is because they do not offer a connection that can receive 120hz or better. If they offered these TV's with dual link DVI-D connections, Displayport or HDMI 1.4b, then you could get 120hz. Unfortunately, they don't as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure how much better 2ms response time is compared to 5ms when using a 60hz monitor, but it can be more important at 120hz, especially 3D monitors.

 

[ssddx]

the reason i mentioned "game mode" is because this is what some televisions call their "60hz mode". the specific reason for this is to avoid the post processing done by the tv to display 120hz (it fakes it the rest of the frames like i said before).

as mentioned by bystander if the tv could use a 120hz input via the correct ports then they would perform similar to 120hz pc monitors.

a note about latency/response times...

i used a 16ms ips monitor for years and ran it through some rather harsh tests and i never noticed any real issues. now, most likely this number is overrated and realistically it was 13-14ms but i have no way to tell this for sure.

in any case, never once in movies, windows tasks or gaming did i have issues. the same goes for my current television. never one issue.

while a faster response time is definitely a good thing, it is not the only thing. just as color accuracy is not the only thing important.

as far as ghosting, personally i've never seen it on any screen i've bought. i would suggest viewing the tv or monitor you wish to buy before buying it though. in person you can judge for yourself.

happy hunting.