Why are monitors so expensive comparing to TV's?

Ragnarous

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2013
630
0
19,060
With the same price you can get a 27'' 1080p monitor or a 42'' TV.. Shall i consider buying a TV instead of a monitor, or are there more specs to justify monitors excessive price?
 
Input lag is typically higher. However, there are TV's that don't have noticeable input lag when compared to a monitor. Anything below 32 ms of input lag is pretty much lag free (to our eyes/brain). Monitors are mostly overpriced but nobody is complaining, TV's and monitors are 2 different markets. As for picture quality, contrast, color--TV's do win, but it's definitely not just black and white. If you feel you want a 42" TV, then buy one- it's really that simple and mostly preference.

http://www.displaywars.com/comparisons/27-inch-16x9-vs-42-inch-16x9.png
 

Ragnarous

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2013
630
0
19,060


My only thought was the ms lag.. But now that u mentioned lower than 32 is unnoticeable i might actually just buy a TV! the only drawback is that square-y look instead of that orthogonal monitors have! Are any TV's made monitor-like in shape?
 

Mr Burns

Honorable
Dec 24, 2012
151
0
10,690
I don't know the answer to your question but you mentioned that tvs have a more square screen than PC monitors??? Both monitors and TVs are now widescreen. They both now usually come with a 16:9 ratio. This means for every 16 inches wide its 9 inches tall. Same rectangular shape.You must have been using some 16:10 or 4:3 TVs to think that tvs have a more square screen.