What's better, TV or Monitor?

[SyntaxSocialist]

Hey all! Building my first rig (for relatively high-end gaming). Wondering if I should be opting for a TV or a computer monitor as my display. I'm looking to play at 1080p, maybe even a little higher. I've got a Radeon HD 7950.

Obviously, TVs are better for screen real estate per dollar, but what about performance? I'm just looking at buyers' guides now, and am about to delve into my own research on individual products, but before I do, what are Tom's preliminary thoughts?

Also, I'm assuming that monitors' and TVs' specs are based around the same measures (panel technology, response time, contrast ratio, etc.). Am I mistaken in that?

 

[freshbakd]

Depends on what you are doing and the environment. Televisions are not built to be in close proximity to the viewer and will eventually blind you.Generally you will also get some strange font difficulties that can be worked out with some tweaking...so in the correct setting. I have a 55 inch lg 3d led tv that works great i have a monitor close to me for browsing or whatever. Only advantage i can think of is this route saved a couple bucks using nvidia 3d to tv software rather than buying 3d vision kit.
last second add the difference on monitors and tv in quality can vary a lot. had a few rigs hooked to a few tvs cheaper televisions regardless of still being 1080p 60hz produced a much lower quality image sony bravia looked great and new tv is awesome. so don't skimp

 

[ssddx]

this is a duplicate post it seems. view your other post in the perepherals forum.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Yes I suppose I should elaborate a little. The difficulty is that I want this monitor/tv to serve as both an up-close display (3-4 ft) AND as an across-the-room display (10-11 ft) for watching shows/movies/multiplayer gaming. If I just wanted an up-close display I would be fine with a 24-27" screen. If it was only going to be for across the room, I might do a 40-45".

The other thing I'm stuck on is just how important specs like frequency and response time are. I mean, could I really tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz? Between 5ms and 6.5 or 8.5 ms (b-w)?

I went to an electronics store today to do some pricing and look at displays up close and personal, and I have to admit that while I still think a 27" screen could suffice for across the room, it wouldn't be great. I also found the TVs far more impressive in both price and specs. Here's what I found:

Insignia 39" LED HDTV
1080p
120Hz
6.5ms response time (b-w)
$350
http/www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-insignia-39-1080p-120hz-led-tv-ns-39e480a13-ns-39e480a13/10214808.aspx?path=f3ec14ffe63cc13b33d699dccf9ec3e2en02

Insignia 32" LED HDTV
1080p
60Hz
6.5ms response time (b-w)
$280
http/www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-insignia-32-1080p-60hz-led-hdtv-ns-32e440a13-ns-32e440a13/10190004.aspx?path=b4dddfb6bcb85306595323300eaccc1fen02

Thoughts?

 

[nseamans]

The best all-around solution is a monitor and a tv because most new cards support multiple outs and with a computer a monitor is really the best work environment for processes other than gaming, but its expensive....


If you are gaming with a keyboard and mouse, plan to use the system for anything else or want higher resolution a computer monitor is the way to go because a tv much larger than a monitor with a resolution above 1080p cost a lot last time I checked, so much so in fact I bet you could stretch and get both a monitor and a tv.

If you already have a pc and are planing to make a living room system with game pads then a tv is obviously a better choice.


Its really, like others have posted, based on your habits and lifestyle.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

In an ideal world I probably would get both, but I lack both space and budget. I'm a minimalist, and whatever screen I get is going to serve both purposes. That's just how it's going to be in the space I have to work with. What I'll probably end up doing is going for a smaller screen (i.e.: big-ish monitor) and lessening the space between the screen and the seating. I'm still thinking it'd be nice to be able to use gamepads for multiplayer and some single player games, though. I'm really trying to get the best of both worlds. Maybe I can't expect that if I'm only willing to buy one display...

It really sounds like I should just swallow the pill for the higher price per square inch for monitor real estate and suck it up re: sitting across the room. Part of why I'm still hesitant is because of how superior the TV displays were to the monitor displays in the electronics store. All the monitors seemed grainy and w/ poor colour accuracy. The sales rep said it was because they were all on VGA, being fed crappy video, and had been tweaked by hands-on shoppers. I don't know, though. I'm still on the fence.

I think that maybe where things are really getting lost in translation is here: I'm building a rig for high-end gaming (in terms of graphics, etc.), but I'm a casual gamer. I obviously plan to get more into it in the very near future, but I've gotten used to playing games on minimum settings with a trackpad on a 13" screen using a (now) 5 year old bottom-of-the-line macbook. The original half-life gives this baby a hard time, even on minimum settings. I'm not going to be very nit-picky, I feel.

The other thing is that I'm thinking of buying my display (TV or monitor) from a retail store rather than online retail. That way I can maybe try out a TV, see how it looks and feels, and if it's no good, I can take it back within 14-30 days without hassle and get a monitor.

 

[ssddx]

if you plan on sitting across the room you want a 1080p tv plain and simple. a 30" 2560x monitor would be wasted as you wouldnt be able to see the ppi difference. 1080p is also ideal for movies and good for games since you can keep your same hardware longer while staying on maximum graphics settings.

chances are most of the monitors were tn panels (which DO have shitty color accuracy). you wont find decent color accuracy until you get to $400+ monitors (8bit and up). quite a few televisions use panels which can display more colors. i know my sony uses a s-ips (8bit) panel.

if you plan on sitting across the room... you can get a sony bravia 40" lcd 60hz for about $500. a little more for a led variant which halves the powr bill ($13/year or so).

higher ppi density is more relevant when you plan on sitting closer where you can notice the difference. also keep in mind that a 2560x monitor at 30" is actually going to have less ppi (pixels per inch..) than a 1080p monitor at 20". its all relative.

you need to figure out where you want your desk to be. personally i am about 4ft away from my tv. this is about 2-3x typical monitor distance.

 

[nseamans]

In an ideal world I probably would get both, but I lack both space and budget. I'm a minimalist, and whatever screen I get is going to serve both purposes. That's just how it's going to be in the space I have to work with. What I'll probably end up doing is going for a smaller screen (i.e.: big-ish monitor) and lessening the space between the screen and the seating. I'm still thinking it'd be nice to be able to use gamepads for multiplayer and some single player games, though. I'm really trying to get the best of both worlds. Maybe I can't expect that if I'm only willing to buy one display...

It really sounds like I should just swallow the pill for the higher price per square inch for monitor real estate and suck it up re: sitting across the room. Part of why I'm still hesitant is because of how superior the TV displays were to the monitor displays in the electronics store. All the monitors seemed grainy and w/ poor colour accuracy. The sales rep said it was because they were all on VGA, being fed crappy video, and had been tweaked by hands-on shoppers. I don't know, though. I'm still on the fence.

I think that maybe where things are really getting lost in translation is here: I'm building a rig for high-end gaming (in terms of graphics, etc.), but I'm a casual gamer. I obviously plan to get more into it in the very near future, but I've gotten used to playing games on minimum settings with a trackpad on a 13" screen using a (now) 5 year old bottom-of-the-line macbook. The original half-life gives this baby a hard time, even on minimum settings. I'm not going to be very nit-picky, I feel.

The other thing is that I'm thinking of buying my display (TV or monitor) from a retail store rather than online retail. That way I can maybe try out a TV, see how it looks and feels, and if it's no good, I can take it back within 14-30 days without hassle and get a monitor.

Your looking in a electronics store, some of the higher end monitors look really good.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Your looking in a electronics store, some of the higher end monitors look really good.

Even the higher end ones they had in there were kind of... mediocre. Which, again, could be because of any or all the reasons listed by the salesman. But even the relatively low-end TVs I looked at were just gorgeous. Now, they had 720p or 1080i HDMI inputs...

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

Best answer selected by SyntaxSocialist.

 

[jamestaylor84]

This is really a good question. Both are good. Both items we love. But when it comes to watch my favourite movies and soaps, I will bet for my newly bought LED television set. Just install a digital tv aerial and see what happens next!