TV vs Monitor

[Vince ✟]

I have been using a 1080p tv for a long time now. It is 40" and I find myself having trouble sitting in a recliner to anything smaller when it comes to gaming.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674894-REG/Samsung_UN40C6300SFXZA_UN40C6300_40_1080p_LED.html

When shopping for a new TV, I'm becoming overwhelmed with the new tech, more specifically how it relates to PC gaming.

Im confused with options. I assume no quality monitor is going to go as large as 40"+ and if it does, it's expensive as Hell and won't double as my Tv?

What quality TV options should I be looking at for gaming on a TV these days? A specific tech or brand? 4k obviously. Budget isn't a major concern but nothing crazy.

Thanks for any help

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

I don't think you understand at all. I give up the 7ms input lag monitor doesn't have 144Hz panel. They are 240Hz 0.5ms response time monitor.

oh...wwell you never specified you were using a 240hz monitor.....

(1/240)x1,000=4ms...who exactly made your monitor? Also...a milisecond (ms) is 1/1,000 of a second.so you have to invert the refreshrate in order to get the gtg timing. Then again the calculations I am doing are based on how TV sets work...

https://displaylag.com/exposed-input-lag-vs-response-time/

[Big Boom Boom]

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

I don't think you understand at all. I give up the 7ms input lag monitor doesn't have 144Hz panel. They are 240Hz 0.5ms response time monitor.

oh...wwell you never specified you were using a 240hz monitor.....

(1/240)x1,000=4ms...who exactly made your monitor? Also...a milisecond (ms) is 1/1,000 of a second.so you have to invert the refreshrate in order to get the gtg timing.

You still don't get it. You can't divide refresh rate to get input lag. It does not work that way. I already explained why.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

oh...wwell you never specified you were using a 240hz monitor.....

(1/240)x1,000=4ms...who exactly made your monitor? Also...a milisecond (ms) is 1/1,000 of a second.so you have to invert the refreshrate in order to get the gtg timing.

You still don't get it. You can't divide refresh rate to get input lag. It does not work that way. I already explained why.

Well, you opened up this can of worms by telling me, and others I was lying about my monitor's response time when those specifications were alrewady dtermined by reputable sources.

https://displaylag.com/exposed-input-lag-vs-response-time/

My input lag is 55ms..which is on the fringe of fighter pilot capabilities. If you copuld please provide the specifict model and make of your monitor that would be helpful. 14ms input lag seems near impossible considering how close that is to the speed of light.

[Big Boom Boom]

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

Your 8ms monitor is not in the list. You clearly have zero idea what they are talking about.

In a way, yes. As a pixel is inactive when it’s black, and active when it’s white, it means that a picture needs to be visible before you can react to what’s on the screen.

The faster the response time of a display is, the quicker it can display an image. The quicker it does that, the quicker you can react to it.

This is the reason why the lag tester is such a valuable tool; it records the combined display response time and input lag of the HDTV or monitor, and displays it as a single number.

Do you understand English?

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

Your 8ms monitor is not in the list. You clearly have zero idea what they are talking about.

In a way, yes. As a pixel is inactive when it’s black, and active when it’s white, it means that a picture needs to be visible before you can react to what’s on the screen.

The faster the response time of a display is, the quicker it can display an image. The quicker it does that, the quicker you can react to it.

This is the reason why the lag tester is such a valuable tool; it records the combined display response time and input lag of the HDTV or monitor, and displays it as a single number.

Do you understand English?

A very inappropriate response. You need to back off and you need to do some research because all you look like is someone who is purposely putting little effort into doing any research and still telling me I am wrong when I provide proof. Maybe you should stop cold trolling posts I make in threads.

Also..this:
https://i.imgur.com/kwAKDuJ.jpg

[Monk]

To give an actual response to the OP, Philips is making some 40inch plus monitors now at a reasonable price so might be worth looking into them, as for a 4k TV for gaming, unless you can afford an oled panel, the response times and input lag is going to be bad for gaming if you need accurate responses, so, any competitive game basically, if that isn't an issue for you, then, go for it, bit even the best TVs will be5-10x slower than the best gaming monitors.

Know that anything above 60Hz for a 4k TV (and even 50 in some cases) isn't a true refresh rate, but duplicated pixels added in to smooth things out, it won't work, or if it does work for gaming, the added latency will be huge.

The processing speed for a 4k TV introduces sound sync issues to the point you can delay or speed up sound to keep it sync'd, that is how slow a 4k TV is.
This is the TV I just treated myself to http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-65SJ810V

The other big question is, how good is your pc ? Do you have the hardware to push a 4k screen without needing to lower all the settings ?

Any TV will be worse than a monitor, but as you are already used to that, I guess it's not a big issue.
OLED is king,but, stupid expensive sadly, but it has amazing response times.

[Revelene]

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

引用自 Revelene：

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have 2ms latency.

That number was most certainly pulled from thin air.

The Toshiba 40L5200U1 uses a pretty sluggish panel.

Really? Odd..because using game mode..and there is this:
https://versus.com/en/toshiba-40l5200u-vs-toshiba-50l5200u

You are correct...it is 8ms...not 2ms. TBH there really is not much difference when I am restritced to using 60Hz while using game mode...16ms is actually where the slugishness would be perceivable and that happens in 120Hz mode....so really what you claim as "slugish" is only visible to a US Navy fighter pilot.....

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but that is response time (GTG), not latency. There is a difference.

If you believe gray to gray response time of pixels, is a measure of overall panel latency, then you are highly mistaken. There are other factors that calculate into the overall latency. You have latency introduced by how the panel is connected, how the PCB is arranged, filters and other processes (gaming mode doesn't get rid of it all, as there are processes going on at a hardware level that software cannot stop), etc.

TVs are designed for viewing material, with no interaction. Speed is not necessary.

Monitors are designed for viewing material in real time, with interaction. Speed is more important.

8ms would be what a top of the line monitor could manage. It may very well be able to have an acceptable overall latency time for a TV, but it isn't 8ms and it isn't competitive with any gaming monitors. It does, however, stand up okay to some older monitors from the same release year or older (2012), but it isn't winning any races.

Oh, you do know that it isn't true 120hz, right? It is a gimmick.

Now, this has gotten way off topic, but I'll attempt to make my comment on topic. OP, don't buy a TV specifically for gaming. Woah, think I saved my comment.

[Vince ✟]

I'm eyeballing the OLED 65" LG B7

I don't game competitively and I don't bother with frame issues very much. My current PC will not be capable using the 4790k and a GTX970, but I'm in the process of building a new one, which will be all top of the line and have no problems pushing the tv.

I appreciate the info once again. I stayed up all night reading about them.

[Monk]

No crazy budget ....looking at a 3k TV hehe.

Fantastic screen,I was tempted to go a bit nuts during black Friday and go to oled, but couldn't really afford or justify it over the one I ended up with, but, while still not as good as a monitor, it will be alot better than other technology's.

Just hope you are planning a beast of a system to run it and do it justice, turning down settings from max would be a damn crime.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 ;2906376154318314495：

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

Really? Odd..because using game mode..and there is this:
https://versus.com/en/toshiba-40l5200u-vs-toshiba-50l5200u

You are correct...it is 8ms...not 2ms. TBH there really is not much difference when I am restritced to using 60Hz while using game mode...16ms is actually where the slugishness would be perceivable and that happens in 120Hz mode....so really what you claim as "slugish" is only visible to a US Navy fighter pilot.....

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but that is response time (GTG), not latency. There is a difference.

If you believe gray to gray response time of pixels, is a measure of overall panel latency, then you are highly mistaken. There are other factors that calculate into the overall latency. You have latency introduced by how the panel is connected, how the PCB is arranged, filters and other processes (gaming mode doesn't get rid of it all, as there are processes going on at a hardware level that software cannot stop), etc.

TVs are designed for viewing material, with no interaction. Speed is not necessary.

Monitors are designed for viewing material in real time, with interaction. Speed is more important.

8ms would be what a top of the line monitor could manage. It may very well be able to have an acceptable overall latency time for a TV, but it isn't 8ms and it isn't competitive with any gaming monitors. It does, however, stand up okay to some older monitors from the same release year or older (2012), but it isn't winning any races.

Oh, you do know that it isn't true 120hz, right? It is a gimmick.

Now, this has gotten way off topic, but I'll attempt to make my comment on topic. OP, don't buy a TV specifically for gaming. Woah, think I saved my comment. :47_thumb_up::resmile:

You'll need to ask Big Boom Boom where he got his information then...because I was keying off on his disinformation and cold trolling. All I know is that my TV's response time in terms of pixels changing chroma and color shade is 8ms because that's how TV sets are measured concerning response timing. I am also aware that the 120Hz advertising is a gimmick. It does 120Hz to smooth out video image but at the cost of having severe input lag. If I don't use "clear frame" mode (again, I know it's s gimmick) and use Game Mode, i get no perceived input lag. As far as gaming is concerned, it's been rated as if it were a mid range 60Hz gaming monitor...and as a TV the only real flaws (which happen to be non-issues) is that it feels cheap and that it isn't a smart TV. I don't game competitively and it works quite well for console gaming gaming. Most TV's at the time had terrible input lag using a Nintendo Wii. You'll be hard pressed to find a TV of the time that used OMLED sub pixels ;-)

[Big Boom Boom]

Just give up explaining input lag to this guy. He clearly doesn't read the links he has been posting.

For the final time, Refresh rate does not have much to do with input lag. Refresh rate divided =/= input lag.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

My input lag is 55ms..which is on the fringe of fighter pilot capabilities. If you copuld please provide the specifict model and make of your monitor that would be helpful. 14ms input lag seems near impossible considering how close that is to the speed of light.

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

Best TV input lag is 12ms. You are wrong.

https://displaylag.com/display-database/

Current best input lag in the monitor database is 9ms. This is because they do not have the latest 240Hz monitor with 0.5ms response time purposely built for Esport gaming, which shave off another ms or two. YOU are wrong again.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

(1/240)x1,000=4ms...who exactly made your monitor? Also...a milisecond (ms) is 1/1,000 of a second.so you have to invert the refreshrate in order to get the gtg timing. Then again the calculations I am doing are based on how TV sets work...

Completely wrong. For the last time, dividing refresh rate does not give you input lag.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

Maybe you should be pateint and wait until I can resond in full so it doesn't look like to you that I am doing an edit fest just to troll you as you just did?

Input latency is calculatiing the differnce between the two. Your input latency is 14ms...mine is only 8ms. Then againn that is just how my TV works.

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

Gtg response time is not input lag.

My monitor has 4ms gtg response time and 14ms input lag.

引用自 Alchemist79：

Input lag and response time are two different things.

You are more than welcome to do the math if you want to.

Wrong. You CAN NOT calculate input lag. You can MEASURE it, but not calculate it based on paper specs.

You clearly did not read a thing from whatever link you put out. They all manually measure input lag, because you CAN NOT calculate input lag based on refresh rate, nor response time. Never. Ever.

But then again you claim:
256 bit bus GTX 970 is faster than 192 bit bus GTX 1060 6Gb
NVIDIA driver 388.51 does not allow 144Hz higher than 1600 x 900 resolution

LOL

[Revelene]

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

引用自 ;2906376154318314495：

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but that is response time (GTG), not latency. There is a difference.

If you believe gray to gray response time of pixels, is a measure of overall panel latency, then you are highly mistaken. There are other factors that calculate into the overall latency. You have latency introduced by how the panel is connected, how the PCB is arranged, filters and other processes (gaming mode doesn't get rid of it all, as there are processes going on at a hardware level that software cannot stop), etc.

TVs are designed for viewing material, with no interaction. Speed is not necessary.

Monitors are designed for viewing material in real time, with interaction. Speed is more important.

8ms would be what a top of the line monitor could manage. It may very well be able to have an acceptable overall latency time for a TV, but it isn't 8ms and it isn't competitive with any gaming monitors. It does, however, stand up okay to some older monitors from the same release year or older (2012), but it isn't winning any races.

Oh, you do know that it isn't true 120hz, right? It is a gimmick.

Now, this has gotten way off topic, but I'll attempt to make my comment on topic. OP, don't buy a TV specifically for gaming. Woah, think I saved my comment.

You'll need to ask Big Boom Boom where he got his information then...because I was keying off on his disinformation and cold trolling. All I know is that my TV's response time in terms of pixels changing chroma and color shade is 8ms because that's how TV sets are measured concerning response timing. I am also aware that the 120Hz advertising is a gimmick. It does 120Hz to smooth out video image but at the cost of having severe input lag. If I don't use "clear frame" mode (again, I know it's s gimmick) and use Game Mode, i get no perceived input lag. As far as gaming is concerned, it's been rated as if it were a mid range 60Hz gaming monitor...and as a TV the only real flaws (which happen to be non-issues) is that it feels cheap and that it isn't a smart TV. I don't game competitively and it works quite well for console gaming gaming. Most TV's at the time had terrible input lag using a Nintendo Wii. You'll be hard pressed to find a TV of the time that used OMLED sub pixels ;-)

That response time is what all screens tend to advertise, that is the GTG measure... But it is not overall latency.

I'm glad you realize it isn't really 120hz. Just wanted to make sure.

Your eyes adjust, just like they did back in the days of older consoles. Our eyes adjust to what we see, some people adjust better, while some can have difficulty. That is all on the individual. But if you put it to a side by side test of a good gaming monitor, you'll quickly notice the difference. Your perception isn't a measure of latency.

That is great that the TV works well for you. I'm not arguing with you on that. What I was doing was correcting you on the common misconception that GTG is input latency.

And you can only calculate latency up to a point, the point when you have to account for how long the chipset and processes take. So, you really cannot calculate latency on a TV. However, you can measure it. Big Boom Boom isn't wrong saying this, sorry to say.

[Big Boom Boom]

But hey, again he claimed he OC his i7-6700k to 5.0Ghz on a small Arctic Freezer 13 cooler. Either he can't read frequency (post CPU Z Valid, surely you can do that much) or it's running on edge the entire time. Need around 1.4V to reach that frequency and that's a very small percentage of i7-6700k, people usually delid them to reach that frequency. It's not as refined as Kabylake or Coffee Lake.

Also he claimed his Arctic Freezer 13 uses 144mm fan. There is no such thing as 144mm fan.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 Monk：

No crazy budget ....looking at a 3k TV hehe.

Fantastic screen,I was tempted to go a bit nuts during black Friday and go to oled, but couldn't really afford or justify it over the one I ended up with, but, while still not as good as a monitor, it will be alot better than other technology's.

Just hope you are planning a beast of a system to run it and do it justice, turning down settings from max would be a damn crime.

The OP could probably get a 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound home theater system and a SoundBlaster Omni with his TV set :-3 It helps a lot when playing CSGO ;-)

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

引用自 Big Boom Boom：

Just give up explaining input lag to this guy. He clearly doesn't read the links he has been posting.

For the final time, Refresh rate does not have much to do with input lag. Refresh rate divided =/= input lag.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

My input lag is 55ms..which is on the fringe of fighter pilot capabilities. If you copuld please provide the specifict model and make of your monitor that would be helpful. 14ms input lag seems near impossible considering how close that is to the speed of light.

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

Best TV input lag is 12ms. You are wrong.

https://displaylag.com/display-database/

Current best input lag in the monitor database is 9ms. This is because they do not have the latest 240Hz monitor with 0.5ms response time purposely built for Esport gaming, which shave off another ms or two. YOU are wrong again.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

(1/240)x1,000=4ms...who exactly made your monitor? Also...a milisecond (ms) is 1/1,000 of a second.so you have to invert the refreshrate in order to get the gtg timing. Then again the calculations I am doing are based on how TV sets work...

Completely wrong. For the last time, dividing refresh rate does not give you input lag.

引用自 The Spoopy Kitteh：

Maybe you should be pateint and wait until I can resond in full so it doesn't look like to you that I am doing an edit fest just to troll you as you just did?

Input latency is calculatiing the differnce between the two. Your input latency is 14ms...mine is only 8ms. Then againn that is just how my TV works.







You are more than welcome to do the math if you want to.

Wrong. You CAN NOT calculate input lag. You can MEASURE it, but not calculate it based on paper specs.

You clearly did not read a thing from whatever link you put out. They all manually measure input lag, because you CAN NOT calculate input lag based on refresh rate, nor response time. Never. Ever.

But then again you claim:
256 bit bus GTX 970 is faster than 192 bit bus GTX 1060 6Gb
NVIDIA driver 388.51 does not allow 144Hz higher than 1600 x 900 resolution

LOL

Please leave me alone. I have asked you twice now to back off from trying to drive a wedge between me and other users. You are now digging your own grave by being as childish as Omega was.