Plasma vs IPS

[icon_of_sin]

I have a choice of the following to play games on

42" 1080p plasma 100hz
or
27" 1440p IPS 144hz

specifically these
https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/31826fe
https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/panasonic-viera-th-42pz80-42in-plasma-tv

assuming issues such as space and where to put a mouse and keyboard are not a problem

Which would I be better of playing on?

[Supafly]

Plasma TV = BAD

First TVs 100hz specification is BS. TVS report hz different than monitors so you won't be getting a 100hz refresh rate like you may think. Without checking further and say it'd be the typical 60hz the majority of TVs are capable of.
Secondly, Plasma is know for burn in when images left on the screen for long periods. Using it as a monitor you'll get windows taskbar burnt it along the bottom for sure. Anything else that is stationary on the screen for long periods is also a risk. Browser the net = browser window, tabs etc.
Playing games = HUD elements.

Go with the 27" monitor.

[icon_of_sin]

Originally posted by Suicidal Monkey:

Plasma TV = BAD

First TVs 100hz specification is BS. TVS report hz different than monitors so you won't be getting a 100hz refresh rate like you may think. Without checking further and say it'd be the typical 60hz the majority of TVs are capable of.
Secondly, Plasma is know for burn in when images left on the screen for long periods. Using it as a monitor you'll get windows taskbar burnt it along the bottom for sure. Anything else that is stationary on the screen for long periods is also a risk. Browser the net = browser window, tabs etc.
Playing games = HUD elements.

Go with the 27" monitor.

Plasma burn in is an old problem which is largely eliminated on later plasmas.

Plasmas appareny have no response time or refresh rate
However the IPS refresh rate is far bellow 10ms (i could not find an exact number from specs, i had to get it from a review) which is less than the time needed to produce 1 frame at 100fps anyway and the response time is 4ms which is almost TN levels and not at all noticeable
so for refresh rate and response time the 2 are effectivly equal.

The plasma may effectivly be a 60hz are you said
The plasma also has far better blacks and contrast ratio.

The IPS has Gsync
but has a lower contrsats ratio and a bit of pannel glow effecting the blacks

[John Doe]

Plasma is a pretty old tech by today's standards and there is pretty much nothing good I have to say about it. It's inefficient, poorer performing than modern LCDs, and so on.

I gave my old plasma Panasonic TV to my grandma. In fact, when I went to visit her I thought it was so outdated that I even offered her my 49PUK7100, thinking that I'd get myself a new 4k TV.

That G-Sync IPS is so much of a better monitor than that plasma, it's not even worth discussing this.

[icon_of_sin]

Originally posted by John Doe:

Plasma is a pretty old tech by today's standards and there is pretty much nothing good I have to say about it. It's inefficient, poorer performing than modern LCDs, and so on.

I gave my old plasma Panasonic TV to my grandma. In fact, when I went to visit her I thought it was so outdated that I even offered her my 49PUK7100, thinking that I'd get myself a new 4k TV.

That G-Sync IPS is so much of a better monitor than that plasma, it's not even worth discussing this.

I am suprised by this response
merely being an old technology does not mean its inferior

the plamsa has great colour, bar far the best contrast ratio nad blacks and exceptional refresh rates and response times. it may also have 100hz

the IPS should have slightly inferior colour (but still very good
much worse contrast
much worse blacks (made worse by the glow effect)
and worse refresh rates and responce time (although both still far higher than anyone could every notice)

[John Doe]

Plasma IS inferior in many ways, it's a TV being used as monitor that does not even have a smart interface because of its age.

No, it doesn't look better than that AUO IPS. How do I know? I owned both of those panels. Either you need an eye check or get your facts straight. It "interpolating" at 100HZ doesn't mean anything since you can interpolate literally to no end and get some over the top 1000HZ result at the end... none of that REALLY matters when in reality you're refreshing at 60HZ.

Toss that ancient plasma and use the G-Sync IPS. Unless you are love shack with the plasma of course... which is what I think.

[Monk]

If I remember correctly, plasmas actually can do some crazy refresh rates, colours can also be superior to LCD tech, the big reason plasma died is cost and size, they are much bigger, get wayyyy hotter, use alot more power and are very expensive to produce.

With that said, I'd take the gsync 1440p 144 IPS for a monitor anyday.

[Talby]

have to agree w/ the consensus - if they are the same price the only way the old plasma may be a better fit if you are slitting over 8' away and using as a TV and not a gaming monitor.

Any other situation the smaller IPS is much higher resolution and refresh and will benefit if you have the gpu muscle to drive the higher res at good frames.

[icon_of_sin]

Originally posted by Talby:

have to agree w/ the consensus - if they are the same price the only way the old plasma may be a better fit if you are slitting over 8' away and using as a TV and not a gaming monitor.

Any other situation the smaller IPS is much higher resolution and refresh and will benefit if you have the gpu muscle to drive the higher res at good frames.

I have been using the old plasma for years. I use it for my consoles and have done every singe i had a 360. currnetly i have my switch on it.

The predator i got recently and use for my pc and pc gameing.
until recently i used an old TN on my pc

Overall i would say the IPS is better
higher resolution
higher FPS
gsync
smaller (but depending on distance that is no nessesarally a bad thing)
The response time and refresh rate are lower but as i have already explained this is effectivlty irrelivant.
The only advantage the plasma clearly has is the backs and contrast ratio

[Supafly]

Originally posted by icon_of_sin:

Overall i would say the IPS is better
higher resolution

correct.

Originally posted by icon_of_sin:

higher FPS

Wrong.
Monitor, TV, Plasma, LCD CRT OLED or any future tech for displays will not give you high fps. Not to mention you already mentioned higher resolution which will increases hardware requirements and lower FPS. No matter the display. If you increase resolution from 1080p to 1440p without upgrading the PC hardware you will get lower fps. The only way to counter this would be to lower a games settings.

Even then its the computer than drives the FPS. Monitors need higher refresh rate, hz, to display them. You can render a 1000 fps on a display of any hz. You just won't see the all.

Originally posted by icon_of_sin:

The response time and refresh rate are lower but as i have already explained this is effectivlty irrelivant.

Your saying IPS is better because it has lower refresh rates. It has Higher refresh rates. Thts a good thing. The plasma never lists refresh rate. Well not that I could find in regards to how its measured....in PC standards. The 100hz listed will not be the same as the 144hz listed for PC monitors. Highly likely it'll max at 60 hz refresh rate. Don't believe me. Plug it into your PC and check for your self. The 27" monitor is capable of 144hz. The higher it is the more fps it can show and the smoother it will feel.

Thanks for the info/correction on screen burn in regarding my first post.

[Revelene]

FYI, that XB271HU monitor can actually do 165hz.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by icon_of_sin:

Originally posted by John Doe:

Plasma is a pretty old tech by today's standards and there is pretty much nothing good I have to say about it. It's inefficient, poorer performing than modern LCDs, and so on.

I gave my old plasma Panasonic TV to my grandma. In fact, when I went to visit her I thought it was so outdated that I even offered her my 49PUK7100, thinking that I'd get myself a new 4k TV.

That G-Sync IPS is so much of a better monitor than that plasma, it's not even worth discussing this.

I am suprised by this response
merely being an old technology does not mean its inferior

the plamsa has great colour, bar far the best contrast ratio nad blacks and exceptional refresh rates and response times. it may also have 100hz

the IPS should have slightly inferior colour (but still very good
much worse contrast
much worse blacks (made worse by the glow effect)
and worse refresh rates and responce time (although both still far higher than anyone could every notice)

They still have some sort of pixel flicker issue in some cases. There was a post about that a couple of weeks ago IIRC.

@OP:
I would probably choose an LCD monitor with a better contrast ratio. If you’re using a “100Hz” TV as a monitor, you’ll only get 60Hz out of it. The “100hz” is achieved by interpolation of frames. Using the TV can cause input lag as a result of that interpolation, so it’s best that you stick to the LCD option for now.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

IDK where you get these ridiculous response timings; typical TVs are 30-50ms timings
Good quality Monitors are around 8-16ms
That's about as good as it gets, period.

[tacoshy]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

IDK where you get these ridiculous response timings; typical TVs are 30-50ms timings
Good quality Monitors are around 8-16ms
That's about as good as it gets, period.

Because all those tech newb persons look at GtG respond time and think GtG respond time is the same as input latency.
The mostly don't even know what GtG is and that it does in no way refer to actual input latency.