How good are TV's for gaming these days?

[Ralf]

31.5 inch 2K 165HZ VA, 42.5 inch 4K 60HZ IPS monitor or a 55 inch 4k 120HZ QLED TV. I would pair it with 4070Ti Super.

Currently I use a 27 inch 75HZ monitor from LG and movies feel laggy.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Ralf:

Originally posted by N3tRunn3r:

looks good !

https://www.tcl.com/global/en/tvs/c745

However, its[tclo365.sharepoint.com] "Energy efficiency class" is "G" ... your electricity bill would increase heavily as G is the very least !!

Screens and TVs should be at Energy efficiency class "E" or better.

That's like 66 kWh/month if I run HDR which is 6 euro, my current multi monitor setup eats almost as much.

how are your rates so low?
I pay 39 eurocent per kwh + 1 cent accijns + 14 cent energy tax + 11 cent VAT = 65 cent per kwh

well with that kind of rates energy does not matter but still..

that Tcl 55c745 is BAD

indeed it has NO sync support -> sure it will work.. but without syncing.. it will not smooth out the frames.. with will look terrible especially if you run it at lower fps which you will with a 4070ti

and than the terrible 5.7ms responcetime.. utterly unsuited for gaming.. paired with no sync.. and low fps.. I can already see the artifacts and tearing happening...

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

that Tcl 55c745 is BAD

indeed it has NO sync support -> sure it will work.. but without syncing.. it will not smooth out the frames.. with will look terrible especially if you run it at lower fps which you will with a 4070ti

and than the terrible 5.7ms responcetime.. utterly unsuited for gaming.. paired with no sync.. and low fps.. I can already see the artifacts and tearing happening...

It has VRR/FreeSync Premium Pro support. Every decent gaming TV has FreeSync/Gsync support. So no tearing and uneven frames.
Real measured 5.7ms response time is similar to measured (not advertised 1ms bs) response time of a gaming monitor.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

indeed it has NO sync support -> sure it will work.. but without syncing.. it will not smooth out the frames.. with will look terrible especially if you run it at lower fps which you will with a 4070ti

Forgot to mention that I mostly play FF14, PSO2 and persona games.

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

and than the terrible 5.7ms responcetime.. utterly unsuited for gaming.. paired with no sync..

My current monitor has 7.7ms response time. The Odyssey G7/Nitro XV275K has 5.7ms too, the expensive af Philips/LG/Asus you recomennded are 3.0ms

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Ralf:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

indeed it has NO sync support -> sure it will work.. but without syncing.. it will not smooth out the frames.. with will look terrible especially if you run it at lower fps which you will with a 4070ti

Forgot to mention that I mostly play FF14, PSO2 and persona games.

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

and than the terrible 5.7ms responcetime.. utterly unsuited for gaming.. paired with no sync..

My current monitor has 7.7ms response time. The Odyssey G7/Nitro XV275K has 5.7ms too, the expensive af Philips/LG/Asus you recomennded are 3.0ms

not expensive af.. "proper monitor" and they have 0.1ms responcetime. some cheaper ones had 0.4ms..
but I be interesting on the site you supposigly use for responcetime

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

Originally posted by Ralf:

Forgot to mention that I mostly play FF14, PSO2 and persona games.

My current monitor has 7.7ms response time. The Odyssey G7/Nitro XV275K has 5.7ms too, the expensive af Philips/LG/Asus you recomennded are 3.0ms

not expensive af.. "proper monitor" and they have 0.1ms responcetime. some cheaper ones had 0.4ms..
but I be interesting on the site you supposigly use for responcetime

that response time is made up.
Check some real test, benchmarks and reviews for real total response time.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews - popular site that tests monitors and TVs (including how they work as monitors). They give full and precise data on real total response time. Hz numbers make the biggest difference. So a 480Hz monitor will indeed have a much better response time than a 120 or 144Hz TV. Similar to 144Hz monitors.

also YT channels like Monitors Unboxed https://www.youtube.com/@monitorsunboxed/videos
They also give similar precise data on response time.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by C1REX:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

not expensive af.. "proper monitor" and they have 0.1ms responcetime. some cheaper ones had 0.4ms..
but I be interesting on the site you supposigly use for responcetime

that response time is made up.
Check some real test, benchmarks and reviews for real total response time.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews - popular site that tests monitors and TVs (including how they work as monitors). They give full and precise data on real total response time. Hz numbers make the biggest difference. So a 480Hz monitor will indeed have a much better response time than a 120 or 144Hz TV. Similar to 144Hz monitors.

also YT channels like Monitors Unboxed https://www.youtube.com/@monitorsunboxed/videos
They also give similar precise data on response time.

I give your links a look.

btw your argument is wrong.
hz is NOT responce time.

hz is how many frames can a screen display per second.
responcetime is the delay between the signal incoming and it shown on screen.

quite frankly if your screens hz is basicly the cap on how much fps you maximum can display.
ofcourse having higher hz will apear more smoother...

if you have 100fps output and a 120hz screen.
and have perfect syncing

than basicly you get
YYYYYNYYYYYYN etc...
so once every 6 imagies an immage is used for 2 cycly..
ofcourse you not always have 100fps.. so any fps number gets spread over your screen..

as your hz gets higher.. this doubling of the gaps... gets shorter in time.... say we have instead a 480hz screen..

YNNN YNNNN YNNNN YNNNN YNNNN YNNN YNNNN YNNNN YNNNN YNNNN

it would visuably make that 100fps apear as 96hz.. much closer to what it really is.

so there is use in having a high hz screen even if it is utterly pointless to have more than 110 fps.

**** now responcetime.. has nothing to do with this but instead as stated is the delay between image generation and it diplaying...

aka the delay between something happening and you seeing it.
if delay is really high you would see your mouse moving long after you already moved it
(only unlike with actual lag.. it would not be cause it would actually only be registered by your system to move later... but you see things only AFTER they already happen....
not so much as issue if you look at something you don't interact with like a movie..
but very much an issue when it is something you do interact with like a game.
-> which is why you want it at 1ms or less.

indeed you want this responcetime much below the 1000ms/hz of your screen.. to make sure your don't get skipped imagines...

with timings like tv have with their 5.7 ms that means basicly each image shown is actually 1 imagine back in time.. so what is generated in one frame is generated in the frame before which is bad.. really bad.

now add the fact it has no freesync or gsync.. and instead of a smoothed out YYYYYN YYYYN you can get YYYYYYYYYYNN NNYYYYYYYYYYY kind of crap.
(and with low fps this uneven distribution generally is worse too so the N without syncing will pile up even more)


so not just occationally an image gets frozen for 43 ms.. and it was an image that was 6ms delayed to startt.. so now you start to see things that happened 50ms or 1/20th of a second ago..
believe me that kind of delay will mean you get headshot before you even saw them come around the corner.

Why tv generally not have syncing.. they not need it.. movies are broadcasted always at a stable number of frames (generally 60/second)... so it does not have to "hold back" frames to distribute later for smoothing out.... movies already have this even distribution build in.

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

btw your argument is wrong.
hz is NOT responce time.

Hz affects response time. The same monitor has different reaponse time at 60Hz, 120Hz and 480Hz if it supports it.

Again - check some real benchmarks and good reviews. Those 1ms values for non OLED monitors are basically made up.

Here is a good review showing very detailed info how different is the response time at max Hz and 60Hz for example.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/acer/nitro-xv275k-p3biipruzx

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by C1REX:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

btw your argument is wrong.
hz is NOT responce time.

Hz affects response time. The same monitor has different reaponse time at 60Hz, 120Hz and 480Hz if it supports it.

Again - check some real benchmarks and good reviews. Those 1ms values for non OLED monitors are basically made up.

Here is a good review showing very detailed info how different is the response time at max Hz and 60Hz for example.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/acer/nitro-xv275k-p3biipruzx

interesting... well now one can learn something every day...
how is such difference between advertised delay and real delay legal??
->
still not says that tv's are honest in the delay they advertise either. btw;) so where do you presume those numbers ARE as advertised?

personally everybody I saw gaming on a massive size tv.. it always looked very ugly to me.. even if on expensive 2000+ euro tv's.. but granted likely non of those tv's has been a model that came out the last 5 years...
personally I don't even own a tv.. nor have I for over 2 decades

. I also looked up my current screen for fun :
https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

so.. not 1ms either..... still a good screen.. (no wonder it had a lot of "firsts") and I will jump to one of those 4k 44 inch screens of 1600 euro with again many firsts... once some card is released with 4090 peformance but without the insane unaccaptable 450w powerdraw.

basicly my budget is limitless but well with a good 1440p system.. and 4k still until the 4090 released not capable with ANY gpu.. and proper 4k screens in the right size and with the right specs not excisting until last year... it only very recently has become an option..

I not mind a 1600 monitor heck I would even consider that 5500 euro alienware monitor (why have they discontinued that one so soon??)

and while I do frown that an 4090 is so much more than an old 80ti or titan used to cost... even that price is not so much an issue.. I still do not LIKE that they rip off gamers...

but if a cpu draws twice the power to get twice the performance.. it does not feel like a true upgrade... and a double ripoff..

after first screwing gamers with the cryptocrazy.. they now overcharge us while also not investing in R&D to create a proper chip that can double performance at the same 250W every top model always ran?

as 3/4 of the cost of a gpu comes from the power to RUN it.. doubling that power.. thats far more a factor also.. even in a large wallet... than that spike in it's purchase price...

[Guydodge]

Originally posted by Ralf:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

why you go do 4k on 4070TiS thats made for 1440p?

Because I can't find 2k monitors over 32 inch and even if I could 2k would look terrible on 55 inch.

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

Iiyama G-Master G4380UHSU-B1 (600 euro) VA
Philips Evnia 42M2N8900/00 (1100 euro) OLED
LG UltraGear 48GQ900 (1450 euro) OLED
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG48UQ (1600 euro) OLED
Alienware AW5520QF (used to be 5500 euro) OLED -> look 2d hand for it or on ebay.

I can get a 55 inch TV for 500 euro, if I would have 1000 or let alone 5500 euro for a monitor, I would for sure get a 4090 instead of a 4070TiS. But I don't want to waste so much money.

Originally posted by N3tRunn3r:

run a TV, if for watching or for playing and pay your electricity bill x1000

simply stay far away from OLED as this stuff burns-in quickly and not to mention your electricity bill increase . . . and you can trash that "throwaway hardware" in 5 years . . .

But isnt Qled the best thing ever?

Originally posted by N3tRunn3r:

27" native 1440p
< 1 ms
min 120 Hz, 144 Hz better, 165 Hz is badly/oddly buffed, 240 Hz godlike
flat, IPS
100% DCI-P3
500 cd/m²

27 is too small for me, I want bigger

Originally posted by N3tRunn3r:

what the heck is a 27" screen @ 75 Hz . . . very odd as 165 Hz is . . .
use correct numbers . . .

27 inch 1080p 75Hz, correct numbers
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27MP59G-P-gaming-monitor

your really not understanding how resolution works as its not so much between 4k and 2k(1440) as it is about distance vrs pixel size/screen size you can have a giant 4k screen but if your to close 2k at the proper distance will be far superior.do your homework or you could be just pissing your money away.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

do your homework or you could be just pissing your money away.

That's why I don't want to spend over 500, I could game in windowed 2k and still have space for other windows. I know the 1600 euro Rog swift is good, but I rather buy Tifa or Aerith with that money.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

Originally posted by Ralf:

Because I can't find 2k monitors over 32 inch and even if I could 2k would look terrible on 55 inch.


I can get a 55 inch TV for 500 euro, if I would have 1000 or let alone 5500 euro for a monitor, I would for sure get a 4090 instead of a 4070TiS. But I don't want to waste so much money.


But isnt Qled the best thing ever?


27 is too small for me, I want bigger


27 inch 1080p 75Hz, correct numbers
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27MP59G-P-gaming-monitor

your really not understanding how resolution works as its not so much between 4k and 2k(1440) as it is about distance vrs pixel size/screen size you can have a giant 4k screen but if your to close 2k at the proper distance will be far superior.do your homework or you could be just pissing your money away.

yes and no.
you should not place a screen to close to your face thats damaging to your eyes.. an armlenght distance as a general rule.

at that distance we have yet to have monitors so large they fill your entire field of vieuw.

44 inch will fill much of it but it still fits.. 55 inch exceeds ot so you would need to place the monitor further away.. so yeay there is not much gain going 44 to 55 inch.

than there is pixel density.. you want it at that armlength distance to be in the 1500pixels per cm3 kind of balllpark.
much less dense and you can visually see pixels... much more dense and things get to small for you to see properly.

for 1440p 27 inch is perfect
for 4k you want to jump straight to 40-44 inch size.

now this is for pc use there are beds with a mount for s tv build so in the footend of it.

you could use a wireless keyboard and mouse and lazy game laying in bed..
as you than are more distance you want the screen be larger for the same resolution.

same if you just want to lazy sit on the couch in livingroom gaming.

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

interesting... well now one can learn something every day...
how is such difference between advertised delay and real delay legal??
->
still not says that tv's are honest in the delay they advertise either. btw;) so where do you presume those numbers ARE as advertised?

Check the measured numbers from tests for both of them. Rtings.com does such tests for both: monitors and TVs.

[lailaamell]

I use a tv for main screen wich is similar to what you want it runs great also for ppl who are against this you dont know their setup maybe there isnt a desk and more living room setup most higher end tvs are able to do the job maybe not for if you want the top shooting game performance so yeah info is needed here how far is op sitting from screen do they wanna use it for more than gaming and such

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You younger folks might think 27 inch is still ok, it's not. Not at 1440p or higher.

We grown ups have a living space, not a tiny closet bedroom, a 27 inch won't cut it.

32-34 inch is cool, sitting at a table right in front of you. But what if I want to sit on the cough, like 8-12 feet away, yea then you need a 55+ inch 4K TV.

Just be sure to look at in-depth tech reviews where they actually test the TV for Gaming on PC; because you want to know the pros/cons of the TV in this manner; such as can the TV scale properly when applying 1440p or 1080p; some do; some don't. Most all of them have no problems actually doing 1080p, however 1440p can be a different story. And when doing that on your PC connected to a 4K Display, you want to use an NVIDIA GPU and enable 'Interger Scaling' within NVIDIA CP.

[Electric Cupcake]

Considering the possible input lag if the signal processing and refresh settings aren't configured right, and the annoyances of scaling and highdpi settings, PC on a TV display is certainly possible, but quite a few headaches.

Make sure the TV has a low-latency "game mode" or something.

Also, a displayport connection is much better. Or at least a Radeon card so you can disable HDMI's HDCP ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.