TV as a monitor

[iap]

why do we don't use LED tv as a monitor

[Skiiwee29]

TVs arent build with high refresh rates in mind for gaming since most cinematic movies and stuff are shot at 24fps and dont require high refresh or high response times like a desktop monitor would.

[emosun]

14 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

TVs arent build with high refresh rates in mind for gaming since most cinematic movies and stuff are shot at 24fps and dont require high refresh or high response times like a desktop monitor would.

ah see I must be in the parallel universe where my tv works fine as a monitor. Although there may be a time discrepancy as well me living in 2020

[Roswell]

TVs work fine as monitor's as long as you enable "game mode" or whatever the maker decides to call it.

[Arika]

people do though?

[Skiiwee29]

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

ah see I must be in the parallel universe where my tv works fine as a monitor. Although there may be a time discrepancy as well me living in 2020

its getting much better now a days, but this is how it was not to far in the past, say 5 to 10 years. So it still has that stigma around it as not being good when a lot of newer TVs are much better at it these days.

[williamcll]

There is also a price difference. 

[lewdicrous]

I used to use a 32" TV as my monitor and due to the size of my old desk, it was too close for comfort and sometimes resulted in eye strain. Not fun.

 

Small TVs only make sense if they cost less for the same sized monitor, and large TVs only make sense if you're using your computer while sitting on a couch some feet away.

[IdlePX]

With everything said above, I'd say TVs can make awesome second monitors (depending on use). I had a 16.5" TV with a terrible picture quality, but it had all of the ports on the back. VGA, 3 HDMIs, DVI, 3 USBs and other stuff. Small enough to drop on the corner of my desk for Spotifiy and Thunderbird. 

 

 

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, iap said:

why do we don't use LED tv as a monitor

Whose we?

I've been using a TV as a second monitor for my whole life basically. Don't use it for high refresh rate gaming though, just use it for videos and such.

A TV can make a good second monitor, but always makes a terrible main monitor.

[Kilrah]

Been using a TV as main monitor since 2009 or so.

 

4K ones in the 50" range since 2014.

 

Only thing they don't have (well, didn't until a couple of months ago) was high refresh rate, but then again that wasn't a thing for monitors until a few years ago either.

[Bramimond]

I'm using a 40-something-inch TV (from around 2010) as my only monitor for years. You need to fiddle through the menu and figure out the correct configuration, but once that's done, it works just fine. It would be a little too big to have on the desk, so I wall mounted it and put a desk in front of it. I'm pretty happy with the setup. It replaced a two monitor one, but now I just don't need a second screen anymore. The first one is big enough and I'm using a tiling window manager. Also, I never got the feeling that a bigger screen would be nice. It's the perfect size. The only thing I'd want from a new screen is a higher refresh rate and a higher resolution.

[emosun]

1 hour ago, Kilrah said:

high refresh rate, but then again that wasn't a thing for monitors until a few years ago either.

(laughs in 1998 imac)

[TopherMan]

I've been using a 43" 4K Sony TV as my main monitor for a while, but I recently moved to an Asus 43" 4K monitor, primarily for the 120Hz refresh rate.  The difference is fairly significant, but that may be due to the TV I was using.  I never could get a great looking image from the TV. It just lacked a crispness that I found in most monitors.  Unfortunately, I was so used to have such a large main screen that I was afraid I would never be happy with downsizing.  So I went with the Asus ROG Strix XG438Q.  Large and expensive but very nice gaming monitor with FreeSync.  Don't think I could ever go back to TV at this point.  Spoiled.

[Kilrah]

11 minutes ago, TopherMan said:

It just lacked a crispness that I found in most monitors

Sounds like you might have been in 422 downsampled color.

[TopherMan]

5 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Sounds like you might have been in 422 downsampled color.

I tried 444 and Game mode but didn't seem to help.  I'm no expert on these things and I googled a bunch of stuff trying to improve it.  I think the problem may have been the TV itself.  Fine when using it as a TV, but not as a monitor.

[Slayerking92]

i have been using a 50" 4k TV as my main monitor for years.  Works fine for the games i play.

[jones177]

I am using a 55" LG(B9) G Sync compatible TV as a monitor. I ordered it after watching a LTT video.

It is 120hz at 1080p and 1440p but 60hz at 4k.  Hopefully Nvidia will go HDMI 2.1 and then the TV will do 120hz at 4k.

 

It also seems to do 1080p and 1440p a lot better than my 4k monitors.

My 28" TN 4k monitors I bought in 2015 did a good 1440p but a washed out 1080p and my 32" VA is only good for 4k.

 

I am basically an ultrawide gamer since 16:9 even at 32" gives me that cramped feeling.  I don't get that feeling on the TV. 

 

[SolarNova]

Modern LCD TV's can be good for gaming, not competitive gaming mind you, but 'casual' gaming. Those with game mode and ability to run 120hz 1080p and even 1440p can be good choices, however in todays market the better TV's that can do this tend to be restricted to larger sizes liek 55"+ which are arguably way to big for most users, as such smaller sizes like 42" which are more usable tend to lack things like 120hz capability.

 

Ofc while TV's have a better image quality overall, they tend to have better HDR capabilities, and  as they are VA they thus have great contrast, and are almost always way more uniform with far less BLB issues, they do lack certain things 'gaming' monitors focus on more.

Pixel response times for example are not a big focus for LCD TV's, as such even the best LCD TV's (VA panels) will have more 'bluring' than monitors, especialy in dark scenes, and ofc things like Adaptive Sync have only just become available on the newest top end TV's and require HDMi 2.1 which currently PC hardware doesn't support.

Input lag is another issue, though modern TV's with 'game mode' enabled do fair far better nowdays than in the past with 15ms being common place. PC monitor in comparison tend ot hover around 10ms on average, so the difference isnt that big compared to in the past when 50ms in TVs wasnt abnormal.

 

LCD TVs can make good PC displays, BUT u have to choose wisley, Samsung currently is the leader in TVs for gaming.

 

 

EDIT: another thing i forgot to mention. Sub-pixel layout. LCD TV's can sometimes use panels with odd sub-pixel layouts than can cause issues when used as a PC display , for example with text which can end up with fringing issues.

[Badger906]

People do. There's nothing wrong with it. But TVs tend to have slower response times, as well as image processing. This results in ghosting. Unless you go all out on a really decent TV there's an obvious difference between the two. The easiest way to think about the technology inside is cost. Monitors cost more

[Kilrah]

I've been using Samsung TVs since 2010 since they have always had proper support for PC use, even if it was a bit clunky to find out how initially ("HDMI UHD color" to enable 4K RGB444, rename the HDMI source to "PC" to disable overscan ) but once that was done along with game mode results were good. They also calibrate well for photo work with a Spyder style calibrator. Obviously you want the mid to high end models of you care about the image quality, bottom of the barrel is just that regardless of manufacturer.

LG used to be absoulutely terrible, but now they've decided to take that market segment and actually care about having the right interfaces, response times and low latency optimised controllers it seems they're the new king.

[MadAnt250]

17 hours ago, Kilrah said:

high refresh rate, but then again that wasn't a thing for monitors until a few years ago either.

Umm, my monitor built in June of 1999 can do 175Hz.

 

 

[MadAnt250]

18 hours ago, iap said:

why do we don't use LED tv as a monitor

Some people do.

[Kilrah]

4 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

Umm, my monitor built in June of 1999 can do 175Hz.

Yeah but it wasn't an LCD.

 

It's only recently that manufacturers started caring about making higher refresh rate LCD panels, even though it would have been technically possible before.

[iap]

3 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

Some people do.

i am talk about you specs, i5 vs r5 why did you switch and what is the performance different