What TV should I go for as a primary gaming + content consumption device?

[suryatej77]

I plan on setting up my new apartment with a TV to be used with a potential new PC I plan to build later this year or early next year. I've deliberated a lot between going for a high end monitor and low end tv or a high end tv and skip the monitor altogether and setup the PC in the living room. I would like your advice regarding this.

 

I've shortlisted TCL Series-6 65-inch QLED ($1000), Hisense U8G 65-inch ULED ($1000) and if it goes on discount then the LG C1 ($1500). Both the QLED/ULED models have 120hz displays with HDR 1000 according to rtings, and support 4k 120hz with the HDMI 2.1 ports they have. I personally feel the pros of having infinite contrast with the LG OLED tv do not outweigh the potential burn-in problem it will face, but I would like your opinion on this as well.

 

If I decide that $1000 isn't something I'm ready to spend on a TV, I might shift to the 55inch variant of the TCL which comes at $799.

 

My main question is would these TVs be a good purchase for HDR gaming? I play primarily single player story games (RDR 2, Witcher 3, Control, etc) and Dota 2 with my friends, but nowhere at a competitive level (just a 2k mmr scrub).

 

Secondly, will my potential new PC (budget of $2500) be able to run a 4k display at decent framerates or should I stick with a basic tv and buy a separate 1440p monitor to game?

 

Until I buy the new PC, my current PC is a Eluktronics laptop with i7 9750H and 1660TI which runs Control and RDR 2 at high at 70+ fps on 1440p.

[SorryBella]

32 minutes ago, suryatej77 said:

My main question is would these TVs be a good purchase for HDR gaming?

+1 on U8G and C1, with C1 pretty much edges out in the raw performance, but longevity i simply just cant vouch for OLED, so U8G if you cant afford 1500$ down the road after 5-6 years of usage.

34 minutes ago, suryatej77 said:

Secondly, will my potential new PC (budget of $2500) be able to run a 4k display at decent framerates

Really depends on what you call playable, when are you going to buy it (in the light of this stupid GPU shortage), and how far do you want the settings go. But at 2500$ with MSRP GPU and a laser focus on Gaming, here is what i would build.

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor  ($309.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12S chromax.black 55 CFM CPU Cooler  ($79.95 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B550-A PRO ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($139.99 @ B&H)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory  ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Mushkin Enhanced Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive  ($85.98 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda Compute 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($46.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 12 GB Founders Edition Video Card  ($1199.99)
Case: Corsair 4000D Airflow ATX Mid Tower Case  ($84.99 @ Best Buy)
Power Supply: ADATA XPG PYLON 750 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($69.98 @ Amazon)
Total: $2081.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-10-27 01:03 EDT-0400

[Chris Pratt]

HDR frankly sucks on anything not OLED, right now. Samsung's Neo QLED models are a close runner up, but they're not any cheaper than LG's models.

 

OLED burn-in is somewhat exaggerated. You need to pretty much try to create permanent burn in. Simple image retention is what most people actually complain about, but that's correctable. LG, for example, actually has preventative maintenance that it runs periodically on the TV to clean up any retention.

 

It's a bit more problematic if you're actually using it as a computer monitor, and not just a display to play PC games on. Linus, for example, did have more severe retention from always having four windows snapped to each corner for basically months. However, he was able to correct it with LG's built in screen clean, so it still wasn't actually burn in, which is permanent.

[suryatej77]

Quote

Also, using something like a 1440p high refresh rate monitor is probably the best way to experience games, 

Which monitor would you suggest in this category that wouldn't burn a hole in my pockets? Considering a budget of say US$1200 for both the monitor and a tv.

[suryatej77]

2 hours ago, SorryClaire said:

+1 on U8G and C1, with C1 pretty much edges out in the raw performance, but longevity i simply just cant vouch for OLED, so U8G if you cant afford 1500$ down the road after 5-6 years of usage.

Really depends on what you call playable, when are you going to buy it (in the light of this stupid GPU shortage), and how far do you want the settings go. But at 2500$ with MSRP GPU and a laser focus on Gaming, here is what i would build.

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor  ($309.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12S chromax.black 55 CFM CPU Cooler  ($79.95 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B550-A PRO ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($139.99 @ B&H)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory  ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Mushkin Enhanced Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive  ($85.98 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda Compute 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($46.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 12 GB Founders Edition Video Card  ($1199.99)
Case: Corsair 4000D Airflow ATX Mid Tower Case  ($84.99 @ Best Buy)
Power Supply: ADATA XPG PYLON 750 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($69.98 @ Amazon)
Total: $2081.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-10-27 01:03 EDT-0400

I plan on building one in December or January, probably wait out to see the new Intel benchmarks before committing to anything. And yeah the GPU is my biggest worry, so also considering going via a system integrator to get the PC; probably would save on the final cost despite of their extra charges, considering the current GPU prices. Your part picker config was pretty close to the one I had tried out too.

[suryatej77]

2 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

HDR frankly sucks on anything not OLED, right now. Samsung's Neo QLED models are a close runner up, but they're not any cheaper than LG's models.

 

OLED burn-in is somewhat exaggerated. You need to pretty much try to create permanent burn in. Simple image retention is what most people actually complain about, but that's correctable. LG, for example, actually has preventative maintenance that it runs periodically on the TV to clean up any retention.

 

It's a bit more problematic if you're actually using it as a computer monitor, and not just a display to play PC games on. Linus, for example, did have more severe retention from always having four windows snapped to each corner for basically months. However, he was able to correct it with LG's built in screen clean, so it still wasn't actually burn in, which is permanent.

Rtings reviews had pretty high scores for HDR gaming for these TVs so I went by that standard. Also I would use the tv for regular YouTube and Twitch usage just as much as my gaming usage, would that affect the burn in?

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

HDR frankly sucks on anything not OLED, right now. Samsung's Neo QLED models are a close runner up, but they're not any cheaper than LG's models.

This statement is just wrong. It's partly true for monitors because all good HDR options are extremely expensive, but there are many LCD TV's that can deliver a fantastic HDR experience. Yes, OLED is the best for dark room HDR. But that doesn't mean everything else sucks.

 

Quote

OLED burn-in is somewhat exaggerated. You need to pretty much try to create permanent burn in. Simple image retention is what most people actually complain about, but that's correctable. LG, for example, actually has preventative maintenance that it runs periodically on the TV to clean up any retention.

 

It's a bit more problematic if you're actually using it as a computer monitor, and not just a display to play PC games on. Linus, for example, did have more severe retention from always having four windows snapped to each corner for basically months. However, he was able to correct it with LG's built in screen clean, so it still wasn't actually burn in, which is permanent.

It was burn-in. And the way LG TV's "fix" this issue is by "burning out" all pixels a bit so they have similar wear so to say. So it still is permanent damage. You cannot infinitely use the pixel refresher feature, as is does cut a bit of the TV's lifespan everytime you manually use it.

 

That being said, burn-in risk is next to zero when you use an OLED TV as a primary content consumption display. So if you watch movies and play games you should be absolutely fine even in the long run. However, if you also use it as a main monitor for browsing or work, then you best stay away from OLED as you will likely experience some form of burn-in in the long run.

 

I have had a C9 OLED for a little over 2 years now and i use it primarily for movies and gaming. Even though i play a lot of games with static HUD (about 300 hours of Dark Souls over the last few months) i don't have any signs of burn in yet and i never had to use the pixel refresher to get rid of static elements such as Linus did. So if your usecase fits into OLED then it's great and i wouldn't worry too much about burn-in. There are plenty of reasons why OLED is the best current display technology. The true 1ms response times and perfect blacks are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Chris Pratt]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

This statement is just wrong.

No, it's really not. Like I said, the Samsung Neo QLED models are getting pretty damn close, but most everything else is an utter disappointment. Where HDR shines is in dark area detail, and traditional LED TVs simply cannot render that with anything close to decent quality. Dark scenes in movies end up a grey uninterpretable blob. There's really no comparison once you see the difference.

[Stahlmann]

19 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

No, it's really not. Like I said, the Samsung Neo QLED models are getting pretty damn close, but most everything else is an utter disappointment. Where HDR shines is in dark area detail, and traditional LED TVs simply cannot render that with anything close to decent quality. Dark scenes in movies end up a grey uninterpretable blob. There's really no comparison once you see the difference.

I don't agree.

 

I have both a good FALD monitor (Asus PG35VQ) and an OLED TV (LG C9) and HDR is really good on both. FALD can go a long way if the algorythm controlling it is tuned well enough. That's the part where some fall short (including Samsung, which is known for crushing shadow details, making them just black). My Asus PG35VQ can display dark scenes with as much detail as my C9, albeit with a very slight amount of blooming in some cases. But overall the HDR experience can even be better on the FALD monitor because of the 1100 peak brightness and much higher sustained fullscreen brightness of 650 nits compared to the C9's 850 Nits peak and 150 sustained fullscreen brightness.

 

For movies i personally prefer the OLED as blooming is more distracting here, but while gaming the FALD monitor delivers a better experience due to the overall more impactful brightness.

 

Another thing: Most OLED TV's are also known for crushing very dark shadow detail, as the pixels have a "rough" transition from off to a very dark grey. So anything under a certian luminance is just displayed as black, even if it makes details dissapear.

[Chris Pratt]

4 hours ago, suryatej77 said:

Rtings reviews had pretty high scores for HDR gaming for these TVs so I went by that standard. Also I would use the tv for regular YouTube and Twitch usage just as much as my gaming usage, would that affect the burn in?

I'm not sure how RTINGS scales such things, but it's most likely relativistic. Consumers don't seem to really understand what HDR is anyways. There's an extended color space, which does make some difference, but it's really about extended dynamic range, specifically in darker tones. The different HDR implementations are just variations on PQ curves that shift more data towards black. If the display can't display true blacks, then it's incapable of displaying the vast majority of the HDR signal.

 

LED TVs require backlights to actually show anything on screen. The vast majority have local dimming zones that allow the TV to turn off the backlight in certain areas, but you're talking about a few hundred zones to represent 4 billion pixels. If there's only a small area of dark or the scene is mostly lit, that works out not bad, but when the scene is mostly dark, it's virtually impossible to render with any sort of detail or clarity, because it can't turn off enough zones. You end up with blocks of grey in various shades that makes the scene nearly indecipherable.

 

Even OLED isn't actually capable of fully displaying HDR. It nails the true blacks, but the nits aren't high enough. Dolby Vision, for example, actually requires 4000 nits, which to be fair, even movie cinemas can't actually reach. LED does get brighter, but not enough to make that much of difference for displaying the full dynamic range, and you're also losing the low end because of the backlight. So, in a sense, no TV is really capable of HDR, and LED especially so. OLED gets close simply because more data is in the dark end of the spectrum and it does excel there.