TV or Monitor for second screen display?

[CAC1291]

Hi guys. So I currently have one basic ASUS TN monitor I bought cheap 3 years ago that I use for my PC gaming/general use. I want to get a second screen for a few reasons. First, I want more screen real estate for everything from productivity (I write/edit multiple documents/spreadsheets at once, two screens would be nice) to simply being able to have the internet open on one screen while I play a game on the other. I also recently bought a PS4 to play some console games, as a blu-ray player, and to stream netflix since netflix restricts HD playback on desktops. 

 

So, this second screen would be used primarily with the PS4 and for some use with my PC (having chrome open while playing Civilization, something like that).

 

At first I was going to buy this monitor from Acer since it has a nicer IPS panel and would serve the basic function of having two screens. Of course, while I could plug my PS4 into it, this TV form LG, while more expensive, would have much nicer audio quality and could serve as an actual TV if I get my own place in the next year. 

 

So, are TV screens that much worse to use as second screens for PC setups? Especially at a viewing distance of about 2-4 feet? 

 

Once again, these are my options: 

 

LG TV, 32"

 

Acer Monitor, 21.5 inches

 

Thanks for the help. 

[AlwaysFSX]

TV's have a ton of input lag. 

[Deletive]

monitor. I wouldn't buy a cheap tv.

btw both links are for the tv.

[Askew]

A giant 1080p panel for productivity and text work is a bad idea IMO, it is great for watching stuff but not much else, as FSX says TV's typically have a lot more display latency than monitors due to the additional image processing they do.

 

I'd get a second monitor for your desk, that will help out with the productivity and you can still use it with the PS4.

[CAC1291]

A giant 1080p panel for productivity and text work is a bad idea IMO, it is great for watching stuff but not much else, as FSX says TV's typically have a lot more display latency than monitors due to the additional image processing they do.

 

I'd get a second monitor for your desk, that will help out with the productivity and you can still use it with the PS4.

 

 

monitor. I wouldn't buy a cheap tv.

btw both links are for the tv.

 

 

TV's have a ton of input lag. 

 

That's not something I thought of. I'm probably going to get the monitor then since it's cheaper. Would the input lag be noticeable even if I don't do a lot of competitive gaming or FPS type stuff? 

 

The links are all fixed btw. 

[Deletive]

That's not something I thought of. I'm probably going to get the monitor then since it's cheaper. Would the input lag be noticeable even if I don't do a lot of competitive gaming or FPS type stuff? 

 

The links are all fixed btw. 

 

like 30ms input lag (not the worst) and response time can by anyways between 30-60ms... at 60fps a frame is 16.7ms

[Askew]

like 30ms input lag (not the worst) and response time can by anyways between 30-60ms... at 60fps a frame is 16.7ms

 

What are you calling response time?

[Askew]

That's not something I thought of. I'm probably going to get the monitor then since it's cheaper. Would the input lag be noticeable even if I don't do a lot of competitive gaming or FPS type stuff? 

 

The links are all fixed btw. 

 

Yes it's noticable on a slow panel, the cursor will experience delay and it will feel like you are dragging it along behind you while it constantly lags behind the input.

 

The faster the display the lesser the effect, PC monitors are typically very quick, and TVs can range from great to abysmal in this regard, my Sony Bravia has a 50ms display latency even in Game mode, it's horrible in comparison to my monitor.

[CAC1291]

Okay, well it seems like to TV is definitely out of the picture (haha, pun?), but now I'm looking at IPS panel monitors and not sure if I'm nitpicking. 

 

The only discernable difference between these two monitors below seems to be that the Acer has the glossy screen. If I'm going for the richest, deepest colors I can get in a monitor, should I go for that one? The Dell appeals because it's 23 inches instead of 21.5. 

 

The Acer 

 

The Dell 

[Deletive]

What are you calling response time?

oh yeah you're right a see my mess up. 

input lag how long it takes for the monitor to react to from when the thing is output from the computer.

response time: how long till the a new frame is displayed on the screen. 

Should be ~22+34ms in total input lag and response time. ~16.7+5ms for the monitor.

[Askew]

oh yeah you're right a see my mess up. 

input lag how long it takes for the monitor to react to from when the thing is output from the computer.

response time: how long till the a new frame is displayed on the screen. 

Should be ~22+34ms in total input lag and response time. ~16.7+5ms for the monitor.

 

Actually 'inpug lag' is an erroneous term, the correct term is 'display latency' and it includes what you are calling input lag and also what you are calling response time.

 

'response time' is most commonly used in reference to gray to gray pixel response time, it is unrelated to display latency and is instead related to clarity of motion, blur and ghosting artifacts.

 

It is common for people to mistake pixel response time for input lag as manufacturers like to put useless numbers on the box like dynamic contrast ratio and overdriven response times (like 1ms on a 60hz panel) that ironically increase display latency and can cause artifacts.

 

Almost all 60hz LCDs that claim a G2G pixel response time of under 5ms rely on overdrive to accomplish it and the first thing anyone knowledgeable will do is turn it off along with the ridiculous dynamic contrast setting lol

 

1000:1 is the 'real' contrast ratio of a lot of LCDs, and 5ms for 60hz LCD G2G pixel response, numbers above and beyond are marketing BS and software witchcraft with negligble benefit.