Disadvantages of TV as computer monitor?

[genexis_x]

What are the disadvantages of television as computer display?

[vanished]

They typically have much greater input lag, and are impractically large (and bright) for sitting near.

[TreesMadeOfTanks]

1 minute ago, ZM Fong said:

What are the disadvantages of television as computer display?

Its generally bad, don't do it unless you're going for a ''big screen'' only reason you should be using a TV screen is for the size. (My opinion)

[ARikozuM]

Not many unless you're able to notice input lag when you're immersed in a game. 

 

I would just look for how to disable the TV's scaler, what input you're going to use, and how good color accuracy is.

[Wix]

Higher input lag, (lower PPI, can't fit on desk - subject to size), decreased color accuracy for professional work

[tp95112]

They have horrendous input lag for gaming

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Looks plain ridiculous

[Enderman]

15 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

They typically have much greater input lag, and are impractically large (and bright) for sitting near.

9 minutes ago, Wix said:

Higher input lag, (lower PPI, can't fit on desk - subject to size), decreased color accuracy for professional work

7 minutes ago, tp95112 said:

They have horrendous input lag for gaming

 

 

The input lag is fine for casual gaming.

I have been playing all kinds of games, even competitive, on about 70ms.

It's fine unless you're trying to be really good at fps games, I just play for fun.

Modern tvs that have a PC/game mode are down to 20ms, which is the same as regular non-gaming computer monitors.

 

Gaming monitors are about 5-10ms.

Human reaction time is 200ms.

 

PS- dont be mislead by "pixel response time" advertised by monitor manufacturers, those don't mean anything.

What matters is the input lag.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

[...]

Human reaction time is 200ms.

[...]

How does that come into play at all?

 

Further, according to this site: https://displaylag.com/display-database/ the threshold seems to be about 17 ms, with the vast majority of monitors being under this level, and the vast majority of TVs being above it, with very few actually sitting near this value and much more being around 35 ms or worse.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Ryan_Vickers

[Enderman]

24 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

How does that come into play at all?

 

Further, according to this site: https://displaylag.com/display-database/ the threshold seems to be about 17 ms, with the vast majority of monitors being under this level, and the vast majority of TVs being above it, with very few actually sitting near this value and much more being around 35 ms or worse.

200ms is a magnitude more.

It is almost impossible for a human to notice a difference between 10 or 20ms due to Just Noticeable Difference.

If you think it's noticeable, then that's probably placebo.

You can go to http://www.humanbenchmark.com/ and see for yourself.

The variance of your reaction time will also be really large, like 10, 20, 30ms or even more, proving that it's not a noticeable difference.

 

As I said in my post, most non-gaming monitors are about 20ms, which you can see in displaylag.com, with several even over 30ms.

The ones that are marketed for gaming are about 10-15ms, again which you can see in displaylag.com.

 

For the tv input lag you can also go to rtings.com where there are tests with different tv modes enables, a lot more informative than dispaylag.com

You will see that pretty much all modern samsung tvs are about 20ms with PC mode enabled.

 

Unless you are a pro gamer and use a 144Hz monitor and need less than 10ms input lag, you will not notice a difference gaming on a tv vs a standard monitor.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

[snip]

All I know is we've had two Samsung TVs that I find unusable for games - hell, even moving the cursor feels and is noticeably laggy.

 

Furthermore, iirc you're on board with the idea that running a game well above your refresh rate - say, 300 fps on a 60 hz panel - can make a noticeable difference in feel, yes?  Well, if I'm not mistaken, the most possible benefit such a thing could have is 16.7 ms - within your stated range of "you probably won't notice".  Any explanation for that?

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

All I know is we've had two Samsung TVs that I find unusable for games - hell, even moving the cursor feels and is noticeably laggy.

 

Furthermore, iirc you're on board with the idea that running a game well above your refresh rate - say, 300 fps on a 60 hz panel - can make a noticeable difference in feel, yes?  Well, if I'm not mistaken, the most possible benefit such a thing could have is 16.7 ms - within your stated range of "you probably won't notice".  Any explanation for that?

I am pretty sure I said "modern" samsung tvs, idk how many years old yours are.

Also in order to have low latency the PC needs to be plugged into HDMI 1 with the input renamed to "PC".

 

Anyway, having 300fps on a 60hz panel can be felt in competitive games, yes. So you can feel a slight difference.

You can't notice a difference until you're actually in a game and shooting stuff.

 

However, just like with ping, you can easily adjust your shooting whether you're playing on 15ms or 30ms or 80ms.

Lower is better. That's why I said if you're a competitive gamer and play fps games then yeah having 10ms instead of 20ms can make a difference.

But for not-super-competitive gaming (which I doubt anyone here is doing) it honestly does not matter.

 

Basically, if you really care about the difference between 10 and 20ms then you're probably a professional gamer where losing a game due to one missed headshot actually maters.

For most people I doubt they would notice it.

I bet 90% of gamers out there think they are playing with 1 or 2ms latency because that's what it said on the monitor box, when in reality this number means nothing.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

I am pretty sure I said "modern" samsung tvs, idk how many years old yours are.

Also in order to have low latency the PC needs to be plugged into HDMI 1 with the input renamed to "PC".

I've also tried a rather old Panasonic with no custom modes set and it was actually quite usable.  I could tell it was slower but only just barely.  I know when it came to the Samsungs, the first one was tested thoroughly in all the right modes and it was no use.  I should try again on the current one.  It's only a few years old so I'd say that's "modern".

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

For most people I doubt they would notice it.

I bet 90% of gamers out there think they are playing with 1 or 2ms latency because that's what it said on the monitor box, when in reality this number means nothing.

I looked up my display once because I actually had never bothered to check, and I wasn't expecting miracles since it was rather inexpensive and not really marketed as "for gaming" at all, and it came in at 12 ms. Not bad  

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I've also tried a rather old Panasonic with no custom modes set and it was actually quite usable.  I could tell it was slower but only just barely.  I know when it came to the Samsungs, the first one was tested thoroughly in all the right modes and it was no use.  I should try again on the current one.  It's only a few years old so I'd say that's "modern".

I looked up my display once because I actually had never bothered to check, and I wasn't expecting miracles since it was rather inexpensive and not really marketed as "for gaming" at all, and it came in at 12 ms. Not bad  

IMO more people should try using tvs as monitors as long as they are not fps gamers trying to climb to the top of the ranks.

It is a lot more immersive than multi-monitor setups because there are no bezels.

Brightness can be turned down if it's too much.

4k is a must at this size though.

[Technomancer__]

tvs are ok for gaming just choose gaming mode from the menu and boom it becomes a monitor.

most tvs have it today

[Glenwing]

Input lag depends heavily on settings of course, if you look up the input lag in the online database it shows the lowest (as it should), but even modern TVs can have 200-300+ ms latency if you have the wrong settings ticked. I have a 2015 Samsung 4K TV that had massive input lag until I turned the shit off.

 

Mostly agreed with what Enderman has said though. Most monitors have 10–30 ms latency, and it's generally unnoticeable. Most modern TVs have acceptable latency when the right settings are chosen, but it's less plug-and-play, usually those settings are enabled when you first turn it on, and sometimes low latency options are only available on certain ports, etc., it's all rather overcomplicated compared to monitors.

[Business Corgi]

There's a bit of misinformation ITT.

 

w/ regard to latency there are some models, even 4K televisions, with input lag under 20ms. My secondary display is a Vizio P55-C1. Input lag is 16ms @ 4K60Hz with the option for 1080P at true 120Hz. It's not perfect (HDR ads 30-40ms of lag) but most PC games don't support HDR right now anyway. I don't notice the ~40ms input lag in the games I play on PS4.

 

I wouldn't use the TV for competitive or twitch gaming where ultra fast response times are a necessity, that's what my Asus PG278 is for. And as it happens, typically those are games I want to play with a mouse and KB. But if I want to chill and play Skyrim, FO4, The Witcher 3, or some other cinematic sort of game? That's where the TV excels.

 

My PC (and this TV) are in my bedroom, where the TV serves its purpose as the ultimate comfy couch PC gaming display.

[Wix]

4 hours ago, Enderman said:

 

 

The input lag is fine for casual gaming.

I have been playing all kinds of games, even competitive, on about 70ms.

It's fine unless you're trying to be really good at fps games, I just play for fun.

Modern tvs that have a PC/game mode are down to 20ms, which is the same as regular non-gaming computer monitors.

 

Gaming monitors are about 5-10ms.

Human reaction time is 200ms.

 

PS- dont be mislead by "pixel response time" advertised by monitor manufacturers, those don't mean anything.

What matters is the input lag.

 

Yes, casual gaming is fine - that's why consoles are often hooked up to TVs.

 

On my TV at least, the input lag is noticeable. Turning on game mode reduces it to a minimum, but the colors suffer.

 

If you're going to do any hardcore top ranking competitive FPS gaming, I'd advice against using a TV.

 

Human reaction time might be 200ms but it does add up in the long run. You do notice the lack of overall movement "fluidity" when playing on high input lag.

[Maxinfamily]

I agree with most of @Enderman says. Just dont use a bad one or one which is too old. Youll notice if they are good for gaming just by dragging the mouse over the desktop, if It feels laggy, dupm it, Its not worth for gaming.

 

Theres only one thing that Id like to say. Yes human delay is arround 250ms, but if you play with 50ms of lag (internet lag) + 70ms of input lag you will play 50+70 = 120ms or 0.12s fater the others play (if you play something online) or the game is actually happening, and in the worst case scenario 100-120ms of internet lag + 90-100ms  of input lag, youll play 190-220ms after anyone which is A LOT. So yeah, we have our own lag as humans, but it doesnt matter at all because we all play "with the same lag" you just add some more lag, which honestly sucks. So make sure to get a not too laggy TV, Im just saying that, Im not saying Its impossible to game on them, what Im saying is that Is impossible to game on a bad one.

 

Edit: about lags, Its pretty obviuos, you take arround 250ms to react but if the image arrives 50ms later and your reaction arrives 70 later, then youre playing 120ms behind. Eventhough the otehr players have 250ms of human delay, they dont suffer those 70ms which makes the difference EVEN IF YOU DONT PLAY COMPETITIVE., I swear, Ive experienced It.

[Razzee]

4K TVs have less input lag than some 4K monitors.

 

 

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ku6300

 

Spoiler

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-u28d590d-4k-ultra-hd-monitor,4033-7.html

 

Samsung UD28E590D and Philips 288P6LJEB are the most actual models, and see this... A monitor is meant to be used as a... monitor, and loses to a TV!

 

I know you are not talking specifically about 4K TVs, but I researched a lot before buying one and had this conclusion. Today TVs are way better than old ones.

If you watch 4+ years old videos comparing a monitor and TV in mirrored mode you will understand.

 

It also depends on TV. If you plan to use a plasma, higher input lag is not the only problem but retention too.

 

Quote

 if you play with 50ms of lag (internet lag) + 70ms of input lag you will play 50+70 = 120ms or 0.12s fater the others play

 

It is true only with games w/ client-server like League of Legends, no? I may be wrong, but on a peer-to-peer game, ping does not influence input lag.

[Glenwing]

6 hours ago, Razzee said:

4K TVs have less input lag than some 4K monitors.

 

 

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ku6300

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-u28d590d-4k-ultra-hd-monitor,4033-7.html

 

Samsung UD28E590D and Philips 288P6LJEB are the most actual models, and see this... A monitor is meant to be used as a... monitor, and loses to a TV!

 

I know you are not talking specifically about 4K TVs, but I researched a lot before buying one and had this conclusion. Today TVs are way better than old ones.

If you watch 4+ years old videos comparing a monitor and TV in mirrored mode you will understand.

 

It also depends on TV. If you plan to use a plasma, higher input lag is not the only problem but retention too.

 

 

It is true only with games w/ client-server like League of Legends, no? I may be wrong, but on a peer-to-peer game, ping does not influence input lag.

Toms appears to be testing the entire input lag chain, given the numbers.

 

DisplayLag.com has the PB287Q at significantly less than what Tom's lists. Toms does not describe their test methodology or even say what exactly they are testing.