TV for PC Gaming instead of monitor? Thoughts?

[Gdourado]

Hello, how are you?

I am looking for some opinions and insight about this matter.

Basically, I am looking into using a big screen TV as a display for PC gaming.

I am not talking about using the computer to browse the web, do productivity on office apps or other kind of work.

Just plain simple gaming.

I am thinking about this because a good PC 4K monitor costs around 500-600 and it tops out at around 32 inches.

There are some 40 inch screens by phillips and Ilyama, but they are expensive and much like a tv.

There are several Samsung 4k TV's at 40, 43 and 49 inches that can be had on sale for really good prices.

 

But I have some doubts, namely:

 

1- From what I gather, those TV's usually do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 Chroma in game mode and not 4:4:4.

Outside productivity work and desktop usage, how big of an issue is this?

In gaming, is there a noticiable image quality difference?

Are all computer gaming monitors 4:4:4? Even the cheaper 1080p TN models?

 

2- The best TV's have around 20-25 miliseconds of input lag in game mode.

I don't know about PC monitors. I know most TN models have 1ms response time and most IPS have around 6ms.

But that is grey to grey pixel response time. I have no idea about input lag on computer monitors.

Is it much less than these 20-25ms of the tv?

Outside competitive CS gaming, is it noticiable in real life?

 

 

3- To use at a desk, does a 40 inch TV give good immersion and gameplay experience? Or is it just to big?

Is it good to also play games with the keyboard and mouse?

 

4- For AAA titles where the GPU cannot do 60 fps at 4K, how is the image quality if I use the TV at 1080p?

As 1080p is not the native resolution, is there a big drop in image quality?

 

So, there are basically my questions.

Hope you can all help me out to clear these issues to come to a conclusion about this idea.

 

Thank you.

Best wishes.

[UMxMarky94]

3 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

Hello, how are you?

I am looking for some opinions and insight about this matter.

Basically, I am looking into using a big screen TV as a display for PC gaming.

I am not talking about using the computer to browse the web, do productivity on office apps or other kind of work.

Just plain simple gaming.

I am thinking about this because a good PC 4K monitor costs around 500-600 and it tops out at around 32 inches.

There are some 40 inch screens by phillips and Ilyama, but they are expensive and much like a tv.

There are several Samsung 4k TV's at 40, 43 and 49 inches that can be had on sale for really good prices.

 

But I have some doubts, namely:

 

1- From what I gather, those TV's usually do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 Chroma in game mode and not 4:4:4.

Outside productivity work and desktop usage, how big of an issue is this?

In gaming, is there a noticiable image quality difference?

Are all computer gaming monitors 4:4:4? Even the cheaper 1080p TN models?

 

2- The best TV's have around 20-25 miliseconds of input lag in game mode.

I don't know about PC monitors. I know most TN models have 1ms response time and most IPS have around 6ms.

But that is grey to grey pixel response time. I have no idea about input lag on computer monitors.

Is it much less than these 20-25ms of the tv?

Outside competitive CS gaming, is it noticiable in real life?

 

 

3- To use at a desk, does a 40 inch TV give good immersion and gameplay experience? Or is it just to big?

Is it good to also play games with the keyboard and mouse?

 

4- For AAA titles where the GPU cannot do 60 fps at 4K, how is the image quality if I use the TV at 1080p?

As 1080p is not the native resolution, is there a big drop in image quality?

 

So, there are basically my questions.

Hope you can all help me out to clear these issues to come to a conclusion about this idea.

 

Thank you.

Best wishes.

why not look at 34in ultrawides as some can do 100hz with g sync plus it is arguably more immersive  

[Guest]

Wel

13 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

Hello, how are you?

I am looking for some opinions and insight about this matter.

Basically, I am looking into using a big screen TV as a display for PC gaming.

I am not talking about using the computer to browse the web, do productivity on office apps or other kind of work.

Just plain simple gaming.

I am thinking about this because a good PC 4K monitor costs around 500-600 and it tops out at around 32 inches.

There are some 40 inch screens by phillips and Ilyama, but they are expensive and much like a tv.

There are several Samsung 4k TV's at 40, 43 and 49 inches that can be had on sale for really good prices.

 

But I have some doubts, namely:

 

1- From what I gather, those TV's usually do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 Chroma in game mode and not 4:4:4.

Outside productivity work and desktop usage, how big of an issue is this?

In gaming, is there a noticiable image quality difference?

Are all computer gaming monitors 4:4:4? Even the cheaper 1080p TN models?

 

2- The best TV's have around 20-25 miliseconds of input lag in game mode.

I don't know about PC monitors. I know most TN models have 1ms response time and most IPS have around 6ms.

But that is grey to grey pixel response time. I have no idea about input lag on computer monitors.

Is it much less than these 20-25ms of the tv?

Outside competitive CS gaming, is it noticiable in real life?

 

 

3- To use at a desk, does a 40 inch TV give good immersion and gameplay experience? Or is it just to big?

Is it good to also play games with the keyboard and mouse?

 

4- For AAA titles where the GPU cannot do 60 fps at 4K, how is the image quality if I use the TV at 1080p?

As 1080p is not the native resolution, is there a big drop in image quality?

 

So, there are basically my questions.

Hope you can all help me out to clear these issues to come to a conclusion about this idea.

 

Thank you.

Best wishes.

Well TVs does have a input lag, but they also have a game mode, where the picture processing is minimally done to decrease lag, but then the picture quality reduces only a tiny bit. But yeah, it's a good idea, there is not much problem in there. You won't notice color if you're gaming, obviously you'll be deep lost  in the game itself. 40 inch is fair enough, just don't stick it to your face then. No there is not a big droping image quality, atleast not much noticable in 40 inch one..

[WereCat]

If you are fine with insane high input lag on TV then sure.

It is not only 20ms-25ms, it is a lot more than that without counting in other factors like mouse, keyboard, frame time, game itself.

Definitely don't expect playing anything competetive, you should be all right playing most of the other games though.

[Gdourado]

28 minutes ago, UMxMarky94 said:

why not look at 34in ultrawides as some can do 100hz with g sync plus it is arguably more immersive  

Hello,

 

I don't think so personally.

The human field of view is bigger vertically than horizontally.

I find 16:9 to be more immersive than 21:9.

It has more to do with the size and distance to screen than the whole ultra wide.

And also, there are still many issues with games and 21:9 aspect ratio.

Cheers!

[werto165]

4 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

Hello,

 

I don't think so personally.

The human field of view is bigger vertically than horizontally.

I find 16:9 to be more immersive than 21:9.

It has more to do with the size and distance to screen than the whole ultra wide.

And also, there are still many issues with games and 21:9 aspect ratio.

Cheers!

human fov is the other way round isnt it? 

[Praesi]

27" 16:9 or 34" ultrawide for the Desk. I would not go higher.

[Gdourado]

1 hour ago, werto165 said:

human fov is the other way round isnt it? 

Taken from another source :

i`ve read in numerous place, for best active area viewing, (data registration) is inbetween a 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratio, the human active vision range for optimal operation in terms of shape, and just around you arm length away for consumption, maybe even closer.. give a little on the side or top for immersion and periphery.. Of course all the ultrawide fans and manufaturers dont talk about it, but for immersion.. you see more up and down, then you see side to side... ultrawide i think is an excuse to use uncut lcd 5:4 display assets, and conform to film standards, thought not necessarily for the better. notice the pixel pitch stays the same in the smaller ones.. Now, for periphery vision and immersion, it might be best to have a huge display in your face, so long as you are keeping the action in the area of visual performance.. and you dont mind having some overhead and some underhead, and set your fov for that.. not the other way around, Most wanna be gamers, and even longtime hardened verterans, seem clueless about the performance aspects of gaming.. and focus instead on keyboard backlight ability.. then again none of the so called gaming community is telling the consumer market... but most are not competing at a cut throat level, but are playing and participating for recreation.

 

 

[Glenwing]

2 hours ago, Gdourado said:

Hello, how are you?

I am looking for some opinions and insight about this matter.

Basically, I am looking into using a big screen TV as a display for PC gaming.

I am not talking about using the computer to browse the web, do productivity on office apps or other kind of work.

Just plain simple gaming.

I am thinking about this because a good PC 4K monitor costs around 500-600 and it tops out at around 32 inches.

There are some 40 inch screens by phillips and Ilyama, but they are expensive and much like a tv.

There are several Samsung 4k TV's at 40, 43 and 49 inches that can be had on sale for really good prices.

 

But I have some doubts, namely:

 

1- From what I gather, those TV's usually do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 Chroma in game mode and not 4:4:4.

Outside productivity work and desktop usage, how big of an issue is this?

In gaming, is there a noticiable image quality difference?

Are all computer gaming monitors 4:4:4? Even the cheaper 1080p TN models?

 

2- The best TV's have around 20-25 miliseconds of input lag in game mode.

I don't know about PC monitors. I know most TN models have 1ms response time and most IPS have around 6ms.

But that is grey to grey pixel response time. I have no idea about input lag on computer monitors.

Is it much less than these 20-25ms of the tv?

Outside competitive CS gaming, is it noticiable in real life?

 

 

3- To use at a desk, does a 40 inch TV give good immersion and gameplay experience? Or is it just to big?

Is it good to also play games with the keyboard and mouse?

 

4- For AAA titles where the GPU cannot do 60 fps at 4K, how is the image quality if I use the TV at 1080p?

As 1080p is not the native resolution, is there a big drop in image quality?

 

So, there are basically my questions.

Hope you can all help me out to clear these issues to come to a conclusion about this idea.

 

Thank you.

Best wishes.

1. It is noticeable in text. In images like games and movies it is harder to notice the difference between YC_BC_R 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 in an equivalent comparison, but TVs also operate in limited RGB mode when they are in 4:2:2 mode, even more expensive TVs; this results in a washed out image which is definitely noticeable compared to 4:4:4 if you can enable full range RGB in that mode.

 

Monitors do not use YC_BC_R, they operate in RGB directly, which is inherently "4:4:4" at all times, as subsampling does not apply to the RGB format. So yes all monitors are "4:4:4", even the cheap ones.

 

2. Typical monitors have latency around 10–30 ms, it isn't going to be noticeably different than a TV I'm with 25 ms, but most cheaper TVs will usually have a lot higher latency than that.

 

3. I've tried a 50" TV at a desk, and it was far too large. I don't expect that a 40" would be that different, but I'm not sure.

 

4. The image quality at 1080p will be worse than if it were native 1080p due to scaling. While some people will tell you that 1080p scales perfectly at 4K because it's an exact fraction (perhaps even someone will mention it in another reply below), this is not correct because it not how scaling is actually performed in the real world. If you want to game at 1080p, buy a 1080p monitor.

[PrimeSonic]

If what you want is a cheap, large 4K monitor, I don't know how well you'll do with a TV.

 

A few years back, you could find 1080p TVs with response times around 4-5ms before GameMode.

I used an TV as my primary display for all tasks on my PC for years, twice.

I even had a 42" one I used for gaming all the time and it was glorious.

Heck, I used a 32" on my desk recently and it took forever before I found a monitor that could give me that same feel of having most of my field of view taken up by the screen.

 

But with 4K? And with those response times? Now I'm not so sure.

Find out what the return policy is what you're buying. Test it immediately and see if things are playable.

I had to return a TV that added almost a full second of input lag between the controller and the action in-game.

[Gdourado]

24 minutes ago, PrimeSonic said:

If what you want is a cheap, large 4K monitor, I don't know how well you'll do with a TV.

 

A few years back, you could find 1080p TVs with response times around 4-5ms before GameMode.

I used an TV as my primary display for all tasks on my PC for years, twice.

I even had a 42" one I used for gaming all the time and it was glorious.

Heck, I used a 32" on my desk recently and it took forever before I found a monitor that could give me that same feel of having most of my field of view taken up by the screen.

 

But with 4K? And with those response times? Now I'm not so sure.

Find out what the return policy is what you're buying. Test it immediately and see if things are playable.

I had to return a TV that added almost a full second of input lag between the controller and the action in-game.

Out of curiosity, what 1080p brands and models were those?

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

Taken from another source :

i`ve read in numerous place, for best active area viewing, (data registration) is inbetween a 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratio, the human active vision range for optimal operation in terms of shape, and just around you arm length away for consumption, maybe even closer.. give a little on the side or top for immersion and periphery..

You do realize 4:3 is still wider than it is tall right? Something between 4:3 and 16:10 would be more horizontal than vertical.

 

1 hour ago, Gdourado said:

ultrawide i think is an excuse to use uncut lcd 5:4 display assets, and conform to film standards, thought not necessarily for the better. notice the pixel pitch stays the same in the smaller ones.. 

Unlikely, considering all ultrawides are made with modern panel types, if they were getting rid of old 5:4 panels they'd all be old panel types, mostly low-end TN or S-IPS at the best. The ultrawides we see are all using newly manufactured panels. Pixel pitch/density staying the same is quite on purpose, so that they can match existing monitors without position jumping in operating systems when moving between monitors. This is what you'd want from any monitor, it isn't particular to ultrawides.

 

Ultimately, arguments about human vision are somewhat irrelevant here, most games use HOR+ scaling which means a wider ratio will reveal more objects on the screen at the same time, which provides an advantage in gaming over a less wide ratio, regardless of the resolutions in question. A 1920×800 display will allow you to see more in terms of ingame view than even an 8K 16:9 monitor would. This makes 21:9 at any resolution superior to 16:9 in gaming currently, at least in competitive terms, although it helps with immersion as well. We can go back and forth all day about human vision theory, but those are the facts as they currently stand. The advantage of 21:9 in gaming is very real, not some kind of placebo or marketing ploy. 

[PrimeSonic]

3 hours ago, Gdourado said:

Out of curiosity, what 1080p brands and models were those?

Should have mentioned.

These were Samsung TVs. Wish I could find the model numbers I actually had. (It's been years) But then, I doubt those specific models are still being sold what with Smart TVs and 4K being all the rage now.

 

Still, I can say that the multiple Samsung HDTVs I used as 60Hz gaming monitors all performed well enough even for fast-paced games. And again, I never had to turn on GameMode to get acceptable performance at that refresh rate.

If you are going to hunt for a TV to game on, Samsung would be a good start.