Samsung Curved FHD "TV" for Gaming?

[Ordinarily_Greater]

This happens when i was thinking if i have to spend money for a monitor, i ask to myself "should i get another monitor or just use the 40" TV in the living room?".

 

And then the confusion still goes on, i know that TV doesn't say it's response time but is it affecting the experience of playing Racing games or first person shooting (PUBG)?

 

Update:@Technicolors give me a link for the specs and things all about my TV. Thank you!

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/j6300?uxtv=bd45

[Techicolors]

depends on your gaming habits, and if you prefer a more casual/couch gaming experience. however for racing games and FPS, you hafta note the response time and input lag of the TVs you're looking for. 

 

http://www.rtings.com/ is a good place for TV reviews that also note input lag 

[Ordinarily_Greater]

7 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

depends on your gaming habits, and if you prefer a more casual/couch gaming experience. however for racing games and FPS, you hafta note the response time and input lag of the TVs you're looking for. 

 

http://www.rtings.com/ is a good place for TV reviews that also note input lag 

Thank you! Now i know it's 120Hz with 12ms response time, i think it's still great but i don't see any displayport there

[EunSoo]

Try playing on your TV and if you don't like it then get a monitor.

[TVwazhere]

9 minutes ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

Thank you! Now i know it's 120Hz with 12ms response time, i think it's still great but i don't see any displayport there

6.5 Input Lag 

1080p @ 60Hz : 44.9 ms 

1080p With Interpolation : 118.7 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode : 127.3 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4 : 44.9 ms

[Ordinarily_Greater]

16 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

6.5 Input Lag 

1080p @ 60Hz : 44.9 ms 

1080p With Interpolation : 118.7 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode : 127.3 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4 : 44.9 ms

I was reading it wrong at RTing, not the website but i am wrong...

[EunSoo]

28 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

6.5 Input Lag 

1080p @ 60Hz : 44.9 ms 

1080p With Interpolation : 118.7 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode : 127.3 ms 

1080p @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4 : 44.9 ms

for context. A good gaming monitor such as the Acer XB271HK has an absolute input lag of 61ms. Anything under 80ms is usually fine at least for me.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

19 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

for context. A good gaming monitor such as the Acer XB271HK has an absolute input lag of 61ms. Anything under 80ms is usually fine at least for me.

Informative, if I don't like how my TV performing I guess I'll just give LG a shot

[aithos]

16 hours ago, SCGazelle said:

for context. A good gaming monitor such as the Acer XB271HK has an absolute input lag of 61ms. Anything under 80ms is usually fine at least for me.

Ummm... this is not accurate at all.  Wherever you got this number is not properly testing.  An input lag of 16ms is a full frame and is quite noticeable, anything over 30ms is extremely obvious, and double to triple that would be literally unplayable.  A TV is not even remotely suited for gaming purposes in any circumstance, not even if you turn off the frame interpolation and enable game mode.  There is a reason that games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band force you to calibrate for lag, because it's so significant you wouldn't even be able to play them otherwise.

 

edit: oh, and even using the "absolute input lag" and measuring the full pixel transition and rendering delay a GOOD gaming monitor like the PG279Q is 25ms without the highest overdrive setting.  So even 45ms is extremely slow, even if that's better than average for a TV.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

7 minutes ago, aithos said:

Ummm... this is not accurate at all.  Wherever you got this number is not properly testing.  An input lag of 16ms is a full frame and is quite noticeable, anything over 30ms is extremely obvious, and double to triple that would be literally unplayable.  A TV is not even remotely suited for gaming purposes in any circumstance, not even if you turn off the frame interpolation and enable game mode.  There is a reason that games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band force you to calibrate for lag, because it's so significant you wouldn't even be able to play them otherwise.

 

edit: oh, and even using the "absolute input lag" and measuring the full pixel transition and rendering delay a GOOD gaming monitor like the PG279Q is 25ms without the highest overdrive setting.  So even 45ms is extremely slow, even if that's better than average for a TV.

I think I'll take @SCGazelle's suggestion for try the TV and then get a Monitor

[aithos]

1 minute ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

I think I'll take @SCGazelle's suggestion for try the TV and then get a Monitor

Just get a monitor.  TVs are not suited for PC gaming, period.  Forget the numbers for a minute, the input lag is awful.  Also, how do you think you're going to run sound?  Most graphics cards don't send audio information over HDMI or display port, so do you have an audio out on your motherboard or are you going to be plugging headphones into your PC?  If so will the cord reach to where you'll have to sit relative to the tower?  I don't know if your TV is on your desk or not, but if it is your audio may work, but then running 1080p on a 40" that's on your desk would look awful because of pixellation.

[EunSoo]

15 minutes ago, aithos said:

Ummm... this is not accurate at all.  Wherever you got this number is not properly testing.  An input lag of 16ms is a full frame and is quite noticeable, anything over 30ms is extremely obvious, and double to triple that would be literally unplayable.  A TV is not even remotely suited for gaming purposes in any circumstance, not even if you turn off the frame interpolation and enable game mode.  There is a reason that games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band force you to calibrate for lag, because it's so significant you wouldn't even be able to play them otherwise.

 

edit: oh, and even using the "absolute input lag" and measuring the full pixel transition and rendering delay a GOOD gaming monitor like the PG279Q is 25ms without the highest overdrive setting.  So even 45ms is extremely slow, even if that's better than average for a TV.

I'm using Tom's hardware's method of calculating input lag so our numbers will probably be different. 

[Ordinarily_Greater]

3 minutes ago, aithos said:

Just get a monitor.  TVs are not suited for PC gaming, period.  Forget the numbers for a minute, the input lag is awful.  Also, how do you think you're going to run sound?  Most graphics cards don't send audio information over HDMI or display port, so do you have an audio out on your motherboard or are you going to be plugging headphones into your PC?  If so will the cord reach to where you'll have to sit relative to the tower?  I don't know if your TV is on your desk or not, but if it is your audio may work, but then running 1080p on a 40" that's on your desk would look awful because of pixellation.

I am planning to get HyperX Cloud Stinger and i think if my parents allows me to get This monitor that has displayport and VGA input at the same time, i can play PUBG competitively

[aithos]

4 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

I'm using Tom's hardware's method of calculating input lag so our numbers will probably be different. 

Well for the record: their method is stupid. 

 

However, that is where I got the "absolute" number I quoted you in my edit.  My IPS gaming monitor according to Tom's Hardware has 25ms of absolute lag, and IPS monitors are slow compared to TN panels.  So 25ms is a good "total", 45 ms is abysmal and has to be on the low end for TVs which would normally be more like 60-80ms.

[EunSoo]

9 minutes ago, aithos said:

Well for the record: their method is stupid. 

 

However, that is where I got the "absolute" number I quoted you in my edit.  My IPS gaming monitor according to Tom's Hardware has 25ms of absolute lag, and IPS monitors are slow compared to TN panels.  So 25ms is a good "total", 45 ms is abysmal and has to be on the low end for TVs which would normally be more like 60-80ms.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, ok.

26 minutes ago, aithos said:

Also, how do you think you're going to run sound?  Most graphics cards don't send audio information over HDMI or display port

Also have to contest this point. Gpus are definitely capable of sending audio over HDMI and I'm pretty sure that it can do display port as the cable and standard support audio but I've never tried it before. I have a GTX 1070, 980, 560 and an Rx 480 that I can use as evidence.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

Just now, SCGazelle said:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, ok.

Also have to contest this point. Gpus are definitely capable of sending audio over HDMI and I'm pretty sure that it can do display port as the cable and standard support audio but I've never tried it before. I have a GTX 1070, 980, 560 and an Rx 480 that I can use as evidence.

Close, i am planning between R9 270 or GTX 970

[EunSoo]

OP,  for the monitor, there is a Samsung one that's 24" 1080p, 144hz, so it's pretty similar to the LG but this one is a VA so, depending on what games you play, I think you'll see a great improvement in the color department. Do some research on it. I think it's called the Samsung C(some letter)G70

[Ordinarily_Greater]

1 minute ago, SCGazelle said:

OP,  for the monitor, there is a Samsung one that's 24" 1080p, 144hz, so it's pretty similar to the LG but this one is a VA so, depending on what games you play, I think you'll see a great improvement in the color department. Do some research on it. I think it's called the Samsung C(some letter)G70

It's released in my country, I'll look at it, thank you!

[EunSoo]

2 minutes ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

It's released in my country, I'll look at it, thank you!

Ok. I think it's in the same price range as the LG but I might be wrong. But definitely take a look at it

[aithos]

33 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, ok.

Also have to contest this point. Gpus are definitely capable of sending audio over HDMI and I'm pretty sure that it can do display port as the cable and standard support audio but I've never tried it before. I have a GTX 1070, 980, 560 and an Rx 480 that I can use as evidence.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong and it is clear you don't understand how it works so I'll explain.  First, it is true that HDMI is capable of transmitting both audio/video and has been for quite a while.  However, the issue is that the GPU has no way of GETTING the audio information.  Some video cards have SPDIF connectors that allow you to hook up a digital audio connection from your motherboard, but they aren't very common anymore because people don't typically bother to hook PCs up to TVs because they suck as displays.

 

In other words: Your computer has no way to transfer audio information to your GPU to pass it through the cable.  It has nothing to do with the cable standard.

[EunSoo]

Just now, aithos said:

I'm sorry, but you're wrong and it is clear you don't understand how it works so I'll explain.  First, it is true that HDMI is capable of transmitting both audio/video and has been for quite a while.  However, the issue is that the GPU has no way of GETTING the audio information.  Some video cards have SPDIF connectors that allow you to hook up a digital audio connection from your motherboard, but they aren't very common anymore because people don't typically both to hook PCs up to TVs because they suck as displays.

 

In other words: Your computer has no way to transfer audio information to your GPU to pass it through the cable.  It has nothing to do with the cable standard.

Then please explain how did all four of those cards output audio through a HDMI cable? 

[aithos]

13 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

Then please explain how did all four of those cards output audio through a HDMI cable? 

It's possible that since the last time I tried to do it the GPU companies have added the capability to the drivers.  It's been a while since I bothered to try because there isn't any good reason to hook a PC up to a TV besides as a HTPC and typically for that you want a sound card hooked up to your receiver and not your TV at all.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

33 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

OP,  for the monitor, there is a Samsung one that's 24" 1080p, 144hz, so it's pretty similar to the LG but this one is a VA so, depending on what games you play, I think you'll see a great improvement in the color department. Do some research on it. I think it's called the Samsung C(some letter)G70

It has less input features than the LG, but it seems like a good deal

[EunSoo]

15 minutes ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

It has less input features than the LG, but it seems like a good deal

Yeah, it doesn't have dvi or vga, but most gpus now a days most gpus have plenty of dp connectors

[unjusticewin]

if your looking at TVs check out rtings website seems to have pretty thorough reviews on tvs