40" 4k TV looks great for games. Have a question before I go larger.

Discussion in 'Displays' started by InaDaise, Jan 31, 2018.

  1. InaDaise

    InaDaise n00bie

    Messages:
    51
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2016
    Does anyone notice less texture detail in PC games on a 55" 4k TV compared to a 40" 4k TV? I know that may sound like I'm trying to start an argument. But I really want to go bigger with a 55" TV but the pixel density is what I'm worried about. Right now I have a sweet 111 ppi on my Samsung 40" 4k and games like Witcher 3, Deus EX MD and X Rebirth look wonderful.

    And I've read posts that swear on a stack of bibles that games on 55"- 65" 4k TVs do not lose any IQ at all compared to 32"- 40" because of various factors like making sure you have the appropriate viewing distance from the larger models.

    It 's not a matter of money. I probably should just try a Qled and a Oled both at 55" so i can see for myself. I know a good monitor will have a better picture than a TV and I hope that opinion doesn't rankle too many. But I didn't buy the Phillips, Dell or other 4k 40" monitor because of IQ issues I read about. Maybe that's erroneous and someone can convince me to try a 40" 4k monitor to replace the TV. Sorry that's a little off topic but considering I'm very much into how games look especially in textures I felt I had to briefly mention monitors.


    ------------------------------------------
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.0ghz || Titan XP || Win 10 Home || MSI B350M
    DDR4 16gb || 2TB HD || Onboard Sound || Thermaltake 600W psu
    40” Samsung 4k Lcd/Led TV 3840 x 2160 || CyberPowerPC Case
     
  2. Spicedaddy

    Spicedaddy n00bie

    Messages:
    47
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    It would be the same DPI as a 27 inch 1080p monitor.

    For games I doubt you'd see a difference unless you have both side by side, and the bigger size will be more enjoyable.
     
    TechLarry likes this.
  3. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    This is pretty subjective. I found a 49" TV too uncomfortable for long term use as a monitor. My neck got sore from constantly looking up at the big screen. Switched to a 43" and it felt much better. I think 40" might be the best for 4K monitor use.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  4. Syntax_Error

    Syntax_Error [H]Lite

    Messages:
    102
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    If you get a bigger screen size with the same resolution and view it from the same distance as before, you will see the bigger pixels if you look hard enough, especially on still images. Though, considering the 2160p res at 55", most of the time it would be unnoticable.
     
  5. defaultluser

    defaultluser I B Smart

    Messages:
    12,072
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Yeah, I jumped from 47" 1080p TV to 65" OLED 4k. It's noticeably sharper, even though we doubled our screen area.

    We jumped up to 65" because we increased our view distance by two feet, and because the wife has poor eyesight.

    You will likely increase your view distance with the larger TV, so your effective PPI should remain similar.
     
    Khahhblaab likes this.
  6. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD Gawd

    Messages:
    933
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    40" 4K is the sweetspot imo, it's quite a lot matter of taste though and not just viewing distance. I absolutely would not want a bigger screen.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  7. srphoenix

    srphoenix Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    165
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    40" 4k is the best possible size for normal desk viewing distances, however you can make almost any size display look 40" if you move it far enough back.

    That's the scenario some of us seem to be in with the best panels in terms of true image quality being 55"-65". If you go smaller than that your pretty quickly looking at a 27"-32" monitor or ultrawide which can be 38" but doesn't have the vertical pixel space to go with it.
     
  8. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,019
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    I've played on 42" 4k TVs and currently have a 50" TV for gaming/work. I love it. I might even go 60" in the future.
     
  9. Khahhblaab

    Khahhblaab Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    485
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Isnt there 'somewhat' of an issue when scaling text on a huge screen. Of course you can make text larger but I read that above a certain size the text 'doesnt look quite right'.

    More desktop sizes don't seem to have this issue
     
  10. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,019
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Prior to the falls creator update it was a mess for me, Icons and text wouldn't scale right, no matter what. I had to revert back to 1080p for things to display properly. But now it just works.

    Some very old games have issues with scaling, like Rogue Squadron. I have to disable scaling, otherwise it only shows like a quarter of the screen.
     
    Khahhblaab likes this.
  11. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,118
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    I'm just now getting into Destiny 2 after having bought a code off here for cheap.

    On my Samsung 49" KS8000 @ 4K the game looks absolutely breath taking. All I see is crisp detail. looks amazing. A 10/10 as far as graphics go.
     
    Porter_ likes this.
  12. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I use a 49" Samsung KS8500 for my system and I work and play games on it whenever I'm not physically at the day job. I spend more time on it than I probably should. I had to learn to cope with the larger size and not to move my head as much. However, the upper most corners are almost useless for text given my shitty eyesight. For use as a monitor, I think 40" is the sweet spot. For gaming, my 49" is where it's at using the thing at normal monitor distances. I've got a 65" 4K in the media area which is also a Samsung. I occasionally play console games on that but I stif further away than I would from my computer. I think that's too big for monitor use, but that's just my opinion.
     
    Khahhblaab likes this.
  13. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Question: How close are you guys sitting to your 49" TVs? I got a bigger desk, recently, and am considering another shot with a bigger TV for monitor. A friend offered to sell me his 2-week old Sony X900E 49" for $500. He's getting divorced and wants to rid himself of stuff the ex wants.
     
  14. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I sit 2.5 to 3 feet away from mine.
     
    Commander Shepard likes this.
  15. defaultluser

    defaultluser I B Smart

    Messages:
    12,072
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    It's astounding how close some of you sit to gigantic screens.. You must have retinas made of steel.
     
    Q-BZ likes this.
  16. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I don't have it on max brightness or anything. 6 or 7 is the most I can tolerate.
     
  17. defaultluser

    defaultluser I B Smart

    Messages:
    12,072
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    I have my 24" monitor set to 0 brightness, have the INPUT brightness set slightly lower in the Nvidia control panel, and it's just right for me at 2 feet. A 30" monitor on the same desk with the same brightness would bake my retinas.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
    jeremyshaw likes this.
  18. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Are you from the mirror universe or something? (Sorry, Star Trek joke.) I don't even think that would be bright enough for me to see what I was looking at with any detail.
     
    defaultluser likes this.
  19. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,676
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Depends on the monitors you have I think.
    I calibrate my displays to be at 80cd/m2. At zero brightness on my 20" 2005FPW, it still registers at over 100cd/m2. So, I suppose it just depends on what you want and need things to look like.

    Clearly the motion picture industry is going the other way, since they want 600cd/m2 to be the minimum for any reasonable level of HDR, with 1000cd/m2 for "high end" HDR. Personally I think that's going to be super bright for regular desktop use. Pure whites would be piercing. Even before I calibrated my displays the way I do, I never had them that bright, certainly never approaching max brightness.
    I think 200-250 is the maximum I could stand for long periods of desktop use. On a TV that's 10 feet away having a brighter display is probably fine. As the distance affects how much light you as an individual are getting, but like I say, 1000 at desktop distances would be a nightmare.
     
  20. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    823
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Personally I sit 2ft away from my 40" 4K TV. It works great for work, text is smooth and I have lots of desktop space. When gaming, I sit back and I'm about 3ft away from the screen, to take all the image in. Depending on the game's support, I also force 21:9 aspect ratio as the black bars just melt away for me (I know this bothers some people).

    The only thing I'd switch my display with is an HDR FALD %95 DCI P3 display, preferably 144hz, I don't care about gsync (never had it, can't miss it). Of course going down to 27" for this would be problematic, if the display will be smaller than 40" I'd rather go ultrawide, but those with the specs I mentioned are going to be obnoxiously expensive for a while. I'd suggest you go 40" 4K, I'd say it's the sweet spot for productivity and gaming, but if you want anything like HDR in that area, LG is not supposed to bring ~40" OLEDs to market until 2020 or so (I guess they're banking on the tech by maximizing profits in huge TV sizes).
     
  21. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    The only thing I'd really change would be the refresh rate. I'd definitely want to go with something at least 120Hz or more if possible. After having 3x30" monitors for years and 16:10, and now something 49" across I can't imagine dropping back to a 34" or something like that. This is why I stick with the 49" despite the crap refresh rate.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  22. vincentsixtysix

    vincentsixtysix [H]Lite

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    sitting 3 FT away from a 49 inch
    is the same as sitting

    about 2 feet from a 40 Inch which most people consider an ideal scenario.

    so if you get a 49 all you have to do is move it back about 1.25 FT and/or put it on a vesa mount off load it away from your desk
     
    daphatgrant likes this.
  23. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    I sit about 3 feet from my 43" Sony to view it comfortably. Any closer and I find myself looking up too much.
     
  24. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    www.rtings.com

    That site will help you figure out what TV to buy if your going to go that route. I've got a 49" Samsung KS8500 and it's awesome.
     
  25. daphatgrant

    daphatgrant I'm w/Stoopid ^

    Messages:
    17,367
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Thanks for the site rec man! I looked up the newer version of your screen but it only comes in 55" & 65" variations. I sit 3' from my current screen (eyeball to screen). I can probably get another 1' of separation but I think 55" would be too big at that distance?
     
  26. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,532
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I think a 55" is too big for monitor use but many people say that about my 49" as well. The dot pitch on mine is still reasonable. I think it's too large when you go to 55". I have a 65" and I would definitely say it's right out for monitor use.
     
  27. daphatgrant

    daphatgrant I'm w/Stoopid ^

    Messages:
    17,367
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Curious if you picked that up and if you did what your thoughts are? I'm looking at the 49" version of either the Sony X900E or X900F currently, planning on buying next month.
     
  28. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    I didn't buy it. It was a great TV, but just too big for my preference as a monitor. If you're looking for a 49" TV, I'd definitely get the 900F.
     
    daphatgrant likes this.
  29. daphatgrant

    daphatgrant I'm w/Stoopid ^

    Messages:
    17,367
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Any specific reason you recommend the 900F over the 900E?
     
  30. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    It’s just a newer model and rates higher as a monitor than the 900E over at rtings.com.
     
  31. daphatgrant

    daphatgrant I'm w/Stoopid ^

    Messages:
    17,367
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    I've been living over there (rtings) since Dan_D told me about it, awesome site. I wish Sony made a 43" version of that TV but you know what they say about wishing.
     
  32. Wade88

    Wade88 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2015
    +1 for rtings.com, was recommended to me by my favorite surround sound and display tuner Jeff from accucalhd.com
     
    Q-BZ likes this.
  33. Q-BZ

    Q-BZ Stay [H]ard

    Messages:
    17,660
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    I've floated with you in several of these threads. What did you ultimately go with?
     
  34. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Sony does make an excellent 43" TV for 2018, the 850F, with a 100hz panel. Problem is, it's not being made available on the U.S. :mad::(
     
    Q-BZ likes this.
  35. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Samsung 40" MU7000. Kind of a let down from the Sony, but about the best I could do in the 40"-43" category.
     
    Q-BZ likes this.
  36. daphatgrant

    daphatgrant I'm w/Stoopid ^

    Messages:
    17,367
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Yeah I was looking at that one, that and the Sony 43X720E, both are ok but really lack when compared to the X900E or F.
     
  37. Q-BZ

    Q-BZ Stay [H]ard

    Messages:
    17,660
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    This is the kind of dumb @#$% Sony does that perplexes me sometimes.


    That and these panel sizes that I know come ultimately from LG. 43...49... bizarre. Why not 40 and 50?
     
    Commander Shepard likes this.
  38. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
     
  39. cybereality

    cybereality 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,597
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    So I recently purchased a Samsung Q7F 55" to replace a 40" KU6300. Honestly, I think I made a mistake on the size. It's way too big.

    I mean, the panel looks beautiful and has all the features I want. I just need it in a 40" size.

    Considering returning to Best Buy and trying something smaller (got 2 weeks left to decide).

    Or, I can use my other computer with 27" monitors and dedicate this setup to gaming/movies.
     
  40. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard Proud Brony

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Yeah, 55" is good for gaming, but way too big for daily monitor use, IMO. There just aren't many good choices in the 40"-43" range.
     
    daphatgrant and cybereality like this.