Am I kidding myself into thinking I can use a 40" 4K TV 2-3 feet away from me ?

[Subzerok11]

I feel like getting a 40" 4K TV as a monitor. I'm trying to convince myself that I could play and use one for my day to day tasks. But honestly I use my PC for 90% gaming. Playing modern games will be great with a pad and sit back.

But older games and FPS games like BF4 and future BF games where I play with K/M at 2-3 feet away, wouldn't I get eye strain a lot more quickly, and there's also maybe needing to turn my head more to see whats happening in the corners/sides it could handicap me ?? I'm playing on 24" now at about a foot and half. But a 40" inch at 2-3 no way right ?

 

[Subzerok11]

and before someone says TV's have a lag, not the one I would get. Samsung's new 2017 lineup have very low lag. So it's a dead point.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I have had monitors sizes from 24" to 40"... Don't get a 40" for gaming up close, you will get eye strain. I returned the 40" for this reason and because of lack of pixel density, 40" 4K is same as 27" 1440p which isn't good IMO after using a true high PPI display (140 and above). I have a 32" and that is also a bit big but its doable. Preferably no bigger than 27" for gaming up close. 32" is nice for immersion without being too straining but still not as comfortable as 27". I think 32" is a nice middle ground between 40" and 27" and I also use a 27" 4K strictly for the high PPI. It looks great.

 

[Subzerok11]

I have had monitors sizes from 24" to 40"... Don't get a 40" for gaming up close, you will get eye strain. I returned the 40" for this reason and because of lack of pixel density, 40" 4K is same as 27" 1440p which isn't good IMO after using a true high PPI display (140 and above). I have a 32" and that is also a bit big but its doable. Preferably no bigger than 27" for gaming up close. 32" is nice for immersion without being too straining but still not as comfortable as 27". I think 32" is a nice middle ground between 40" and 27" and I also use a 27" 4K strictly for the high PPI. It looks great.

I really disagree on your opinion about PPI. A 40" 4K gives a PPI of 110. Which is 19" more then my 23-24" 1080p and most would consider 91 PPI as very acceptable at 23-24" @1080p. Also 27" at 1440p PPI would be very nice, which most people would also agree. Not to be rude but you sound like one of those types that would consider 4K @24" only good enough. You sound like a nice guy and just helping but your opinions are extreme and does not reflect most gamers opinions. 23"-24 @1080p PPI is a popular and very accepted PPI so is a 27" @1440p PPI.

Your right about the size though. I've decided not to buy a 4K TV. But for the reason alone that a 40" is just to big at 2-3 feet away. I'll just get 27" or a 32" instead.

 

[Mokkat]

If it's too big to play games at full screen up close, it's not like you can't just create a smaller custom resolution in whatever aspect ratio you'd like with black area in the top/bottom and sides. The PPI is comfortably 27" 1440p ~ish.

Is it worth the concessions that a 40" 4K monitor involves though? Personally the curved 31.5" 1440p 144hz VA panel is much more interesting to me, although that only gives you ~94" PPI.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I really disagree on your opinion about PPI. A 40" 4K gives a PPI of 110. Which is 19" more then my 23-24" 1080p and most would consider 91 PPI as very acceptable at 23-24" @1080p. Also 27" at 1440p PPI would be very nice, which most people would also agree. Not to be rude but you sound like one of those types that would consider 4K @24" only good enough. You sound like a nice guy and just helping but your opinions are extreme and does not reflect most gamers opinions. 23"-24 @1080p PPI is a popular and very accepted PPI so is a 27" @1440p PPI.

Your right about the size though. I've decided not to buy a 4K TV. But for the reason alone that a 40" is just to big at 2-3 feet away. I'll just get 27" or a 32" instead.

24" is a little small for my tastes. Not very much immersion. At 27" though you get more immersion and it looks the same at 2-3 viewing distance. What I'm saying is I prefer no lower than 140 PPI which is 32" 4K, 27" is 163 PPI and 24" is 180 PPI. Both my 32" and 27" look good but the 40" looked slightly pixelated as well as my 27" 1440p. Once you get used to high PPI its hard to go back because you notice the pixels more, especially on text. High PPI text with scaling looks like printed paper which is easier on the eyes than low PPI with no scaling.

 

[Subzerok11]

24" is a little small for my tastes. Not very much immersion. At 27" though you get more immersion and it looks the same at 2-3 viewing distance. What I'm saying is I prefer no lower than 140 PPI which is 32" 4K, 27" is 163 PPI and 24" is 180 PPI. Both my 32" and 27" look good but the 40" looked slightly pixelated as well as my 27" 1440p. Once you get used to high PPI its hard to go back because you notice the pixels more, especially on text. High PPI text with scaling looks like printed paper which is easier on the eyes than low PPI with no scaling.

I'm only buying a VA monitor, why it's because it has best contrast and blacks. I've tried IPS monitors before and I can't deal with the low contrast levels. I currently have the BenQ GW2470H 23.8" VA I love it, but it seems small and I'm not part of the action.


It's between this 27" 1440p

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XT5BL3M/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1


or this 32" 1440p

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MS09LQX/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I3UYDC8O51NH1L&colid=14E8BUJKAD8TH


PPI will be higher at 108 27" @1440p but at $400, but this is a curved monitor which I never used before.

Or spend $500 and get the VA 32" 1440p. If you didn't know this 32" at 1440p would be the same PPI that I currently got with my 24" 1080p which is 91 which I'm fine with.

Which would you buy and why ?

The options in monitors at 1440p and VA @60Hz is very slim.

 

[Daleon]

I'm only buying a VA monitor, why it's because it has best contrast and blacks.

Cough, OLED, cough... heh. Truly unless you've sat and used a big screen for a week or more its impossible to really get a feel for what its like. I've slowly worked my way from 27", 39", 42", 49", to 55". I'm right at 3ft back and love gaming on it. A 40" would likely feel small to me. I think I have less eyestrain now than I had with my X34.

The BenQ looks very nice. More of a work display than gamer. To bad you don't care for IPS. There are always the high end TN panels that can look good just don't sit at an angle.

What about the new X35? Will cost a good bit more.

 

[Subzerok11]

Cough, OLED, cough... heh. Truly unless you've sat and used a big screen for a week or more its impossible to really get a feel for what its like. I've slowly worked my way from 27", 39", 42", 49", to 55". I'm right at 3ft back and love gaming on it. A 40" would likely feel small to me. I think I have less eyestrain now than I had with my X34.

The BenQ looks very nice. More of a work display than gamer. To bad you don't care for IPS. There are always the high end TN panels that can look good just don't sit at an angle.

What about the new X35? Will cost a good bit more.

Well you can cough all you want but OLEDS are more expensive. If you didn't know I believe most TV's including the 4K's are VA panels. Samsung's new 2017 4K lineup of TV's the 6000,7000 are all VA based panels.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I'm only buying a VA monitor, why it's because it has best contrast and blacks. I've tried IPS monitors before and I can't deal with the low contrast levels. I currently have the BenQ GW2470H 23.8" VA I love it, but it seems small and I'm not part of the action.


It's between this 27" 1440p

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XT5BL3M/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1


or this 32" 1440p

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MS09LQX/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I3UYDC8O51NH1L&colid=14E8BUJKAD8TH


PPI will be higher at 108 27" @1440p but at $400, but this is a curved monitor which I never used before.

Or spend $500 and get the VA 32" 1440p. If you didn't know this 32" at 1440p would be the same PPI that I currently got with my 24" 1080p which is 91 which I'm fine with.

Which would you buy and why ?

The options in monitors at 1440p and VA @60Hz is very slim.

Perhaps 32" 4K? you still get "good" pixel density, It's the same as a 21" 1440p so It's pretty decent.

Far as if I had to chose between 32" 2K or 27" 2K, I'd chose 27". 32" is better suited for 4K IMO.

 

[aeliusg]

A 40" 4K60 TV at 2-3 ft away is more than acceptable for gaming. Even closer is fine as the PPI is better than a 27" 1440p monitor as has been said. You will not be ultra-competitive due to the not negligible input lag even on the best models, but for immersion you will not get much better unless you go for a 3D projector setup or VR, and that's only going to work in certain games. You could even go bigger to 50". As an example, despite the fact that a 50" 4K display only has a pixel density comparable to that of a 24" 1080p monitor, at any given distance the angle the display subtends in your vision will be twice that of the smaller monitor. With the same PPI and twice the screen size you are actually getting twice the level of detail per angular minute, thus objects on the screen will appear twice as detailed even though the display has the same PPI. This may sound complicated to idiotic, depending on your perspective, but the effect is very apparent in actual usage. You can palpably see more and better as objects approach actual physical size. The effect is particularly useful in games like ArmA III or flight simulators where virtual visual acuity is important.

 

[Daleon]

Well you can cough all you want but OLEDS are more expensive. If you didn't know I believe most TV's including the 4K's are VA panels. Samsung's new 2017 4K lineup of TV's the 6000,7000 are all VA based panels.

Geez you got a real attitude don't ya? If you know it all, why you asking? Get whatever you want.

 

[Archaea]

too big. I tried a 37" and found it too big.

I think a 30" or 32" is just right.

 

[ballistic]

I use a Philips BDM4065UC that runs 3840x2160 at 60hz via displayport from 2-3 feet away daily.

I use it more like having multiple monitors most of the time as I have several applications and even a windowed game or video up at one time on the screen.

 

[ReaperX22]

Personally I run a 27" 1440p and find the pixel density perfect for me. I would never go down to a 24" again, and would not consider a 27"+ 1080p screen as my daily driver. 27" at 1440p, or 32" at 4k I think are good options. Whether or not 40" is too big for you is very subjective. I personally would be comfortable with up to around 32-34" (16:9 or ultrawides), but any bigger would probably be a bit much for me. anything 40"+ I'd prefer to use as a TV at a distance for my movies, consoles, whatever.

But a lot of enthusiasts are using 4k TV's now as their primary display, so I definitely think you could use one. Depends entirely on you! Some would argue more than 27" is too big, some would argue 24" is perfect for them. Very personal choice! .

 

[rtangwai]

I'm using the Phillips 43" 4K monitor and I find it quite acceptable gaming at standard desk monitor distances.

A 40" should be fine, as long as you have reasonable peripheral vision you won't be panning your head around. I personally noticed that I didn't have to pan my head at all after switching to the 43" from 3x30" Eyefinity, and the extra height is handy as well as it make FPS games more immersive.

I do recommend you scale your desktop to 125/150% as the text may be a bit small when surfing, etc.

 

[Decibel]

This forum is full of people comfortably using 40 inch 4k TVs as their primary gaming monitors.

Like me.

I strongly recommend bias lighting if you go there.

BUT, if you're about to drop $400 plus on a gaming display seriously look at VR. I have a Rift, and it is worth every penny. Vive is ok too.

 

[spine]

FWIW... I've been using a 40" Sony TV as a monitor 2-3 feet away no problems at all for the last couple of years, and now have recently upgraded to a 55" 4K Sony TY, sat only a few inches further back.

I have good sight, albeit with a slight bias to nearer objects, but I use my peripheral ALOT and having the screen basically fill my vision is just incomparable to gaming on those crappy 24"-27" screens.

I can never go back.

 

[Daleon]

FWIW... I've been using a 40" Sony TV as a monitor 2-3 feet away no problems at all for the last couple of years, and now have recently upgraded to a 55" 4K Sony TY, sat only a few inches further back.

I have good sight, albeit with a slight bias to nearer objects, but I use my peripheral ALOT and having the screen basically fill my vision is just incomparable to gaming on those crappy 24"-27" screens.

I can never go back.

 

[elvn]

27" viewed near from a fully adjustable desk chair is not a small gaming viewport as some make it out.

A good monitor arm makes a big difference..
Gif made from a LAWRENCEcanDraw Ergorton LX monitor arm review:

*note that the 21:9 shown in the graphic below is based on a 34" 21:9, not a 35" (or 38").

Desktop/app real-esate wise, a 40"+ 4k can make sense

What 40"+ monitors at desk/arm-length distances causes for gaming:

I'm holding out for the
PG35VQ 35" UW 1000nit QD HDR 200hz G-sync 3440x1440

The difference with 21:9 content is that the sides (+440 each side) actually add game world real estate for immersion, not just zooming the same 16:9 viewport and scene contents jumbo sized out of bounds of your focal view. You could technically run 21:9 resolutions on a 4k 16:9 with bars though.

PG35VQ trade show gallery (click within gallery to zoom individual pictures)

After HDR content (on a truly HDR capable monitor, especially one enhanced by a high density FALD backlight), all other monitors are going to be narrow band by comparison. Cameras can take HDR photos (RAW) too so even for photo/still work and appreciation all non HDR monitors are going to be left behind within the next few years. Any HDR data shown on a narrow SDR range will clip or crush to white or mud dark once it hits the narrow SDR monitor's limits instead of continuing to show the color volume throughout the HDR luminance range.

FALD explained (cnet.com) youtube.com: edge lit LED uncovered ...... FALD uncovered
........ Vizio Reference FALD versus Samsung HU8550 Edgelit Array

HDR Explained

High Hz + High FPS motion clarity and motion definition benefits explained

G-sync Explained (Blurbusters.com)

 

[Mad Maxx]

Buy it. Game on it. Enjoy it.

I've never looked back after going to these 40"+ 4K TVs for work and gaming.

 

[Daffan]

I have had monitors sizes from 24" to 40"... Don't get a 40" for gaming up close, you will get eye strain. I returned the 40" for this reason and because of lack of pixel density, 40" 4K is same as 27" 1440p which isn't good IMO after using a true high PPI display (140 and above). I have a 32" and that is also a bit big but its doable. Preferably no bigger than 27" for gaming up close. 32" is nice for immersion without being too straining but still not as comfortable as 27". I think 32" is a nice middle ground between 40" and 27" and I also use a 27" 4K strictly for the high PPI. It looks great.

140ppi and above is really diminishing returns

i had a 157ppi display and it was a waste of gpu power. Just like 4k on a 17" laptop screen is a complete waste of time.

 

[texuspete00]

For 90% gaming (unless it's like something uber competitive), I'd say go for it. I just went to a 43" 4k TV from a 32" computer monitor. I find myself burning through my backlog now! For stuff like surfing, well I find I just need to get used to using it a bit differently. For instance, I actually prefer websites that don't automatically spread themselves edge to edge because it's just too wide to move my eyes/head. So I sometimes have to get used to doing things like just not maximizing the window all the time. In a game world it's ok to have stuff on the edge of my vision, I'm trying to fill it. I see something in my peripheral, I turn my character and the good stuff happens more in front of me. For the same type of "surfing" reasons, reading a bunch of text or whatever, I would I guess say my 32" would be better. That's like when I hook up my work laptop and stuff like that though, this screen is for gaming. Half the time I'm looking at a web page now, it's some tips on what skill trees to follow thrown up on the side monitor jobbie while I game in immersive goodness. AS opposed to when I used to turn on my gaming rig, and get side tracked doing some BS I could do on a Core2Duo and 9800GT.

So yeah you might be happy with it all around, but 90% gaming sounds like you might really like it. My PC's relative sole purpose is unapologetically to game.

 

[enzolt]

We can all give out anecdotal evidence of why 40" is bad, get a 27" but youre going to do whatever you want.

I should ask what the purpose of this thread is if you already made up your mind.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

4K 40" can be a great desktop display -- when it's properly done.
-- works much better at 3-4 feet rather than 2 feet. Get a slightly deeper desk, if necessary to fit "big desktop 4K".
-- and when properly calibrated downwards (PWM-free dimming) to a comfortable brightness (like, closer to 120nits than retina-burning 1,000,000,000 nits).

View distance 3' is better than 2' for 40" TVs as monitors
Trying to compare 2' and 3' is apples versus oranges. I don't need to turn my head for 40" televisions-as-monitors at 3' away. elvn is correct about the viewing angle issues. As soon as it moves 12 inches closer, I have to turn my head, and that's a problem. Get a deeper desk if you want a 40" display as a monitor. Properly calibrated and dimmed, it can actually decrease eyestrain for farsighted people, as long as it's the same viewing angle as a typical monitor by moving it a mere 12 inches away.

Common Eyestrain mistakes. Don't use TV-level brightnesses!
The common eyestrain error here is to use full scorching full television brightness and/or heavy-blue 9500K. This will give you much more eyestrain given the giganticness of the display. Configure it to a 6500K and dimmed backlight brightness more representative of a desktop computer monitor, more appropriate for your computer room's illumination. Use bias lighting / lamp behind screen / etc.

40" 4K versus ultrawides versus 3-monitor is not too dissimilar area-of-vision-coverage
The 38"-49" ultrawide desktop monitors are wider than a 4K40 television, and it is often appealing to many to use a single 4K40-48" panel than a 2x2 matrix of 24" monitors in a 4-monitor multimonitor setup or a 3x1 surround. The key is proper calibration of viewing distance (3' deep desk instead of 2' is a huge difference, and fixes a lot of problems for desktop 40" 4K use) and proper calibration of picture (never scorching bright 9500K uncalibrated TV picture in a dark cave + mis-calibrated ClearType).

Always recalibrate ClearType to fix headache-inducing color tinges.
Also, try to stick to RGB/BGR panels rather than weird pixel geometries (pentile, etc) to make ClearType work properly for using-TV-as-desktop-monitor, and use ClearType Tuner (Type "Adjust Cleartype Text" in Windows 10 search box). Make sure ClearType is properly configured to RGB or BGR for proper sharp text. Almost ten years ago, I had to force ClearType to BGR with a Sony KDL46EX703 to look great without the eye-stabbingly hurting color tinges.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

Far as the size issue goes, could always go 32" for the middle ground between 27" and 40" for a good balance of pixel density, immersion, real estate.

 

[MaZa]

I use 49" TV about 1.5 meters away. It is an eenyweeny bit too big but nothing bad. When I play older games at full 4k resolution I do still need some form of AA to hide jaggies but I still cannot see individual pixels at all, the pixel density is so high. 40" from 1 meter (roughly 3 feet I think?) should be similar experience I think, not optimal because of the sheer size (more head movements needed) but as far as pixel density goes the picture should look suberb. If you can somehow push it near 1.5 meter mark where my 49" is then it would be damn perfect. And pixel density should be so dense that you could probably leave AA out completely when playing games in 4k.

 

[Comixbooks]

Don't do it you will have 24/7 Roku eyes before you know it. 24" is perfect for desktop use. 27-34" I would use those at a great distance if anything. Those 49" Ultrawide can't be good for your eyes. They will stretch and you will forget who you are

If lcd monitors were perfect tech. I would say go for it but them emit way too much light.

 

[spine]

As I see it here, there are two types of people in this world:

People who learnt how to move their eyes, and these strange curous people who somehow didn't and have to move their entire head. I feel sorry for every poor bastard like that that I've bunny hopped around popping round after round in their cluessless asses in whatever CoD game.

I guess that's why there's apparently a market for friggin' 24" 4K screens. I mean, fucking JESUS!

...imho.

 

[Comixbooks]

bigger is not better

 

[Lizard Testes]

Bigger is better. I use a curved 55" at 4' and it's amazing. 40" at 3' will be great. lol 24" is perfect gtfo with that nonsense

 

[Desert Fish]

bigger is not better

Is that supposed to be self evident from the picture? That's a great size, but bad aspect ratio.