Can someone educate me on the difference between monitor & TV for computer tasks?

D

dukenuke88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,924
Is there a difference between these two setups for computer tasks & gaming?

1. 32 inch HDTV with 1080p resolution

2. 27 inch MONITOR with 1080p resolution

I know obviously the 32 inch HDTV has 5 inches more real estate...but same resolution...so I'm wondering what exactly is the difference? I've heard people say that using a TV for anything computer related is not a good idea....what exactly is the reason? The resolution (1080p) is the same as with most monitors out there....so whats the deal?
 
The larger TV, at the same resolution, is going to have a larger dot pitch, so each pixel will be larger. Not really a problem, just that if you sit at the same distance from both you might be able to see individual pixels on the TV, but not the monitor. Also, TVs often add video processing, which can cause input lag.
 
^mostly this

dukenuke88 said:
Is there a difference between these two setups for computer tasks & gaming?

1. 32 inch HDTV with 1080p resolution

2. 27 inch MONITOR with 1080p resolution

I know obviously the 32 inch HDTV has 5 inches more real estate...but same resolution...so I'm wondering what exactly is the difference? I've heard people say that using a TV for anything computer related is not a good idea....what exactly is the reason? The resolution (1080p) is the same as with most monitors out there....so whats the deal?
Click to expand...

Generally TVs are not made for fast processing. They are made to handle the current TV and movie processing and now consoles. But that is a lighter workload then your computer gaming would have. The TVs will have lower response times and more grainy pictures compared to the monitor. Generally more display technology goes into monitors, while more versatility gets put into TVs. What I mean by that is TVs have tuner cards and usually speakers as well. Here is a site that gives a very basic run down of differences:

http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-tv-and-computer-monitor/
 
TVs can get away with 50-60ms of latency without the user noticing. This is even the case for console gamers, because the wireless gamepads they use aren't responsive enough for 50-60ms to matter much. Most aren't even aware of the latency.

However, if you hook up a mouse and keyboard to that same TV, a first person shooter, for example, may feel like you're "driving a boat" because of the latency.

With that said, for normal internet-type tasks, checking email, even word-processing or spreadsheeting, you'll be just fine with a TV. Just make sure you set the resolution and overscan properly, and you won't have a problem.

For photo editing, a very good TV that's calibrated correctly can be as good or better than a monitor. The difference will be in cost.

I use a hybrid approach: I have desk monitors and a TV connected to my main rig. I use the TV for watching videos (MLG, GOMtv, YouTube, etc.) and playing certain types of games (mostly 3rd-person action-adventure games which work very well with a gamepad). Also, if I'm playing a game and friends want to watch, I just grab my wireless keyboard and toss a mousepad on the couch, play from there. I can deal with the latency, though it does suck a little.

It all comes down to panel types:

TN: basic TFT LCD panel, oldest tech, thereby the most refined and cheapest to manufacture. Fastest response but worst image quality. For gaming, this is your best call. Extremely cheap LCD TVs will use TN.

PVA: better LCD panel, still an older tech, but relatively inexpensive to make. SLOW response, can't be faster than 50-60ms, but very good color and viewing angles, great image quality. "Good" LCD TVs will use PVA or similar tech (there are comparable variants with similar properties, I won't get any more technical than this). Some monitors are available in PVA variants. ASUS offers some.

IPS: best LCB panel. Newest tech, expensive to make. Medium response, a bit slower than TN, and a bit faster than PVA. Generally about 12-15ms latency, even if the pixels can perform GTG 5ms responses. Color and viewing angles are almost as good as PVA, considered the best because of the all-around quality the tech possesses. Used in virtually all Apple displays for the last several years. "Workstation" grade monitors are generally IPS, and cost waaaaay more than normal desktop monitors for that reason. Very few TVs use IPS because it would make them exceedingly expensive, and the user wouldn't generally notice the latency different over a much cheaper PVA panel. ASUS has a few IPS monitors, but I generally suggest HP.
 
thanks everybody for the input

so would you say its ignorant and noob talk when somebody says the following...

why bother with monitors at 27-30 inch and 1440p/1600p resolutions at $1200....when you can get an HDTV with 1080p with much bigger screen, and sometimes even 120hz ready....at much less than $1200

??
 
dukenuke88 said:
thanks everybody for the input

so would you say its ignorant and noob talk when somebody says the following...

why bother with monitors at 27-30 inch and 1440p/1600p resolutions at $1200....when you can get an HDTV with 1080p with much bigger screen, and sometimes even 120hz ready....at much less than $1200

??
Click to expand...

I'd consider it noob talk if they assumed that the larger yet lower res screen was better all around. It's really a matter of opinion. For computer tasks, you'd see benefits from having a higher res monitor as you'll have more desktop real esate, less scrolling up and down while editing photos, documents etc.. For gaming you could go either way. You'll get sharper graphics at 1600p (or whatever res is higher than 1080P) but of course you'll need the horsepower to drive it. With a large tv, you'll sacrifice some of that sharpness, but you'll have a large screen that won't take tons of horsepower to drive.

Do keep in mind that 120hz tvs don't accept 120hz signals like 120hz monitors. They take 60hz input and double the frames to artificially smooth the motion. If i had to choose between a 120hz tv or monitor, i'd choose the monitor.
 
Majinhoju said:
I'd consider it noob talk if they assumed that the larger yet lower res screen was better all around. It's really a matter of opinion. For computer tasks, you'd see benefits from having a higher res monitor as you'll have more desktop real esate, less scrolling up and down while editing photos, documents etc.. For gaming you could go either way. You'll get sharper graphics at 1600p (or whatever res is higher than 1080P) but of course you'll need the horsepower to drive it. With a large tv, you'll sacrifice some of that sharpness, but you'll have a large screen that won't take tons of horsepower to drive.

Do keep in mind that 120hz tvs don't accept 120hz signals like 120hz monitors. They take 60hz input and double the frames to artificially smooth the motion. If i had to choose between a 120hz tv or monitor, i'd choose the monitor.
Click to expand...

thanks for the reply...lets say you do have the horsepower to drive both 1080p HDTV and 1600p on a high resolution monitor...60fps constant, no problems...would you say its still noob talk or ignorance if someone thinks the HDTV is better for computer gaming? or are they just talking out of their ass because they think an HDTV looks better because its bigger, and costs much cheaper than 1600p monitors
 
If someone thought that a larger 1080p image was better than a smaller 1600p image, i'd tell them to get their eyes checked :p
 
dukenuke88 said:
thanks for the reply...lets say you do have the horsepower to drive both 1080p HDTV and 1600p on a high resolution monitor...60fps constant, no problems...would you say its still noob talk or ignorance if someone thinks the HDTV is better for computer gaming? or are they just talking out of their ass because they think an HDTV looks better because its bigger, and costs much cheaper than 1600p monitors
Click to expand...

The one time a TV would be better in your example would be if they intend to do their gaming console style, on the couch, with a controller. Then the larger TV size would be an advantage - but as far as quality goes, monitor wins that battle hands down.
 
All TVs use some form of processing and usually have a lot of input lag not to mention image sharpening that can make PC content just look flat out bad. Some TVs are good about having a PC mode or "cinema" mode that gets around the processing but not all are.

And the real reason TVs rarely use IPS panels isn't because of their price but their lackluster contrast ratio. PVA is generally preferred for High contrast ratios and just slightly worse viewing angles than IPS. Most TVs don't use TN panels unless they're pure crap. IMHO the best gaming tv is a plasma.. preferably a Pioneer Kuro used. For desktop use stick to LCDs though because of the ABL (automatic brightness limiter).
 
Last edited:
i love my plasma 42 in 1080p tv to me it way better then any lcd monitor i ever used, good blacks not much input lag and i never see ghosting on it like i do on lcds
 
Forceman said:
The one time a TV would be better in your example would be if they intend to do their gaming console style, on the couch, with a controller. Then the larger TV size would be an advantage - but as far as quality goes, monitor wins that battle hands down.
Click to expand...

I disagree there are TVs with contrast ratios far greater than any desktop monitor and offer just as pure signal as a monitor. The only thing monitors have on these few high end tvs are resolution. Which is why it's best to keep a relatively small (27"-30) monitor for desktop uses and a nice big 50"+ tv for games and movies. I've got my my computer hooked up via HDMI and use my TV regularly for anything that isn't desktop related. I've yet to see a computer monitor that offers better image quality of my TV regardless of the resolution advantage.
 
StaticSurge said:
I disagree there are TVs with contrast ratios far greater than any desktop monitor and offer just as pure signal as a monitor. The only thing monitors have on these few high end tvs are resolution. Which is why it's best to keep a relatively small (27"-30) monitor for desktop uses and a nice big 50"+ tv for games and movies. I've got my my computer hooked up via HDMI and use my TV regularly for anything that isn't desktop related. I've yet to see a computer monitor that offers better image quality of my TV regardless of the resolution advantage.
Click to expand...

They definitely quote better contrast numbers in the marketing material, but unless you are talking plasma, I don't know that it is anything other than marketing mumbo-jumbo. Have you used a good IPS monitor?
 
lordsegan said:
Wow.. that has pretty bad reviews at Newegg :(
Click to expand...

i heard some people say the new samsung has atrocious backlight unevenness...and possibly some other problems....i REALLY like new technology...especially if its computer related....and you have to admit, Dell ultrasharp IPS have pretty much ruled the market for about 5 years now....so when I see something new from samsung, it made me jump....but I think I'll hold off
 
dukenuke88 said:
....so when I see something new from samsung, it made me jump....but I think I'll hold off
Click to expand...


Me too..

And I have a question - if one does get a higher resolution 1440p etc. monitor, how well does a monitor like this handle cable (TV), and BR movies? Always wondered how 1080p material (cable TV, BR movies) look on a 1440p or 1600p monitor. Since there's move pixels and pixel density, does 1080p look as good or even possibly better on a 1440p or higher res. monitor? And I don't have the coin, per-se, to "try"...

I mean, I'm kind of in between a future buying decision, as my older Sony 1080p TV could be upgraded next year, OR, I could just buy a higher resolution monitor, and have it serve dual purpose (computer/gaming, cable TV, BR movies, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top