TV vs. "real" gaming monitor

Quiz

Quiz

Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
659
What are the main differences between using a TV (such as an LG C3) vs. a "real" gaming monitor?
 
Increasingly less every year. Displayport/USB-C/USB hub features mostly.

Monitors usually don't have specific game modes you need to activate for lowest input lag etc.
 
I would suspect some more computer type feature, like wake up on computer wake up type will work out of the box 100% of time on computer monitor, less so certain on TV.
 
Good advice so far. All those definitely true.

I'm going to speak in generalities to the elephant in the room. You asked specifically about GAMING monitors. So you can generally trust that input lag is by design very low at "gaming" settings on that type of monitor. That's the whole point. Typically sub 10ms and frequently a lot less than that.

With regular monitors and to an even greater extent TVs that don't put any work into gaming modes the input lag can be 50-100ms. This is simply because of all the image processing getting done with no regard to introducing delay that doesn't matter one bit if you are only watching videos and also most people who play single player games on consoles or more casual online play.

As kasakka said, this is getting to be less and less of an issue every year as many name brand and some off brand TVs have adequate gaming modes now.

Your C series LG definitely has excellent gaming ability. My CX does just great in game mode and with care to keep the extra processing features off. As good as my last couple IPS "gaming" monitors and IMHO the OLED contrast and speed puts it in another universe for image quality.

Another thing about the good new TVs like the C series etc, is that they properly support GSYNC / Freesync, 120hz+ refresh rate and HDR all simultaneously. This was a pipe dream a few years ago. Even on most gaming monitors.

So things are in a pretty good place right now, provided you read reviews from real users before you buy and make sure the TV actually does what you THINK it should do.
 
TVs flicker while monitors with hardware gsync modules are steady as fucks. Also TVs don't have the cool UW aspect ratios.
 
Murzilka said:
TVs flicker while monitors with hardware gsync modules are steady as fucks. Also TVs don't have the cool UW aspect ratios.
Click to expand...
That said with oled type where black bars are less of an issue, considering their size, one should consider to buy a TV and use it in UW mode if they want it, it will often be even cheaper for the same size than a UW monitor and then if you want 16:9 (games that do not support UW, watching 16:9 content, etc...) you have free up-down real estate that came with it.
 
TVs are cheaper and better at certain price points. You can get 4k@120/144hz, real HDR, low lag, FALD backlight, VRR and good software support, instead of a crappy fake HDR400 monitor with horrible uniformity issues and lousy software.
This means the only decent monitors you can get are high-end models, and that's if you SPECIFICALLY want an exclusive features like 240/360hz refresh, ultrawide or GSync Ultimate.
 
Last edited:
I sit 9 feet from my LG TV that I use as a monitor. 4KUHD, not the best, not the worst.. pretty awesome for me.

I retired my NAD AVR setup for a JBL soundbar and wireless sub.. but its not as fun. Might put it back.
 
If you don't feel the need to use DP 1.4a and USB-C (rarely few gaming monitors have it), there's no point buying any gaming monitor these days. 42" LG or 43" Sammy pretty much nails it as a gaming monitor replacement. All that left comes down to whether you want FALD VA or W-OLED.
 
Advil said:
As kasakka said, this is getting to be less and less of an issue every year as many name brand and some off brand TVs have adequate gaming modes now.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines that gaming monitors are starting to employ smart TV features whereas most TVs you'd want to buy come with well working game modes, low input lag etc. As long as you have a HDMI 2.1 port on your source device, the biggest difference is form factor. Modern gaming monitors tend to have more HDMI 2.1 ports than DP ports too.
 
Do gaming monitors that have very high refresh rates (300+ Hz) actually make a difference over something more common like 120 Hz? Don't you have to actually need to have 300+ fps to benefit from the very high refresh rate? Or does a very high refresh rate also benefit lower fps gaming?
 
TrunksZero said:
Higher Hz. TV's tend to top out at 120Hz, while some gaming monitors can go 300+hz.
Click to expand...
Aside from pläying video games, there aren't many use cases that demand 144+Hz. I couldn't find any channel in my region that broadcast 4K 144Hz let alone 240+Hz.
 
Quiz said:
Do gaming monitors that have very high refresh rates (300+ Hz) actually make a difference over something more common like 120 Hz? Don't you have to actually need to have 300+ fps to benefit from the very high refresh rate? Or does a very high refresh rate also benefit lower fps gaming?
Click to expand...
You can think of it as headroom. As an example, if we have a 120 Hz monitor but our GPU can run a game at 200 fps, then we have 80 frames per second we cannot display. So higher refresh rate is better, but yes, you would also need to reach those high framerates to make full use of it.

Most 300+ Hz monitors are 1080p eSports focused displays so they throw out image quality, HDR support etc out of the window for the best pixel response times and highest refresh rates. Pretty easy to run those games at those 300+ framerates.

Meanwhile getting even 120 fps at 4K can be a challenge unless you own a RTX 4090.
 
Xar said:
Aside from pläying video games, there aren't many use cases that demand 144+Hz. I couldn't find any channel in my region that broadcast 4K 144Hz let alone 240+Hz.
Click to expand...
Well Sure. Also 144hz vs 120hz isn't a big a deal... but 240hz is nicer for gaming.

kasakka said:
You can think of it as headroom. As an example, if we have a 120 Hz monitor but our GPU can run a game at 200 fps, then we have 80 frames per second we cannot display. So higher refresh rate is better, but yes, you would also need to reach those high framerates to make full use of it.

Most 300+ Hz monitors are 1080p eSports focused displays so they throw out image quality, HDR support etc out of the window for the best pixel response times and highest refresh rates. Pretty easy to run those games at those 300+ framerates.

Meanwhile getting even 120 fps at 4K can be a challenge unless you own a RTX 4090.
Click to expand...

Your right, the 300+hz displays are currently not really focused on overall image quality, vs image clarity. Not mention they are all? LCD, which just doesn't look as a nice as OLED overall.

However, there was some absolutely stunning 240hz OLED gaming monitors. That can match their OLED TV counter parts in overall image quality. While offering things like wider aspect ratios that TV's aren't likely to offer.

And having the extra headroom in Hz is awesome. Because we tend to keep our displays longer than any other component. So while you may not be able to make 100% use in the latest title, it's awesome to go back and play older stuff at that higher FPS/Hz. Add in a dash of wider aspect ratios and your getting an experience that is a little beyond what you can do with a TV.
 
One other difference would be the assumption a single viewer sitting close to the monitor versus a tv, if you want curve, take advantage of lower view angle vs what the compromise gave as a bonus from them, gaming monitor will have more offer.
 
For me it just came down to display size preference. There is no TV that's in 32" size and offers all the features that I want. I did use a 48" OLED for a while and kinda got used to it and used it for almost 3 years and recently went back to a 32" monitor and probably won't be going back to a big TV sized display again.
 
MistaSparkul said:
For me it just came down to display size preference. There is no TV that's in 32" size and offers all the features that I want. I did use a 48" OLED for a while and kinda got used to it and used it for almost 3 years and recently went back to a 32" monitor and probably won't be going back to a big TV sized display again.
Click to expand...
Same here. I enjoy my TV just fine in the living room but for the desktop would prefer something smaller, or an ultrawide option. Using a 28" 4K LCD as a "waiting until something better gets released" option.
 
I'm determined to make this 48" OLED work as a monitor. :)

As it still had the BFI feature I wanted. FancyZones utility helps. And being farther back on its own stand.

(For TV in the main room here, I finally replaced my 15 year old set with a projector. No room for a traditional one here, but it's the new type you put near the wall.)
 
MistaSparkul said:
For me it just came down to display size preference. There is no TV that's in 32" size and offers all the features that I want. I did use a 48" OLED for a while and kinda got used to it and used it for almost 3 years and recently went back to a 32" monitor and probably won't be going back to a big TV sized display again.
Click to expand...

I must be crazy because most of you guys prefer smaller screen sizes.... I went for a 65" Samsung QD OLED this year after 3 years gaming at 55". Was worried it would be too much but I love it. For me it's all about nailing that perfect viewing distance using the "island desk" setup advocated by elvn. I don't think I'm going back to a smaller screen unless it's for something compelling, like OLED @ 4k/240Hz.
 
NukeDukem said:
I must be crazy because most of you guys prefer smaller screen sizes.... I went for a 65" Samsung QD OLED this year after 3 years gaming at 55". Was worried it would be too much but I love it. For me it's all about nailing that perfect viewing distance using the "island desk" setup advocated by elvn. I don't think I'm going back to a smaller screen unless it's for something compelling, like OLED @ 4k/240Hz.
Click to expand...

Just a matter of preference. For some people even 32" is too large and they would only use 27" displays. I have a few friends who play nothing but competitive shooters like Valorant and OW2 so they only use 24" screens because that's what they prefer for their use case scenario. Having personally tried 21, 24, 27, 32, 34 ultrawide, 40, 48, and 55 inch displays I just so happen to land on 32" as my preferred display size.
 
True, I suppose if I were still 20 years old trying to play competitive Quake 3 Arena I would pick a more traditional monitor with the fastest possible specs. These days I am all about the immersion factor and that's where I find the big screen delivers.
 
Quiz said:
Do gaming monitors that have very high refresh rates (300+ Hz) actually make a difference over something more common like 120 Hz?
Click to expand...
An objetive question demands an objetive answer, and that is YES.
Higher refresh rates means not only superior response times on the screen and being able to see more frames, but latency on the controls is improved as well. For any competitive games, specially shooters, more refresh rate = better. Whether you can notice the difference or not, or whether you prefer better PQ is a different story, but higher frames does improve performance.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Just a matter of preference. For some people even 32" is too large and they would only use 27" displays. I have a few friends who play nothing but competitive shooters like Valorant and OW2 so they only use 24" screens because that's what they prefer for their use case scenario. Having personally tried 21, 24, 27, 32, 34 ultrawide, 40, 48, and 55 inch displays I just so happen to land on 32" as my preferred display size.
Click to expand...
So whatever the best combination of value and performance is in a 32 inch size, but size being the fundamental parameter?

I'm kind of that way, but with regard to TV. In that I just want the biggest one possible. I found I had one good wall here. So I chucked the couch I had against it. And now with a projector that wall's a TV. It's definitely at a loss of black level and contrast compared to OLED and QLED for that matter. However, it's all about the size for me. It does have another redeeming feature in that the RGB laser system creates a very colorful picture. (For motion, I do turn the motion system, "MEMC" on for sports, but with other content the picture looks very odd to me.)

For my main computer display, I basically want it to be a CRT, but bigger so I can throw up more windows and such for work. CX with the 120 Hz BFI on all the time is basically the closest I've found so far. (Some have mentioned input lag with it on, but I don't feel it. Seems instant when I'm moving the mouse and such. FWIW.)

If my neck had a vote, it would opt for a smaller display. Trying to discipline myself so I don't strain it with the height of the CX...
 
SH1 said:
So whatever the best combination of value and performance is in a 32 inch size, but size being the fundamental parameter?

I'm kind of that way, but with regard to TV. In that I just want the biggest one possible. I found I had one good wall here. So I chucked the couch I had against it. And now with a projector that wall's a TV. It's definitely at a loss of black level and contrast compared to OLED and QLED for that matter. However, it's all about the size for me. It does have another redeeming feature in that the RGB laser system creates a very colorful picture. (For motion, I do turn the motion system, "MEMC" on for sports, but with other content the picture looks very odd to me.)

For my main computer display, I basically want it to be a CRT, but bigger so I can throw up more windows and such for work. CX with the 120 Hz BFI on all the time is basically the closest I've found so far. (Some have mentioned input lag with it on, but I don't feel it. Seems instant when I'm moving the mouse and such. FWIW.)

If my neck had a vote, it would opt for a smaller display. Trying to discipline myself so I don't strain it with the height of the CX...
Click to expand...

Yes but I would be willing to move up to something that's around 40-42 inch if the specs were good enough like something found in the high end Mini LED or QD OLED TVs. But as for 48" and up though, I'm kinda over using those sizes as a monitor. You can definitely make it work, but I just don't want to since 32-42" is just way more comfortable for me personally.
 
The only thing I would caution on monitors vs TV is that monitors typically have the "gaming mode" input lag but without all the caveats that TV's have with said modes. For example, my Samsung TV has a gaming mode that cuts input lag from 32ms to 16ms. Not bad, not great either. But in gaming mode, I lose the ability to have correct colors. It will only run in the screen's native gamut and all color processing/correction features are disabled. Monitors don't have that kind of drama. You usually get to have your cake and eat it too. I also notice that newer OLED TV's that do support BFI do not support BFI and gaming mode together. So for LG C2's and newer, you're going to have about 33~ms of input lag if you want BFI - which you typically want for games. Just some food for thought. Otherwise I think that for the most part TV's and monitors are more or less the same.

I will say as a parent, I find monitors more attractive. Say what you will about my parenting but I like not having the ability to accidentally turn on some Roku feature or streaming service and have the kids watch something I don't want them to. Most monitors aren't smart so for me this is a plus.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
The only thing I would caution on monitors vs TV is that monitors typically have the "gaming mode" input lag but without all the caveats that TV's have with said modes. For example, my Samsung TV has a gaming mode that cuts input lag from 32ms to 16ms. Not bad, not great either. But in gaming mode, I lose the ability to have correct colors. It will only run in the screen's native gamut and all color processing/correction features are disabled. Monitors don't have that kind of drama. You usually get to have your cake and eat it too. I also notice that newer OLED TV's that do support BFI do not support BFI and gaming mode together. So for LG C2's and newer, you're going to have about 33~ms of input lag if you want BFI - which you typically want for games. Just some food for thought. Otherwise I think that for the most part TV's and monitors are more or less the same.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point about gaming modes. You absolutely want to use it even just for desktop use because it makes the mouse more responsive.

I totally disagree about BFI. It's not even a real option on anything newer than the LG CX series (and apparently Samsung S95C as well) because it works only at 60 Hz, with increased input lag too. It makes HDR look like SDR too. Without BFI, the input lag on the C2 is ~6 ms at 4K 120 Hz and ~10 ms at 60 Hz. Which makes input lag a total non-issue as long as you are using game mode but not BFI.

Monitors also do have some of "that drama". My Samsung G70A locks out several picture options just enabling VRR. Most displays lock out picture options if HDR is used too.
 
kasakka said:
It's a fair point about gaming modes. You absolutely want to use it even just for desktop use because it makes the mouse more responsive.
Click to expand...
Yes! I remember using my father in law's screen and without game mode even desktop usage was crap.
kasakka said:
I totally disagree about BFI. It's not even a real option on anything newer than the LG CX series (and apparently Samsung S95C as well) because it works only at 60 Hz, with increased input lag too. It makes HDR look like SDR too. Without BFI, the input lag on the C2 is ~6 ms at 4K 120 Hz and ~10 ms at 60 Hz. Which makes input lag a total non-issue as long as you are using game mode but not BFI.
Click to expand...
Subjective. To me, 60hz BFI is better than nothing. Not everyone is interested in high framerate gaming or minds 60hz. I want to connect my game consoles (Wii U and Switch - basically 60 fps only) machines and benefit. I also don't mind the brightness drop. I know that it comes with the territory and am willing to put up with it. But yeah, I wish 120hz BFI for OLED was still a thing. Shame on you LG... :(
kasakka said:
Monitors also do have some of "that drama". My Samsung G70A locks out several picture options just enabling VRR. Most displays lock out picture options if HDR is used too.
Click to expand...
Yep - something to read reviews for. In general terms though, monitors have less of that drama. :)
 
BFI is flippin AMAZING on an OLED. Not every single game needs to be played in HDR you know. Just try playing something like Dead Cells with with 120Hz BFI and you'll see how great it is. The main issue is that most people who buy big 4K TV's are not going to be playing sweaty competitive FPS games on it but would most likely play some single player HDR games so BFI was pretty much never used, hence why LG decided not to bother anymore. As for input lag, yes it does go up but again nobody is going to playing some sweaty Valorant or CSGO on these displays so the increased input lag is a non issue.
 
Not one single regret for 2.5 years now. Best desktop I have ever had.

1689102007893.png
 
No wonder what kind of wind this forum blows out when admiring a CX for 2.5 years that's even certified for HDR400.

If you get a proper HDR monitor since 2018 you can see better image every single second for the last 5 years. You will be sick of these SDR images for long time.
 
The "perfect" black level can only go down to a degree until you see that black crash when ABL can happen on both ends. The accuracy deviates too much to represents HDR when brightness falls far off.

If you are just using CX to watch forum messages then of course it will look like any other office monitors.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Yes! I remember using my father in law's screen and without game mode even desktop usage was crap.

Subjective. To me, 60hz BFI is better than nothing. Not everyone is interested in high framerate gaming or minds 60hz. I want to connect my game consoles (Wii U and Switch - basically 60 fps only) machines and benefit. I also don't mind the brightness drop. I know that it comes with the territory and am willing to put up with it. But yeah, I wish 120hz BFI for OLED was still a thing. Shame on you LG... :(

Yep - something to read reviews for. In general terms though, monitors have less of that drama. :)
Click to expand...
Shame on LG indeed. Though I guess Samsung's reentry into the OLED TV market spooked LG such that they redirected resources towards increasing brightness. I think Vincent Teoh reported something like that. The loss of such BFI sucks though. Hope it comes back...
 
SH1 said:
A remarkable display. Not that I ever thought otherwise. It's just I thought they would keep getting better. Like that more neck friendly 42" version on the horizon with 120 Hz BFI. Until it wasn't...
Click to expand...
So word on the street (blurbusters) indicates that monitors with 60-120hz BFI are coming. He’s probably under NDA so he hasn’t said anything definitive. I’ll keep taking shots of that hopium. Lol
 
Back to OP, while not as true as it once was, TVs were not targeting gaming. Even general purpose computer monitors in fact, did better than TVs. Obviously, as people have adopted larger and larger and larger screens as being "ok" for computing, the market for gaming friendly TVs has increased. So, again, it's not as bad as it once was. But IMHO, you still do better with a computer monitor over a TV in most all cases.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
So word on the street (blurbusters) indicates that monitors with 60-120hz BFI are coming. He’s probably under NDA so he hasn’t said anything definitive. I’ll keep taking shots of that hopium. Lol
Click to expand...

Dough also said they managed to get 120Hz BFI working on their upcoming OLED monitor, but I mean it's Dough so it's not like anyone who buys that monitor would actually receive it anyway so we can just write that off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top