This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by theru8543 (94 posts) -

This question has probably been answered a dozen times but i just wanted to get my question out there. Im currently Gaming (306,PS3) on a 55" Sony Bravia LCD 3D TV (240hz), dont get me wrong the picture looks great but for some reason i want to get a smaller more practical screen just for gaming, That tv is in our living room and is used for EVERYTHING. I want to stay between 25 and 30 inches and refresh rate doesnt really matter to me, neither does 3d.

So i was told by someone that Monitors sometimes are better for gaming because they are made with the idea of having to support the graphics cards in PC's. So my question is, is this typically true? i know it may only be a small improvement but im a stickler for detail. Has anyone made the change from a Tv to a monitor and enjoyed the transition, or regretted it? oh one last thing, i would prefer a Matted screen over a shiny one.

#2 Posted by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

The main difference is in signal latency. Most decent monitors out there will have very tiny latencies almost entirely drivern by display refresh rates. Monitors don't usually apply any processing to the incoming signal.

TV's on the other hand are notorious for messing with the signal and introducing latency into the equation.

Other than that, it doesn't really matter, the difference in image quality is goign to come down to how much are you willing to spend on your monitor.

Another thing to consider is that at 24-27" a standard TN panel should run around 1080p, you won't find a 720p panel at thsoe sizes and 720p would be optmal for console gaming (not so much upscalign going on).

So for the best quality image I'd go for a small 720p TV, but it'll probably be much more expensive than a monitor of the same size, and you need to do a little research on the model to make sure there are no latency issues.

A monitor will give you the best response time, but it will almost certainly rquire upscaling the content.... that being said, if you aren't gaming close to the panel, and if you just don't care abotu upscaling (if you game on a 1080p TV already you might not), then that is probably the way to go as it'll be cheaper.

#3 Posted by theru8543 (94 posts) -
those are some great points, but one thing u hit on is i DEF hate upscaling more than anything. My PS3 is notorious for that, which is why if its a multi platform game, i usually get it for 360. I work at Sams Club and we have some Monitors there with HDMI inputs and it advertises 1080p, i might have to do some further research on that.
#4 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (3101 posts) -

those are some great points, but one thing u hit on is i DEF hate upscaling more than anything. My PS3 is notorious for that, which is why if its a multi platform game, i usually get it for 360. I work at Sams Club and we have some Monitors there with HDMI inputs and it advertises 1080p, i might have to do some further research on that. theru8543

The 360 has an upscaler chip, which is why all games will display as 1080p on the TV. PS3 doesn't so it is up to the devs to do software upscaling or it is left up to the TV. The 360 scaler chip is pretty decent, so really with PS3 it depends on the quality of the TV scaler, if it is a cheap TV then the PS3 game will look inferior to the same game playing from a 360.

Most games on both consoles are 720p. if you have a 1080p display it will need to upscale one way or another. Kinthalis touched on most points, although I think you may as well go 1080p regardless of choosing monitor/TV as the 360 and PS3 only have a couple of years left, before the PS4/720 comes out. I would expect them to run all games at 1080p.

#5 Posted by Masenkoe (4890 posts) -

I agree, 720p may be better for PS3/360 but if you're going to be looking into new consoles you'll be out of luck because a lot of games will probably be 1080p. I would not buy anything less than 1080

#6 Posted by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

I'm going to guyess that next gen games will be split among 1080p 30 FPS and 720p 60 FPS.

Having hardware capable fo both 1080p and 60 FPS (on demanding games at least - dinie games hsould be able to do this easy) is probably not going to happen, specially since the average console gamer wouldn't even know what FPS means in this context.

#7 Posted by Masenkoe (4890 posts) -

I'm going to guyess that next gen games will be split among 1080p 30 FPS and 720p 60 FPS.

Having hardware capable fo both 1080p and 60 FPS (on demanding games at least - dinie games hsould be able to do this easy) is probably not going to happen, specially since the average console gamer wouldn't even know what FPS means in this context.

Kinthalis

I realize this but I still could never recommend a 720p TV at this point. For movies (if you have a Blu-ray player) and even HD TV, it's worlds better.

#8 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6861 posts) -

Depends how much you're willing to spend...

the 42" UT50 has better picture quality than almost any monitor out there, imo.

I just can't stand the fact that monitors are all LCD (poor blacks, poor contrast, poor colour unless IPS but they have the worst black levels, etc)

#9 Posted by rickliao (60 posts) -

my opinion is DO not buy anything less than 1080P.

#11 Posted by theru8543 (94 posts) -

i think also one thing is that i play both systems on my Sony Bravia 55" L.E.D 3D TV (240hz) and dont get me wrong the picture is stunning, but i just wonder if it would be a bit more crisp if i went down to a 24"

#12 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6861 posts) -

i think also one thing is that i play both systems on my Sony Bravia 55" L.E.D 3D TV (240hz) and dont get me wrong the picture is stunning, but i just wonder if it would be a bit more crisp if i went down to a 24"

theru8543
No. If you want an image more crisp with a higher contrast ratio, deeper blacks and more accurate colours you're oging to have to go for a Panasonic plasma (ST50, GT50, VT50) or a Samsung plasma (E6500, E7000, E8000)
#13 Posted by kraken2109 (13257 posts) -
[QUOTE="theru8543"]

i think also one thing is that i play both systems on my Sony Bravia 55" L.E.D 3D TV (240hz) and dont get me wrong the picture is stunning, but i just wonder if it would be a bit more crisp if i went down to a 24"

Mozelleple112
No. If you want an image more crisp with a higher contrast ratio, deeper blacks and more accurate colours you're oging to have to go for a Panasonic plasma (ST50, GT50, VT50) or a Samsung plasma (E6500, E7000, E8000)

1080p at 24" is going to be very crisp, far crisper than a plasma due to the DPI. Obviously plasmas will have better overall image quality, but he's looking for something small.
#14 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6861 posts) -
[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="theru8543"]

i think also one thing is that i play both systems on my Sony Bravia 55" L.E.D 3D TV (240hz) and dont get me wrong the picture is stunning, but i just wonder if it would be a bit more crisp if i went down to a 24"

kraken2109
No. If you want an image more crisp with a higher contrast ratio, deeper blacks and more accurate colours you're oging to have to go for a Panasonic plasma (ST50, GT50, VT50) or a Samsung plasma (E6500, E7000, E8000)

1080p at 24" is going to be very crisp, far crisper than a plasma due to the DPI. Obviously plasmas will have better overall image quality, but he's looking for something small.

DPI/resolution is probably the 3rd or 4th most important factor in determining what a good picture is. Contrast ratio > black level > colour accuracy > resolution, DPI, colour saturation, video processing, gamma, screen uniformity, etc..So that's not saying resolution/DPI is an unimportant, its just one of nearly a dozen factors, and not the most important of them either. I only notice the advantage of high DPI when reading text, for instance, the PS3 menu on a monitor looks better than my projector, sure it looks sharp on my 1080p 106" but it looks waaay sharper/crisper on my 23" Samsung. If you already own a Sony 55" LED (depending on what model it is, of course) if you expect to buy a display that'll give you any significant improvement in image quality I would suggest a Panasonic/Samsung plasma or the Pioneer Kuro, Sony GDM FW900 / Sony XBR 960 / other CRTs or a very, very, very, very, VERY unreasonable and expensive projector ;)
#15 Posted by Gambler_3 (7607 posts) -

Depends how much you're willing to spend...

the 42" UT50 has better picture quality than almost any monitor out there, imo.

I just can't stand the fact that monitors are all LCD (poor blacks, poor contrast, poor colour unless IPS but they have the worst black levels, etc)

Mozelleple112

IPS dont have the worst blacks compared to other monitors. They are just the same as TN monitors. The LCD TVs that have great black levels have terrible response times that I simply cannot stand.