PC gaming: 55 inch 4k Hdr TV or 32 inch 1440p Vrr monitor?

Avatar image for gdourado07
#1 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

Hello,

I am currently debating this.

I spent some time piecing together a new pc build, based on a Fractal node 202.

The idea was to be able to game on a nice recliner in front of a big 55 inch Hdr TV.

I was thinking either an OLED from 2017 or a nice Samsung or Sony set that are offered at good prices at the moment.

I speced the build with a 1080ti so I could get as close as possible to a 60fps locked vsynced framerate with almost all ultra settings at the native 4k.

But then I started thinking if I should just quit the compromises on temperatures and over clocking and component choice of the itx build and just go for a nice atx build with a 32 inch monitor like the LG one that does 165hz at 1440p and has g-sync.

But that would mean of course gaming at a desk.

So, I am asking for your opinion on what would give the better gaming experience.

Either the size and image quality of the TV or the smaller size but higher framerate and variable refresh rate?

I am mostly into shooters, adventure games, AAA games in general, things like:

- Division

- Assassin's Creed games

- Far cry games

- shadow of mordor and shadow of war

- Prey

- tomb Raider and rise of tomb Raider...

You get a the idea...

What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you.

Best regards

Avatar image for npiet1
#2 Posted by npiet1 (1179 posts) -

it will look nicer on 4k but look smoother on the monitor. also you might want to wait on the gpu rumours are theres a new one out soon

Avatar image for gdourado07
#3 Edited by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@npiet1:

Yes, I saw some rumors about new gpus launching this summer or late September, but then also read that nvidia ceo said new geforce gtx gpus are still long coming.

And it kind of makes since.

The 1080ti is a beast and they are currently competing against themselves at the moment.

So no real market reason to launch something yet.

Cheers

Avatar image for GTR12
#4 Posted by GTR12 (13231 posts) -

@gdourado07: With the games you mentioned, 4k HDR is a no-brainer, you don't need high framerates for any of those games, but they sure look pretty.

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#5 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8270 posts) -

4k tv easy. I rather get a cheap decent monitor with high hz and throw all the money on a good 4k hdr to enjoy the graphics. In your case those games aren't competitive so tv is better. I can't stomach paying 600 bucks on a monitor when a tv can crap on it for the same or less on the wallet.

Avatar image for BassMan
#6 Edited by BassMan (9134 posts) -

The TV is good for watching movies and other shit, but for pure gaming... I would take the high refresh rate 1440p monitor any day. I recommend getting both if you can afford it.

Avatar image for gdourado07
#7 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@BassMan:

I appreciate the Input, but at the moment, both is not an option.

Either I get a new TV for the living room and build my pc there to play with an Xbox one controller and use a logitech k400 for basic windows navigation or get a full desktop setup to game on the desk at the office room.

But I have to choose either one course of action or the other.

Cheers

Avatar image for Dark_sageX
#8 Posted by Dark_sageX (3197 posts) -

which do you prefer? gaming on the coach? then get the TV, if you prefer desk get the 32 inch monitor.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#9 Posted by Howmakewood (5414 posts) -
@BassMan said:

The TV is good for watching movies and other shit, but for pure gaming... I would take the high refresh rate 1440p monitor any day. I recommend getting both if you can afford it.

Avatar image for gdourado07
#10 Edited by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@Dark_sageX:

That's the thing.

I think both options have their strengths and weaknesses, I just can't decide on one.

Or rather, I can't find myself to commit and just pull the trigger and buy the hardware...

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#11 Posted by Ezekiel43 (569 posts) -

@Dark_sageX said:

which do you prefer? gaming on the coach? then get the TV, if you prefer desk get the 32 inch monitor.

I would never go above 27 inches for my table. (Screw desks.) I've used a 32 inch TV with a computer for a while. It's not optimal. I have a 65 inch TV as well, but I'm not using that for PC games. Gaming with a keyboard and mouse on a sofa or coffee table would just suck.

Avatar image for Dark_sageX
#12 Edited by Dark_sageX (3197 posts) -
@gdourado07 said:

@Dark_sageX:

That's the thing.

I think both options have their strengths and weaknesses, I just can't decide on one.

Or rather, I can't find myself to commit and just pull the trigger and buy the hardware...

Well if I were you I'd scrap the 55inch and get a 40inch 4k TV with high refresh rate, like 144hz and use it at the desk. You'd get best of both worlds that way imo.

@ezekiel43 said:
@Dark_sageX said:

which do you prefer? gaming on the coach? then get the TV, if you prefer desk get the 32 inch monitor.

I would never go above 27 inches for my table. (Screw desks.) I've used a 32 inch TV with a computer for a while. It's not optimal. I have a 65 inch TV as well, but I'm not using that for PC games. Gaming with a keyboard and mouse on a sofa or coffee table would just suck.

Then game with a controller, mouse and keyboard will at best be used to navigate and launch a game, not necessarily needed to play them. And whats wrong with having a larger monitor? I think it would be pretty amazing to have a 40inch screen on my desk, I personally plan on upgrading to a 4k TV with large refresh rate once I have the money for it, (though input lag is a bit of an issue) 27inch just isn't cutting it for me anymore:

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#13 Posted by Ezekiel43 (569 posts) -

@Dark_sageX said:
@gdourado07 said:

@Dark_sageX:

That's the thing.

I think both options have their strengths and weaknesses, I just can't decide on one.

Or rather, I can't find myself to commit and just pull the trigger and buy the hardware...

Well if I were you I'd scrap the 55inch and get a 40inch 4k TV with high refresh rate, like 144hz and use it at the desk. You'd get best of both worlds that way imo.

@ezekiel43 said:
@Dark_sageX said:

which do you prefer? gaming on the coach? then get the TV, if you prefer desk get the 32 inch monitor.

I would never go above 27 inches for my table. (Screw desks.) I've used a 32 inch TV with a computer for a while. It's not optimal. I have a 65 inch TV as well, but I'm not using that for PC games. Gaming with a keyboard and mouse on a sofa or coffee table would just suck.

Then game with a controller, mouse and keyboard will at best be used to navigate and launch a game, not necessarily needed to play them. And whats wrong with having a larger monitor? I think it would be pretty amazing to have a 40inch screen on my desk, I personally plan on upgrading to a 4k TV with large refresh rate once I have the money for it, (though input lag is a bit of an issue) 27inch just isn't cutting it for me anymore:

The problem with having a very large monitor right in front of your face is that you need to move your eyes more. The keyboard and mouse have many gaming-related benefits.

Avatar image for gdourado07
#14 Edited by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

I know a game running at native 4k on a good TV like a Sony x900f in Hdr can look stunning.

But I am wondering if vsync can lock the game at 60fps and give that smooth gaming when each frame is on screen 16.6ms.

Of is frame times will be all over the place and g-sync or freesync are just the only way to go for smooth movement.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#15 Posted by Howmakewood (5414 posts) -
@gdourado07 said:

I know a game running at native 4k on a good TV like a Sony x900f in Hdr can look stunning.

But I am wondering if vsync can lock the game at 60fps and give that smooth gaming when each frame is on screen 16.6ms.

Of is frame times will be all over the place and g-sync or freesync are just the only way to go for smooth movement.

vsync always gives you some additional input lag and when fps drops below refresh you'll get judder, how even the frame times are at locked 60 depends on the game

Avatar image for gdourado07
#16 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@howmakewood:

But g-sync or freesync totally eliminates frame pacing issues, correct?

Avatar image for howmakewood
#17 Posted by Howmakewood (5414 posts) -
@gdourado07 said:

@howmakewood:

But g-sync or freesync totally eliminates frame pacing issues, correct?

It should as gsync makes the monitor communicate with the gpu, tho there have been few cases where nvidia has screwed up with drivers and people have reported gsync malfunctioning in some games(this isn't too common tho)

Avatar image for gdourado07
#18 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

There are also freesync TVs around.

But in my country, a Samsung nu8000 with freesync costs more than a Sony x900f.

And the Sony is a way better TV.

The Samsung even costs as much as a LG C7 oled can be had in a sale...

Avatar image for tryit
#19 Posted by TryIt (11841 posts) -

I get a kick out of how people spend tons of money buying a large monitor to then put far away from them, instead of just moving closer

Avatar image for howmakewood
#20 Posted by Howmakewood (5414 posts) -
@gdourado07 said:

There are also freesync TVs around.

But in my country, a Samsung nu8000 with freesync costs more than a Sony x900f.

And the Sony is a way better TV.

The Samsung even costs as much as a LG C7 oled can be had in a sale...

that's actually true, too bad AMD has no gpu to really fuel 4k and nvidia doesn't support freesync

Avatar image for gdourado07
#21 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@tryit:

Even with a 32 inch screen, there is only so close you can get.

You have the monitor stand taking space, then you have the keyboard and mouse taking space.

If you play with a controller and push the chair back and lean back to have the controller in your lap, there is only so close you can get...

I am sure that a 55 inch and gaming on a recliner in front of it can give more immersion.

Avatar image for tryit
#22 Edited by TryIt (11841 posts) -
@gdourado07 said:

@tryit:

Even with a 32 inch screen, there is only so close you can get.

You have the monitor stand taking space, then you have the keyboard and mouse taking space.

If you play with a controller and push the chair back and lean back to have the controller in your lap, there is only so close you can get...

I am sure that a 55 inch and gaming on a recliner in front of it can give more immersion.

in theory you can basically get as close as VR headset.

Consider this, A VR screen is as big as you cell phone, yet when you look at a movie, it appears larger than IMax.

yes the resolution is not as good but the point is, distance does make a difference

The only reason to have a large screen and put it on the other side of the room (like so may people do) is if you plan to regularly host about 15 people to watch movies.

Avatar image for gdourado07
#23 Edited by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

@tryit:

Yes, I totally agree.

My wife doesn't understand why if she watches TV on the couch, why do I have to put a recliner in-between the couch and the TV to game.

According to rtings, the optimal viewing experience to have a cinematic type feeling is when the display takes 40 degrees of your viewing angle.

To have that feeling with a 1080p 30 screen you have to be with your eyes at around 1m from the screen.

1 meter might sound like a lot, but like I said, if you have your monitor on a typical desk setup with enough space for your keyboard, your wrists and then you push the chair back and lean to game with a controller, there goes your one meter.

That's why I said, even though 32 inches is a big monitor for typical pc use, for gaming immersion, it can be found a bit lacking.

If I get the 55 inch 4k, I wouldn't game on the couch, but I would sit in a recliner in front of the TV when I wanted to game to have my eyes around 1.6m from the panel.

Avatar image for bigfootpart2
#24 Edited by bigfootpart2 (923 posts) -

Go for the 55" OLED.

High refresh rate adapative sync monitors are massively overpriced for what they are. I refuse to ever spend more than about $300 on a monitor. With TVs, you have economies of scale working in your favor. Monitors are expensive because they don't make very many of them. TVs are cheap relatively speaking because they are mass produced.

Avatar image for gdourado07
#25 Posted by Gdourado07 (150 posts) -

Just saw the best of both worlds today.

A Philips monitor, 43 inches, 4k, hdr1000 and freesync.

That might be the perfect solution to use at a desk and have great immersion for games.

Avatar image for schu
#26 Posted by schu (9880 posts) -

It really depends on the nature of the games you are playing. Generally I find that I do a lot better using a monitor than a TV when it comes to a game that is difficult.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#27 Edited by mrbojangles25 (41872 posts) -

just my opinion, but I find gaming at a desk more immersive. Sitting in front of a TV 5+ feet away, I always feel very aware that I am sitting in front of a TV.

At a desk, two or so feet away, the outside world starts to fade away even though I am sitting in front of a screen far smaller than a large TV. I Don't notice my desk as much, the border of my monitor or what's outside it as much.

I also have a comfy chair with back support, so I am as comfortable at my desk as I am on a couch. I find mouse and keyboard a lot more ergonomic than a controller: I feel with M+KB I can spread out, focus on my posture, and so forth; with a controller, I need to keep my hands together, contort them a bit to wrap around the controller (which is generally too small for my hands), and basically feel tightened up.

Avatar image for firedrakes
#28 Posted by firedrakes (1915 posts) -

dont worry about 4k gaming atm. its no where near real 4k. i go for the sync with you card.