32" 1080p HDTV vs 30" 2560x1600 monitor

[presidentMcCain]

Hi,

In terms of gaming, how does a 30" 2560x1600 ($1200) monitor compare to say a 32" SONY BRAVIA 1080p HDTV (with "Full Pixel" turned on for 1:1 HDMI pixel mapping), image quality and input lag wise?

Would it be very noticeable, or not at all?

The TV would be used at a 2 - 3 ft range (as a monitor), and so would the 30" monitor.

I think the industry has enough 32" 1080p sets floating around, and they're significantly cheaper than 30" monitors, but they obviously have half the amount of pixels. However, I keep hearing that with a TV this small, you couldn't tell the difference between the 2560x1600 res and the 1920x1080 res. I don't have a 30" monitor since I can't afford one, but I'm sure you do. I would like to know the truth as all Google gives me is all myth and speculation. Maybe the 32" 1080p HDTVs are indeed worthy candidates as large, high quality monitors.

Thank you

 

[rofl_my_waffle]

You can definitely notice the definition. 2560x1600 has nearly twice hte pixels of 1080P so there is no competition.

Apart from availability and competition pushing TV prices lower. The technology is different too. TVs are typically lit by xenon lamps which cost less than the CCFL backlight found in monitors.

Most 30" monitors are also IPS (In plane switching) which is a higher grade of LCD panels than what TVs use which is usually some kind of VA (Verticle Alignment) display which has less color fideility and viewing angle.

Depending on the TV, there is usually more input lag than monitors since most TVs have onboard video processor that add to input lag while monitors won't have such a thing.

Ebay has listings of 30" monitors for cheap. You can get even cheaper by buying refurbished or used. They are not bad options.

 

[presidentMcCain]

the SONY BRAVIA KDL-32EX400 i look at has
CCFL backlight
140,000:1 DCR (60,000:1 native)
unknown response time
unknown input lag

 

[presidentMcCain]

"120 Hz" does nothing for gaming. All it does is interpolate frames which causes tremendous input lag and you don't want that in gaming 😉

Even those TVs that have "Gaming Mode" turns off this "120 Hz" feature.

Not worth the extra money.

 

[presidentMcCain]

As for not being 'clear', did you try:

Connect to HDMI1 and label it as PC (labeling it is probably not going to make a difference, since I hear it's only about Samsungs)

In 'Picture':
Scene: Graphics
Backlight: 1
Picture: Max
Brightness & Color: 50
Hue: 0
Color Temperature: Neutral
Sharpness: Min
Noise Reduction, MPEG Noise Reduction, CineMotion: Off (should already be off in Graphics scene)
Ambient Sensor: Off

In 'Screen':
Wide Mode: Full
Auto Wide: On
Display Area: Full Pixel

In ATI Catalyst Control Centre:
Overscan: 0%
Pixel Format: Limited RGB (4:4:4)

(If you're using NVIDIA card, do basically the same thing)

Try these. It makes gaming pretty stunning even compared to my SAMSUNG 24" 1920x1200 245BW.

Yes, I bought the BRAVIA KDL-32EX400. The 2560x1600 screen is just not justified by the price (initially and future).

1. 2560x1600 requires the GPU to always be up to date unless you want to start lowering settings in games. I have a 4870X2 and do not plan to upgrade every year.
2. 'Only' 30"
3. 16:10 ratio is becoming less relevant in the market
4. Only 4 30" monitors are now on Newegg and are sitting at the price of >50" 1080p HDTVs.

However, my curiosity is still making me want to know how the experience compares to a 30" 2560x1600 screen (gaming wise).

 

[rofl_my_waffle]

It depends on what you are looking for.

TVs have been made cheaply as possible these days. Most consumers only know key words like 1080p, 120hz, LED, and inches. So there is lots of competition and you can find a TV for cheap.

30" monitors are made without any compromise, there is no price war because they target professionals and they only want the best in terms of pixel count, color accuracy, and color fidelity. 30" monitors are more expensive but you get a lot more than like the inches.

Though the drawbacks of 2560x1600 is that you need a powerful graphics card to match. Unless you want to run it at 1080P which is nearly half resolution. No point spending money on such a beautiful display only to run at half quality. But it isn't all bad. Because of the higher pixel count, there are way more pixels to represent edges and curves so you can skip out on AA and have it look the same. Crossfire/SLI scales a lot better at higher resolution so even though there are many more pixels, graphics cards don't take such a big performance hit. More pixels raises quality of the image so much. Turning demanding stuff off like ambient occlusions would still produce a way more stunning picture than having that stuff on at a lower resolution.

Also if you like to play shooters. You can make things out easier at long range because there are more pixels to represent objects. Everything just seems more clear. As said, once you go 2560x1600, you don't want to go back.