Question Are TV's Good enough For PC Gaming Now Day's?

[muddysoap14]

I'm looking into getting a new Display for my pc as my current one is displaying (AOC CQ32G1) some fault's and I'm guessing its not gonna be too long till it quits out completely.
I was thinking of getting a monitor but the more I think about it the more I'm thinking of just getting a TV with a good resolution/refresh rate.
I was thinking of the samsung 43 inch qn90b neo QLED or something similar to that as you can get one now for about £700 ish, however I don't really know how they compare to a pc monitor when it come's to performance.

so basically I'm unsure if I should get a pc monitor or a TV, I like the speciality of a monitor being able to focus on PC beneficial aspects such as low input lag/response time's, anti screen tearing technology, high refresh rates, Etc, but I also like the idea of a TV with all of its general use applications such as pc gaming/console gaming streaming the odd movie and such all while sitting in the comfort of my sofa, its just I don't know if they are good enough for pc gaming as that is the main goal, it would just be nice to have everything on one screen rather then having two or three screens specialized to do there specific thing.

any recommendations would be greatly appreciated to both TVs/monitors as I'm really over whelmed be the choices these days.

the main things I would like are

resolution: 1440p/4K
Refresh rate:120/144hz
screen size:32"/43"
anti screen tearing technology: free sync
OLED/QLED as long as it doesn't burn in
budget: £500/£800

thank you for your time.

 

[Aeacus]

Response time and input lag would be the 2 main issues with TVs used as a gaming monitor. Due to that, i don't suggest using a TV. Instead, buy a proper gaming monitor.

Here is further reading about as of why not use TV as gaming monitor,
article: https://nzxt.com/news/tv-vs-gaming-monitor

 

[doughillman]

Response time and input lag would be the 2 main issues with TVs used as a gaming monitor. Due to that, i don't suggest using a TV. Instead, buy a proper gaming monitor.

Here is further reading about as of why not use TV as gaming monitor,
article: https://nzxt.com/news/tv-vs-gaming-monitor

"Here, read this article from a company that makes monitors but not TVs telling you why you should use a monitor instead of a TV."

Most decent modern TVs are fine for single player gaming. An OLED like the LG C2 or C3 is even better, but is outside the listed price range.

 

[Aeacus]

"Here, read this article from a company that makes monitors but not TVs telling you why you should use a monitor instead of a TV."

What NZXT says, isn't a myth. Instead it's truth, that some just refuse to believe.

Let's take an example;
Samsung 43 inch qn90b neo QLED

The very same TV OP is considering. Would you kindly, tell me, what the response time of that TV is?
And keep in mind, in gaming, screen response time is very important.

I'll make it easy for you,
official specs: https://www.samsung.com/us/televisi...ung-neo-qled-4k-smart-tv-2022-qn43qn90bafxza/

 

[Zerk2012]

I'm looking into getting a new Display for my pc as my current one is displaying (AOC CQ32G1) some fault's and I'm guessing its not gonna be too long till it quits out completely.
I was thinking of getting a monitor but the more I think about it the more I'm thinking of just getting a TV with a good resolution/refresh rate.
I was thinking of the samsung 43 inch qn90b neo QLED or something similar to that as you can get one now for about £700 ish, however I don't really know how they compare to a pc monitor when it come's to performance.

so basically I'm unsure if I should get a pc monitor or a TV, I like the speciality of a monitor being able to focus on PC beneficial aspects such as low input lag/response time's, anti screen tearing technology, high refresh rates, Etc, but I also like the idea of a TV with all of its general use applications such as pc gaming/console gaming streaming the odd movie and such all while sitting in the comfort of my sofa, its just I don't know if they are good enough for pc gaming as that is the main goal, it would just be nice to have everything on one screen rather then having two or three screens specialized to do there specific thing.

any recommendations would be greatly appreciated to both TVs/monitors as I'm really over whelmed be the choices these days.

the main things I would like are

resolution: 1440p/4K
Refresh rate:120/144hz
screen size:32"/43"
anti screen tearing technology: free sync
OLED/QLED as long as it doesn't burn in
budget: £500/£800

thank you for your time.

The response time is not to bad 5.9 ms for twitch shooters most people think they can tell a difference but can you really? (it takes you about 200ms to blink your eyes)
The input lag is just 9.8ms again fairly good.

Samsung QN90B Neo QLED TV (QN43QN90BAF) review

This small TV is loaded with big capabilities

www.tomsguide.com

Samsung QN90B Neo QLED

The best non-OLED gaming TV out there.

www.pcgamer.com

EDIT With some of todays TV's I have to call BS on NZXT they don't make TV's so the article fits them.

Every user is not the same.

I really like this part of the article LOL what a scam, about just click bait to get traffic.

What are the Best Gaming Monitors I can Buy?​

There are a ton of great gaming monitor deals out there. It's hard to say the best gaming monitor because it depends on your budget and what you're looking for. Most gaming monitors tend to be cheap or extremely overkill. At NZXT, we created a line of high-performance mid-range monitors: our Canvas Q Series and our Canvas F series. All our monitors come equipped with HDR support, high refresh rates, 1ms response time, anti-glare coating, and AMD FreeSync Premium.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I use a calibrated 48” LG CX OLED as my display and it’s visually stunning.

Nothing wrong with using a TV as your PC display… but if it’s not an OLED you bought the wrong one.

As for burn in… the risk is grossly overblown. I’ve got 5 OLEDs with over 15,000 hours of use across all of them and no burn in.
Don’t buy into the paranoia.

 

[Aeacus]

EDIT With some of todays TV's I have to call BS on NZXT they don't make TV's so the article fits them.

Plenty of other, unbiased articles about that question;
article 1: https://www.displayninja.com/tv-vs-monitor/
article 2: https://www.popsci.com/diy/using-tv-as-monitor-guide/
article 3: https://www.makeuseof.com/things-to-consider-tv-as-monitor/

Are you still refuting the facts in the NZXT article or in the other articles?

 

[thestryker]

Using a TV as a monitor is mostly a personal decision, but keep in mind with Samsung (and others, but I only have first hand experience with them) use different panels across model lines. The one mentioned in the OP has a different panel for 43/50" than any of the other sizes so reviews may vary versus real experience. OLED screens are the only no brainer when using a TV as a monitor especially with modern burn in prevention settings. I'd suggest checking out https://www.rtings.com/ for pretty comprehensive TV reviews as they've served me well the last 3 purchases.

Monitors wise it really comes down to preference. I use a 144hz 21:9 ultrawide and wouldn't use anything other than an ultrawide for gaming now. Quality displays are a lot cheaper overall than they used to be so I suggest figuring out size/aspect ratio/features which are important to you and seeing what fits.

 

[Zerk2012]

Plenty of other, unbiased articles about that question;
article 1: https://www.displayninja.com/tv-vs-monitor/
article 2: https://www.popsci.com/diy/using-tv-as-monitor-guide/
article 3: https://www.makeuseof.com/things-to-consider-tv-as-monitor/

Are you still refuting the facts in the NZXT article or in the other articles?

Yep everything can be disputed, not all people play twitch shooters where speed is everything.

As I said before every user is different

To pick your first article apart since to me it's not worth reading.
We recommend that the TV has less than 16ms input lag (the TV he listed is 9.8
While an average IPS panel monitor has a response time speed of ~5ms, an IPS panel TV has around 15ms ( the TV listed has 5.9)

Average duration of a single eye blink - Human Homo sapiens - BNID 100706

bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu

EDIT We will have to agree to disagree on this. I've seen videos of the best COD players using 60Hz, 120Hz, 144,Hz and 240Hz monitors and with each one after adjusting to the movement they could make the same shots.

 

[Deleted member 2947362]

I'm looking into getting a new Display for my pc as my current one is displaying (AOC CQ32G1) some fault's and I'm guessing its not gonna be too long till it quits out completely.
I was thinking of getting a monitor but the more I think about it the more I'm thinking of just getting a TV with a good resolution/refresh rate.
I was thinking of the samsung 43 inch qn90b neo QLED or something similar to that as you can get one now for about £700 ish, however I don't really know how they compare to a pc monitor when it come's to performance.

so basically I'm unsure if I should get a pc monitor or a TV, I like the speciality of a monitor being able to focus on PC beneficial aspects such as low input lag/response time's, anti screen tearing technology, high refresh rates, Etc, but I also like the idea of a TV with all of its general use applications such as pc gaming/console gaming streaming the odd movie and such all while sitting in the comfort of my sofa, its just I don't know if they are good enough for pc gaming as that is the main goal, it would just be nice to have everything on one screen rather then having two or three screens specialized to do there specific thing.

any recommendations would be greatly appreciated to both TVs/monitors as I'm really over whelmed be the choices these days.

the main things I would like are

resolution: 1440p/4K
Refresh rate:120/144hz
screen size:32"/43"
anti screen tearing technology: free sync
OLED/QLED as long as it doesn't burn in
budget: £500/£800

thank you for your time.

I use a TV for gaming on my PC and I honestly can say I don't notice any input lag.

Samsung 43 inch, model is in my Sig. was cheap when I bought it on sale £350 5year warranty

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

EDIT We will have to agree to disagree on this. I've seen videos of the best COD players using 60Hz, 120Hz, 144,Hz and 240Hz monitors and with each one after adjusting to the movement they could make the same shots.

Over the years I’ve always wondered why the fps junkies make a big deal out of high frame rates. I mean… is it really game making/breaking?

I bring it up because I game in 4K Ultra on a 120hz OLED… but I run at 60hz because I can’t see the difference between the two. I literally spent an afternoon gaming at 60hz and then at 120hz (on slightly lower settings because the 4090 won’t do 120fps on Ultra) and I couldn’t tell the difference.

All the more reason to game at 60hz… and the 4090 handles Ultra with ease at 60. At first I thought maybe it was just me and my eyes getting old (I’m 48) but after doing a little research I saw it’s actually quite common for people not to see a difference.

I don’t play competitive CoD but I do play single player zombie mode a lot and also do racing games and 60 fps is just fine to me. So again… why all the “OMG I’m building a new PC and I need 240 fps!!!?’

 

[Aeacus]

We recommend that the TV has less than 16ms input lag (the TV he listed is 9.8
While an average IPS panel monitor has a response time speed of ~5ms, an IPS panel TV has around 15ms ( the TV listed has 5.9)

For good gaming experience, response time should be 1ms, not 2ms or 4ms or 5ms. So, IPS panel monitor with 5ms response time isn't good for gaming, especially on fast paced games. And TV with even higher response time is even worse off. Sure, one can game slow paced games on that IPS panel with 5ms response time, since response time in such games doesn't matter much, if any at all.

EDIT We will have to agree to disagree on this. I've seen videos of the best COD players using 60Hz, 120Hz, 144,Hz and 240Hz monitors and with each one after adjusting to the movement they could make the same shots.

Is OP also one of the best COD players for them to be able to adjust to different refresh rates easily? Also, just because one can adjust, doesn't mean one would like to use xxHz monitor/TV on daily basis. What one can do and what one prefers, are two different things.

Like i said above, main diff between monitors and TVs is the response time and input lag. If OP plays fast paced games mainly, monitor with 1ms response time is better option. But if OP mainly plays slow paced games (e.g WoW), then TV would do too.

and 60 fps is just fine to me. So again… why all the “OMG I’m building a new PC and I need 240 fps!!!?’

Yeah, same here.

I also play casually and while i did go from 60 Hz monitor to 144 Hz monitor, diff wasn't huge. More like small one, where games were a bit smoother but nothing spectacular. If it's over 40 FPS, i'm good. Below that is getting a bit annoying and 20 FPS is basically a slide show.

 

[USAFRet]

So again… why all the “OMG I’m building a new PC and I need 240 fps!!!?’

Because someone told them they needed it.

We had a guy here a while ago...swore he could tell the difference between 600fps and 700fps.

 

[thestryker]

Over the years I’ve always wondered why the fps junkies make a big deal out of high frame rates. I mean… is it really game making/breaking?

I bring it up because I game in 4K Ultra on a 120hz OLED… but I run at 60hz because I can’t see the difference between the two. I literally spent an afternoon gaming at 60hz and then at 120hz (on slightly lower settings because the 4090 won’t do 120fps on Ultra) and I couldn’t tell the difference.

All the more reason to game at 60hz… and the 4090 handles Ultra with ease at 60. At first I thought maybe it was just me and my eyes getting old (I’m 48) but after doing a little research I saw it’s actually quite common for people not to see a difference.

I don’t play competitive CoD but I do play single player zombie mode a lot and also do racing games and 60 fps is just fine to me. So again… why all the “OMG I’m building a new PC and I need 240 fps!!!?’

Most people won't notice a big difference between 60hz and 120hz visually (assuming it never dips below 60fps), but what most people will notice is the input. When I first got my 144hz ultrawide it felt a lot better, but the first thing that popped into my was "hey is this real or imagination because I'm excited about the new display?". The input difference is very real and an easy way to see it is if you have multiple screens hooked up run one at 60hz and one 120hz+ then just running your mouse back and forth you will see the difference.

Most games I cap FPS just to keep heat and power consumption down, but anything that requires quick reaction I try to get as close to 144hz as I can. Not having experienced 240hz+ first hand I can't say how much it scales up, but everything I've seen indicates diminishing returns the higher you go.

 

[Zerk2012]

For good gaming experience, response time should be 1ms, not 2ms or 4ms or 5ms. So, IPS panel monitor with 5ms response time isn't good for gaming, especially on fast paced games. And TV with even higher response time is even worse off. Sure, one can game slow paced games on that IPS panel with 5ms response time, since response time in such games doesn't matter much, if any at all.

And your opinion means nothing really.

The OP never even said what games he plays

Nothing you can say or post can change my mind as it's all up to the user.

I never read all the 3 links you posted because their no reason to.

And no I'm not even going to try to argue with you since your always right so end of discussion.

I can say I played COD for a long time on a so called slow old Acer IPS 5MS monitor and won a good bit of matches.

Lets see you have the best of the best and I have the TV listed you get a 10ms or so advantage but oh wait you blinked your eyes and I did not now I have a 90MS advantage.

 

[muddysoap14]

wow! I don't check the thread for two days and there's like 14 new post's.
I've been reading the reply's and I'll be responding to as much of you as I can, so thank you to all who took the time to read and reply I really appreciate it, thank you all.

 

[muddysoap14]

Response time and input lag would be the 2 main issues with TVs used as a gaming monitor. Due to that, i don't suggest using a TV. Instead, buy a proper gaming monitor.

Here is further reading about as of why not use TV as gaming monitor,
article: https://nzxt.com/news/tv-vs-gaming-monitor

I agree that input lag and response time are important (input lag more so then response time) but when the difference is a matter of 5ms I don't think it really matters at the end of the day.
Also I'm sorry but, that article you linked just reads as a glorified advertisement for their own products.
essentially setting up this idea that TV's are just awful and here's why you "need" a monitor, all while conveniently inserting their own products.

I appreciate the response none the less, I will keep in mind the things you pointed out, thanks.

 

[muddysoap14]

"Here, read this article from a company that makes monitors but not TVs telling you why you should use a monitor instead of a TV."

Most decent modern TVs are fine for single player gaming. An OLED like the LG C2 or C3 is even better, but is outside the listed price range.

I was Thinking of a similar thing, on pc I play a mix of both action/fast paced games and RTS/city building games, its pretty much 50/50, the only game I seem to have problems with (in terms of input lag/delay) is
Elden Ring, I don't know why but at times I feel like the game just strait up does not register inputs at all so much so iv wondered if my controller is faulty I doubt its the controller though since in any other game I don't really have a problem with it.
so at this point I'm leaning more toward a good tv with a good refresh rate.

 

[Deleted member 2947362]

Maybe I have just become accustomed to gaming on TV and most likely adjusted to it.

I have been using TV's with around 10ms or less for years, last time I used monitors I think they where VA 1ms 1080P, which was quite a few years back

Like I say I don't notice the difference.

I play 1st person shooters, car sims all types of games really.

I mean if you know what your looking for with a PC monitor when you go looking for a TV for PC and gaming which is in your price range you will look at the type of panel, DPI which is why I go for 43inch, and refresh rate AMD free sync, and what ever trade off's your willing to take at your price range like HDR which not really that great on lower end TV's but hey it's there and you don't have to use it.

It's just stuff like that just get the best TV for gaming in your price range and your most likely be surprised what you get for your money.

This Samsung 43inc AU9000 was a steel for how good it is for gaming and picture quality Sure there are loads better but I bet you would be surprised considering what it cost.
That is if your happy with 60hz 4k or 1080p 120hz (black frame insertion)

 

[muddysoap14]

The response time is not to bad 5.9 ms for twitch shooters most people think they can tell a difference but can you really? (it takes you about 200ms to blink your eyes)
The input lag is just 9.8ms again fairly good.

Samsung QN90B Neo QLED TV (QN43QN90BAF) review

This small TV is loaded with big capabilities

www.tomsguide.com

Samsung QN90B Neo QLED

The best non-OLED gaming TV out there.

www.pcgamer.com

EDIT With some of todays TV's I have to call BS on NZXT they don't make TV's so the article fits them.

Every user is not the same.

I really like this part of the article LOL what a scam, about just click bait to get traffic.

What are the Best Gaming Monitors I can Buy?​

There are a ton of great gaming monitor deals out there. It's hard to say the best gaming monitor because it depends on your budget and what you're looking for. Most gaming monitors tend to be cheap or extremely overkill. At NZXT, we created a line of high-performance mid-range monitors: our Canvas Q Series and our Canvas F series. All our monitors come equipped with HDR support, high refresh rates, 1ms response time, anti-glare coating, and AMD FreeSync Premium.

yea, as I said in one of the other reply's, articles like that are really just an advertisement disguised as an article to try and drive more traffic to the site in an attempt to sell more of Their conveniently place monitors at the end of the article.
however I do agree with some of the stuff that was discussed in there, but if we're being honest most of the points they make in the article is true for most "high-performance mid-rang monitors" it doesn't just apply to their monitors.

thanks for the reply.

 

[muddysoap14]

I use a calibrated 48” LG CX OLED as my display and it’s visually stunning.

Nothing wrong with using a TV as your PC display… but if it’s not an OLED you bought the wrong one.

As for burn in… the risk is grossly overblown. I’ve got 5 OLEDs with over 15,000 hours of use across all of them and no burn in.
Don’t buy into the paranoia.

I think your right when it comes to burn in, although it definitely is a thing, as you say I think it's over blown.
iv been reading up on it latterly and from what iv read unless your playing a game that has a fixed HUD that doesn't move for 1000's of hour's day in day out, I think you'll be fine.

Again thanks for the reply.

 

[muddysoap14]

Plenty of other, unbiased articles about that question;
article 1: https://www.displayninja.com/tv-vs-monitor/
article 2: https://www.popsci.com/diy/using-tv-as-monitor-guide/
article 3: https://www.makeuseof.com/things-to-consider-tv-as-monitor/

Are you still refuting the facts in the NZXT article or in the other articles?

I don't think @Zerk2012 was necessarily saying that NZXT was lying or incorrect, its just the way they presented those "Facts" made it seem as if their monitors are the only one's it applies too, especially when its on their own website and the blatant product placement at the end of the article.
it's just I cant help but feel like "I see what your doing" you know?

 

[muddysoap14]

Using a TV as a monitor is mostly a personal decision, but keep in mind with Samsung (and others, but I only have first hand experience with them) use different panels across model lines. The one mentioned in the OP has a different panel for 43/50" than any of the other sizes so reviews may vary versus real experience. OLED screens are the only no brainer when using a TV as a monitor especially with modern burn in prevention settings. I'd suggest checking out https://www.rtings.com/ for pretty comprehensive TV reviews as they've served me well the last 3 purchases.

Monitors wise it really comes down to preference. I use a 144hz 21:9 ultrawide and wouldn't use anything other than an ultrawide for gaming now. Quality displays are a lot cheaper overall than they used to be so I suggest figuring out size/aspect ratio/features which are important to you and seeing what fits.

Iv been using rtings.com a lot this week to compare different tv/monitors, its a great website.
yea, and the more I think about it the more I think its a personal preference, as I'll mostly be using the display for general things (pc gaming/console gaming/watching movies/streaming) I think I'll be going with a tv.......maybe.

thanks for the reply

 

[thestryker]

Iv been using rtings.com a lot this week to compare different tv/monitors, its a great website.
yea, and the more I think about it the more I think its a personal preference, as I'll mostly be using the display for general things (pc gaming/console gaming/watching movies/streaming) I think I'll be going with a tv.......maybe.

thanks for the reply

Unsure if it'll help but this was my thought process when I was picking a replacement display. I had been using 1200p 60hz displays for over a decade, but was planning on getting a GPU which could easily push way more FPS. My seating distance range is 1.5-3ft from the screen. I was looking at 27" 16:9, 34" 21:9, 38" 24:10, and 40-50" television. 27" and 34" were basically the minimum size which would match the vertical size of my existing screen, everything else would be larger.

We fortunately had 40" and 50" tvs in the house at the time so I rapidly figured out those were just too big for the distance I sit and I'd be turning my head while playing games to see everything clearly. The only thing I was leery about with an ultrawide is the number of games without proper support. I decided I could deal with the vertical black bars in those circumstances since in 16:9 a 34" ultrawide is the same size as a 27" 16:9 monitor.

One thing of note with some of the newest samsung tvs is that they can set an aspect ratio on the display so you could basically play ultrawide on a 16:9 tv and it will be a native resolution, but with black bars on the top/bottom.

 

[Zerk2012]

I don't think @Zerk2012 was necessarily saying that NZXT was lying or incorrect,

Yes I actually stand by exactly what I said. The first of the monitors they listed.
For overall lag, the Canvas 32Q is one of the quicker 165 Hz monitors I’ve tested, coming in a total time of 31ms.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nzxt-canvas-32q-review/2

When you start splitting 10ms or so it's not really a difference blink your eyes that was quick right now divide that time by 10 now your down to so quick you can't really tell you blinked.

If your just really into first person shooter games I would put more of it into hand eye coordination, reaction time, muscle memory and a bunch on the connection to the server than a monitor that is just a few ms different.

EDIT This is not saying one of the quickest monitors with your net speed and server connection being the exact same as another player with a 10ms advantage is still not a advantage but just saying it's so small is it really a advantage?