[SOLVED] Is there a difference between a monitor and a TV?

[Jacob 51]

My old monitor broke so I've been using a TV for my rig instead. I'm experiencing a bit of Myopia, which never happened before. It is increasing with time.
Is the TV the cause of the Myopia? I don't have a history of Myopia and don't wear glasses. The TV is not that big, it is just 32 inches. (80 cm)

Can you suggest me a good new monitor?

I'm looking for one with 60 hertz refresh rate, an HDMI port, and 1080p resolution. It should be LESS than 30 inches in size, so that it fits my desk.
I am in quite a budget of $150. Can be expanded by a bit cause I don't wanna damage my eyes.

 

[Hellfire13]

Monitors apply better technology, its why they are more expensive...

Why is a monitor better than a TV for computers | Currys TechTalk

Using a TV screen for your monitor? Did you know that PC monitors are built for any job you want to do - whether that's normal work, video editing, gaming? Here are some of our best monitors.

www.currys.co.uk

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
Monitor | AOC 27V2H 27.0" 1920x1080 75 Hz Monitor | $139.99 @ Best Buy
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $139.99
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-07-24 03:24 EDT-0400 |

 

[hotaru.hino]

My old monitor broke so I've been using a TV for my rig instead. I'm experiencing a bit of Myopia, which never happened before. It is increasing with time.
Is the TV the cause of the Myopia? I don't have a history of Myopia and don't wear glasses. The TV is not that big, it is just 32 inches. (80 cm)

No. Myopia is caused by genetics with some environmental factors like lighting conditions and how often you stare at something close. Using a TV or a computer monitor has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to increase your risk of myopia, you need to look away from the monitor at something further away every 20 minutes for about 20 seconds, at least according to the interwebs. But either way, you have to be looking at something further away once in a while.

EDIT: To answer the question properly, there's practically no difference between a TV and a monitor. And it's possible that some TVs are just monitors from the same company, just with different electronics to include support for things like a TV tuner, TV based inputs, and other things.

I would argue however technology/feature wise, TVs have a better value.

 

[Hellfire13]

No. Myopia is caused by genetics with some environmental factors like lighting conditions and how often you stare at something close. Using a TV or a computer monitor has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to increase your risk of myopia, you need to look away from the monitor at something further away every 20 minutes for about 20 seconds, at least according to the interwebs. But either way, you have to be looking at something further away once in a while.

EDIT: To answer the question properly, there's practically no difference between a TV and a monitor. And it's possible that some TVs are just monitors from the same company, just with different electronics to include support for things like a TV tuner, TV based inputs, and other things.

I would argue however technology/feature wise, TVs have a better value.

That's not entirely correct. Monitors have too many advantages over TV...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXewr2IIz_M

As for Myopia, there are glasses that can help...
https://www.essilor.co.uk/vision/by-needs/lenses-for-myopia

 

[hotaru.hino]

That's not entirely correct. Monitors have too many advantages over TV...

I'm fully aware of what the pros/cons/whatevers are between a TV and a monitor, and my qualifiers (technology/features) were more towards the higher end of the spectrum. I can't really justify spending $3000+ on an ASUS gaming monitor when an LG CX or a Samsung Neo QLED TV gets me most of the way there at half the cost.

 

[Hellfire13]

I'm fully aware of what the pros/cons/whatevers are between a TV and a monitor, and my qualifiers (technology/features) were more towards the higher end of the spectrum. I can't really justify spending $3000+ on an ASUS gaming monitor when an LG CX or a Samsung Neo QLED TV gets me most of the way there at half the cost.

I dont disagree, but a cheaper monitor can get you near as well. You dont need a TV for that. Pairing a TV with computer should be your last option.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I dont disagree, but a cheaper monitor can get you near as well. You dont need a TV for that. Pairing a TV with computer should be your last option.

Why? What if I'm someone who doesn't have a lot of space but uses the TV for TV things too?

 

[Hellfire13]

Why? What if I'm someone who doesn't have a lot of space but uses the TV for TV things too?

That's a valid scenario. But then you will be sacrificing some benefits of monitor for more TV things, which is a kind of a trade off.

 

[gamerk316]

That's a valid scenario. But then you will be sacrificing some benefits of monitor for more TV things, which is a kind of a trade off.

Not as much nowadays, at least at the top end.

Yes, monitors (especially TN ones) do push absolute refresh rates higher, and LCD based monitors tend to have better pixel response times to LCD TVs. But when you look at the top TVs, especially OLED ones, you see that they are, frankly, superior in pretty much every way while being a good half as expensive. My LG B6P, despite "really" getting on at this point, has been by far the best display I've ever owned.

 

[Hellfire13]

Not as much nowadays, at least at the top end.

Yes, monitors (especially TN ones) do push absolute refresh rates higher, and LCD based monitors tend to have better pixel response times to LCD TVs. But when you look at the top TVs, especially OLED ones, you see that they are, frankly, superior in pretty much every way while being a good half as expensive. My LG B6P, despite "really" getting on at this point, has been by far the best display I've ever owned.

Superior how???
Strangely enough the official product page does not even list a RR or RT. I can see what LG wants you to believe.

 

[gamerk316]

Superior how???
Strangely enough the official product page does not even list a RR or RT. I can see what LG wants you to believe.

Putting aside the image quality difference:

1: Perfect contrast ratio
2: Effectively instant pixel response times
3: 4k120 VRR though either Freesync Premium or HDMI-VRR (Gsync Compatible)

The biggest downside if the WGRB pixel structure is not ideal for text display; you almost certainly need Cleartext enabled to some degree. Windows has gotten "better" dealing with this over the years at least. The other notable one is you top out at 120Hz (not really a technical limitation; more that LG doesn't make faster panels.)

Rtings specifically did a review on the LG C1 as a monitor, using their monitor testing methodology rather then their TV testing methodology:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/48-c1-oled

The monitor market has been, frankly stagnate for ages now. And it shows that upper-tier TVs are starting to be better monitors then most monitors these days.

 

[Hellfire13]

Putting aside the image quality difference:

1: Perfect contrast ratio
2: Effectively instant pixel response times
3: 4k120 VRR though either Freesync Premium or HDMI-VRR (Gsync Compatible)

The biggest downside if the WGRB pixel structure is not ideal for text display; you almost certainly need Cleartext enabled to some degree. Windows has gotten "better" dealing with this over the years at least. The other notable one is you top out at 120Hz (not really a technical limitation; more that LG doesn't make faster panels.)

Rtings specifically did a review on the LG C1 as a monitor, using their monitor testing methodology rather then their TV testing methodology:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/48-c1-oled

The monitor market has been, frankly stagnate for ages now. And it shows that upper-tier TVs are starting to be better monitors then most monitors these days.

Looks fine for a TV. Still not sure how its better than, lets say for example this...

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
Monitor | Acer XV273K Pbmiipphzx 27.0" 3840x2160 144 Hz Monitor | $671.00 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $671.00
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-07-27 07:47 EDT-0400 |

Other than the size of course, which is not what we are discussing here as monitors are primarily designed for close-up use. Its definitely not for competitive gaming though.
At the end of the day if TV can replace monitors, then there wont be any market for the monitors. The day monitors integrate TV features completely, that will be the end of TV tech. 95% of people who buy TV do not have PC or have HTPC. TV can be a place holder for convenience but cannot seriously replace monitors.

 

[gamerk316]

Looks fine for a TV. Still not sure how its better than, lets say for example this...

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
Monitor | Acer XV273K Pbmiipphzx 27.0" 3840x2160 144 Hz Monitor | $671.00 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $671.00
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-07-27 07:47 EDT-0400 |

Rtings has reviews on two similar monitors, though not that exact model. The main advantages are a higher refresh rate and better in-box text clarity. Looses to OLEDs in response times and pretty much anything related to picture quality.

Its definitely not for competitive gaming though.

Except it is. OLEDs in particular (and most high-end TVs nowadays) are competitive in both pixel response times and input lag, which used to be displays main advantage.

TV can be a place holder for convenience but cannot seriously replace monitors.

Except they can, and they are. There's even talk of LG putting together a 42" panel SPECIFICALLY to cater to the PC market, and many many of us are planning to purchase one if it gets released. And many of us already got our hands on OLED sets as our primary displays, because we are sick and tired with the piss poor image quality LCDs have been forcing on us for two decades.

 

[Hellfire13]

Rtings has reviews on two similar monitors, though not that exact model. The main advantages are a higher refresh rate and better in-box text clarity. Looses to OLEDs in response times and pretty much anything related to picture quality.



Except it is. OLEDs in particular (and most high-end TVs nowadays) are competitive in both pixel response times and input lag, which used to be displays main advantage.



Except they can, and they are. There's even talk of LG putting together a 42" panel SPECIFICALLY to cater to the PC market, and many many of us are planning to purchase one if it gets released. And many of us already got our hands on OLED sets as our primary displays, because we are sick and tired with the piss poor image quality LCDs have been forcing on us for two decades.

Where is this response time you keep talking about??? I dont see it anywhere on the product page. Neither the refresh rate.

Talks are not facts you know.

 

[gamerk316]

Where is this response time you keep talking about??? I dont see it anywhere on the product page. Neither the refresh rate.

Talks are not facts you know.

For OLEDs, Pixel Response Time is faster across the entire color spectrum, and close to being instant. Rtings measured it anyway, coming up with a 3.4ms worst-case Response Time. By contrast, a high-end display (I picked the Acer Nitro XV27U) gets around 8ms in these same tests (notably worse then the "1ms gtg" values everyone advertises). High-end LCD TVs also have similar performance to high-end displays (which makes sense, given they use the same panels).

And the refresh rates is clearly stated on the product page's specification tab (why they put it under picture processing is beyond me).

Sure, once upon a time TVs sucked as displays due to all the post-processing that made then unsuitable for high FPS environments. But those days a LONG gone; TVs have the same technology that displays use, use the same panels, and have similar performance across the board. And OLEDs/Mini-LEDs offer their own various advantages in comparison to vanilla LCD technologies. The only downsides are maximum frame rates (typically capped at 120Hz for high end sets) since that isn't the market they are aiming for, but within that limitation TVs are often equitable performance to displays, often without the markup the current market demands. And in the case of OLED in particular (and Micro-LEDs if/when they get to smaller form factors), the underlying technology blows away whatever advantages LCDs have.

 

[larsv8]

Good in depth review of the OLED I am using as a gaming monitor, with specific measurements on speed. Note that the LG OLED is an exceptional product as both a TV and a gaming monitor and most TVs are not THIS TV.

LG C1 48" OLED Review: PC Gaming on a TV

For today's review, we have what many consider the best OLED screen for gaming and the most suitable candidate for usage as a PC monitor: the LG...

www.techspot.com

Plenty of performance testing included. One snippet of note:

The LG C1 humiliates LCD-based monitors in the response times it can produce. Even the fastest monitors I’ve tested like the Samsung Odyssey G7 and HP Omen X 27 don’t come close to what the C1 is able to achieve.

I am excited to see the Gigabyte version (FO48U) which I believe is using the same OLED panel but will be gaming focused. I am hoping it can make an exception product even better for my uses.

 

[Hellfire13]

To start with, OLED is a screen technology just like LED devoid of TV or Monitor. OLEDs are made via a different process and hence they are expensive. The TVs you are talking about are not at all cheap. At that segment, TVs and monitors are intertwined and the market becomes niche as not everyone can afford such expensive panels. There are a few OLED monitors available as well, but there is a caveat that is not yet discussed. The big thing you have to worry about with OLED TVs, is burn-in. It is a major reason why there are so few OLED monitors.
Burn-in isn't a huge issue for people who use an OLED TV as a traditional TV because the picture is usually changing frequently enough to prevent it. If a TV is being used as a computer display, however, there will be many, many static elements like a desktop background and icon docks that will be at risk of becoming burnt in very quickly.
You can mitigate these issues by modifying your settings to minimize static images on the display. Setting your desktop background to black, auto-hiding any icon docks, keeping your desktop completely free of clutter, and enabling very aggressive screensaver settings can all mitigate the potential risk, but it will still be there. Apart from poor response time most TVs advertising triple digit refresh rates are usually depending on software enhancements rather than hardware enabled tech. used in monitors. TVs insert thick frames to make the image appear smoother a solution vastly inferior to monitors. It is why you will find competitive gamers preferring monitors over TVs. Also adaptive refresh rate tech. on monitors work way better for screen tearing as they are not software enhanced like TVs. There are other drawbacks like poor pixel density and color accuracy or color correction which are vast subjects of debate in their own.
We can go on and on with this debate but since there is buyers sentiment involved, there is no point reasoning to that. I think OP has all the information he needs at this point and he is not looking for a TV anyway. So without much further adieu I will leave it to that.

 

[Jacob 51]

Um, I was talking about Monitor vs TV and you guys seem to have got astrayed

 

[Hellfire13]

Um, I was talking about Monitor vs TV and you guys seem to have got astrayed

Yeah, you will find material relevant to you in the first couple of posts. Rest is just irrelevant discussion, don't bother.