Question Need public wisdom to chose between monitor and TV.

[allidsarebusy]

Hi everyone,

I was planning to get a larger monitor without breaking the bank and stumbled upon a great one from IIyama. However, out of curiosity, I explored TVs and found a Philips model that really caught my attention. While it's a bit slower at 9ms compared to IIyama's 0.4ms, I'm not a pro gamer, so the 9ms doesn't seem too bad for me. I also use it for work and other activities, so it might suit my needs.

Am I missing something here? Does this TV offer more advantages and better picture quality? Are there any other factors I should consider before making a decision?

IIYAMA

iiyama - G-Master G4380UHSU-B1 43" 4K-gamingmonitor die een superieur beeldkwaliteit garandeert

iiyama.com

Philips
https://www.philips.nl/c-p/43PUS8848_12/8800-series-4k-ambilight-tv

 

[bill001g]

In a lot of cases you can use a tv instead of a monitor.
You need to compare the specs carefully monitors tends to support more stuff so you need to determine what you need.

Without looking in detail on the 2 you list. Many times a tv will not have as many resolutions it supports. If for example you had some software you wanted to run at 1440 a tv might not support it. Most tv also don't come with display ports only hdmi.
Most tv also do not support vsync and gsync.

If you have a strong enough video card you normally turn off vsync/gsync anyway.

 

[mihen]

If the response time is 9ms, then there may be some post processing being done by the TV to enhance the image. If you ever had two TVs on the same channel in different rooms, you may notice they are delayed from one another. This is the effect of various post processing tools a manufacturer implements. So even though the response time may say 9ms, the difference between an input and a change to the image may be delayed even longer.
Realistically, it depends on the TV and it's not something most people would want to experiment on.

 

[allidsarebusy]

@bill001g
It looks good to me in terms of supported resolutions:

• 576p - 50 Hz
• 640 x 480 - 60 Hz
• 720p - 50 Hz, 60 Hz
• 1920 x 1080p - 24 Hz, 25 Hz, 30 Hz, 50 Hz
• ,60 Hz,100 Hz, 120 Hz.
• 2560 x 1440-60 Hz,120 Hz
• 3840 x 2160p - 24 Hz, 25 Hz, 30 Hz, 50 Hz
• ,60 Hz,100 Hz, 120 Hz.

HDMI only indeed but what am i gonna be missing in this case?
It has AMD FreeSync Premium. My videocard is 7900xtx so i'm good on that.

@mihen

That's true but from the looks of it this TV is very game oriented as well. What's funny is after posting my question i was looking on another website and came across that TV where it was sold as 4k monitor.
https://www.alternate.nl/Philips/50PUS8848-12-50-inch-4K-UHD-monitor/html/product/1923733


Normally i would just go for monitor to be safe, but in this case that TV really hits all the spots and looks solid for PC monitor.

 

[bill001g]

Most people unless they are obsessed with being a "pro" gamer that runs shooters will not be able to tell the difference. Most these so called pros can't actually tell unless there is a FPS counter on the screen to tell them there is a difference they just want to feel special so they claim they can tell.

If you buy very cheap tv they have things like image scalers that can cause very large lag times more in the 50ms range and that you can see even moving a mouse. It has been a few years since I saw that though.

I use a very cheap tv for my main day to day monitor, I have better monitors on my gaming machine. What I find irritating about the tv is that is has a massive boot time for its silly OS that I never use anyway. I tend to avoid actually powering the device off.