[SOLVED] Tv or Monitor? (Secondary)

JoSTAR

Commendable
May 22, 2016
40
1
1,530
0
What's up, been thinking about upgrading my secondary monitor to something nicer; I mostly use my Secondary for some console games and media use.
My Main monitor is a ASUS MX259H Designo and my Second monitor is a LG 32MA70HY-P. Been mostly interested in going for 4K but 1440p can work so here's the selection that i found that suited my needs.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079TSV16M/ref=twister_B07JXND9KZ?_encoding=UTF8&th=1 <- LG 43UK6300

As far as my research goes this is about 12ms input lag on game mode so the fastest TV I could find that supports 4K and HDR respectively. My main question is should I go for this or possibly go for something smaller like a 32" 4K by LG/ASUS? If you guys have any good 1440p picks let me hear it; I recently found this monitor that seems pretty solid:

For Monitors looking for IPS/VA/TN (but would prefer the first 2) panel with 60/75Hz and G/Free Sync if possible, I don't play many games past 60 FPS so 144Hz won't do me too good here (tempting though); Budget around $400 ish max.

For TVs IPS again with 60Hz and around 32-43" max, I've heard mixed things about OLED displays and gaming but maybe I can leave that to someone who knows more about them. Budget for this will be about $400 as well but I could spend up to $500.
 
Feb 20, 2019
87
4
45
2
Well if you want the best price than a tv would easily win, as 4k televisions are far cheaper than 4k monitors, and they can get much bigger without inflating too much in price. But the advantages for monitors like lower response time (and often better colours, especially in 4k monitors) could easily drag you towards the monitor side, but you would be paying a hefty premium for those advantages.
 

JoSTAR

Commendable
May 22, 2016
40
1
1,530
0
Well if you want the best price than a tv would easily win, as 4k televisions are far cheaper than 4k monitors, and they can get much bigger without inflating too much in price. But the advantages for monitors like lower response time (and often better colours, especially in 4k monitors) could easily drag you towards the monitor side, but you would be paying a hefty premium for those advantages.
That's understandable, I think also having a matte finish on most monitors is making me 2nd guess if I should consider the TV. But with all things aside gloss doesn't bother me a whole lot and the specs of a 4K TV are more tempting with the price point especially at only 12ms input lag. It's more or less just a Secondary monitor for media and gaming like I said before so nothing crazy
 
Feb 20, 2019
87
4
45
2
That's understandable, I think also having a matte finish on most monitors is making me 2nd guess if I should consider the TV. But with all things aside gloss doesn't bother me a whole lot and the specs of a 4K TV are more tempting with the price point especially at only 12ms input lag. It's more or less just a Secondary monitor for media and gaming like I said before so nothing crazy
Fair enough. It really just depends on your use case for the display, and if spending more on the monitor is worth the extra investment.
 

spunner5

Reputable
Jun 9, 2014
7
0
4,510
0
FWIW, I had s similar need as you, and while on sale around 18 months ago, I picked up an Acer ET430K. A 5ms response time, but only 60 Hz, actually fit my need, using for work and play, connecting different ports to different systems. Having a 43" 4K monitor for desktop work is fantastic, and then any non-FPS game is just as amazing. Complaints of "ghosting" are totally over-blown, having my monitor on M-F, 7am to 5pm, and have no burn in or long term effects.

The bottom line is, at $450 on sale, it's hard to beat. I also removed the legs and attached to an Ergotron 45-384 LX HD monitor arm and couldn't be happier. And yes, it works great with a Frontier HD Cable box too.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS