Why is it a problem with PC Gaming on 40" TV?

[tamethegamer]

Building a console killer type build for my friend who wants a 40" TV to game on.
He is not a casual, non competitive gamer who enjoys playing single player games, but also multiplayer games like GTA V, COD, Rocket League etc.
Is there going to be any issues like screen tearing or pixelation caused by having a TV instead of a monitor?

This is the build and is a solid 1080p 60FPS box:
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/wtz4XL

 

[rgd1101]

it will be helpful to know more about this 40" tv, like the make and model?

 

[weberdarren97]

I would recommend getting a power supply rated at at least 550 watts, other than that he should be fine as long as he uses Vsync to prevent screen tearing. Just ask him if his screen displays at 30Hz or 60Hz because a 30Hz screen is only capable of displaying 30fps.

I would also like to know what type of connection he will be using (VGA, HDMI, etc.)

 

[zeke15]

You shouldn't have any issues. really the only think you will notice in difference is that TV's generally have lower refresh rates (not always), and they generally have higher response times. This makes them less than ideal for competitive gaming, but there should be no issues caused by using one with a PC. I don't know the specific TV, but the only problem I foresee is that you may only see 40 fps because of the limits of the TV (refresh rate).

 

[weberdarren97]

You shouldn't have any issues. really the only think you will notice in difference is that TV's generally have lower refresh rates (not always), and they generally have higher response times. This makes them less than ideal for competitive gaming, but there should be no issues caused by using one with a PC. I don't know the specific TV, but the only problem I foresee is that you may only see 40 fps because of the limits of the TV (refresh rate).

OP said it was a 40 inch model, we don't know if it's a 40Hz model or not, but it's a valid point

 

[geofelt]

The size of a monitor/tv is irrelevant.
It is the resolution that matters.

For a fast action gamer, a TV will lack fast response times.
The only 40" monitors I know of are the Philips bdm4065uc and seiki pro.
They are 4k monitors, and the GTX960 in the build will hardly suffice.

On the build, you would be better off with spending more on the graphics card like a GTX970 and less on the cpu like a i3-6100.
Moreover, the cx corsair is considered as unreliable

 

[tamethegamer]

The size of a monitor/tv is irrelevant.
It is the resolution that matters.

For a fast action gamer, a TV will lack fast response times.
The only 40" monitors I know of are the Philips bdm4065uc and seiki pro.
They are 4k monitors, and the GTX960 in the build will hardly suffice.

On the build, you would be better off with spending more on the graphics card like a GTX970 and less on the cpu like a i3-6100.
Moreover, the cx corsair is considered as unreliable

Due to the price, my friend does not need a 4K monitor and doesn't want to spend that much on a 40" monitor- and like you said the parts don't suit 4K gaming at all.
I agree that the PSU is not a great line and I will look further into that for him but I disagree with your GPU/CPU recommendations.
For what he wants, I think he is far better off with the better i5 4690K especially because games are beginning to utilise more cores. This is also a more future proof choice. The 960 is fine for middle-high graphical settings and can be later updated if needed.

 

[geofelt]

What is the budget for a 40" device?
At 1080P, a GTX960 is a bit short, but really OK.

The case is a small one, and you need to be careful about how long the psu is.
Otherwise, it will impact some graphics cards.
I think about 140mm long is about the max you can safely use.

A i5-4690K leaves performance on the table with a H97 motherboard. You can not overclock.
A cheaper i5-4690 would be better.
A 4690K has 4 threads, so a i3-6100 will also have 4 dispatchable threads.
The faster single thread rating will prevail in sims, strategy and mmo games which depend on a single fast master core.
For multiplayer, 4 full cores is better.
A more modern skylake i5-6400, 6500 or 6600 would be equally priced and will run on any lga1151 motherboard.
In a small case, the more efficient power needs will be a plus.
A ITX lga1151 motherboard will be equally priced.

 

[spdragoo]

http://www.microcenter.com/endeca/CompareV2.aspx?returnUrl=L3NlYXJjaC9zZWFyY2hfcmVzdWx0cy5hc3B4P049NDI5NDk2Njg5NSA0Mjk0ODk1MzY3IDEwOSA0Mjk0ODkxNjM1JnBhZ2U9MQ%3D%3D

http://www.microcenter.com/product/460906/34UM58-P_34_Full-HD_IPS_219_LED_Monitor

Comparison specs for 3 separate 40" LED HDTVs from the local Micro Center, as well as a 40" "Gaming" LED monitor. Aside from the significantly higher price, the primary differences I can see between the monitor & the TV options are:
-- the monitor is "super-wide", with a 21:9 aspect ratio instead of the standard 16:9 (so its "1080p" resolution actually ends up being 2560x1080 instead of the standard 1920x1080). Not sure how that would affect the way the games look, maybe drag performance down a bit?
-- Although technically faster for refresh & response, it doesn't seem to be decidely so -- response time of 8-8.5ms for the TVs is marginally slower than the monitor's 5ms time (but not sure how noticeable that would be), & max refresh rates are also only marginally lower (60Hz for 2 of them vs. 75Hz, but 1 TV actually has a 120Hz refresh rate).

Sizes seem roughly comparable -- the monitor only a few inches narrower/shorter & at 15lbs still comes close to the TV weights.

But, I don't know, maybe they're not good quality TV sets, so they may not be good comparisons.

 

[tamethegamer]

http://www.microcenter.com/endeca/CompareV2.aspx?returnUrl=L3NlYXJjaC9zZWFyY2hfcmVzdWx0cy5hc3B4P049NDI5NDk2Njg5NSA0Mjk0ODk1MzY3IDEwOSA0Mjk0ODkxNjM1JnBhZ2U9MQ%3D%3D

http://www.microcenter.com/product/460906/34UM58-P_34_Full-HD_IPS_219_LED_Monitor

Comparison specs for 3 separate 40" LED HDTVs from the local Micro Center, as well as a 40" "Gaming" LED monitor. Aside from the significantly higher price, the primary differences I can see between the monitor & the TV options are:
-- the monitor is "super-wide", with a 21:9 aspect ratio instead of the standard 16:9 (so its "1080p" resolution actually ends up being 2560x1080 instead of the standard 1920x1080). Not sure how that would affect the way the games look, maybe drag performance down a bit?
-- Although technically faster for refresh & response, it doesn't seem to be decidely so -- response time of 8-8.5ms for the TVs is marginally slower than the monitor's 5ms time (but not sure how noticeable that would be), & max refresh rates are also only marginally lower (60Hz for 2 of them vs. 75Hz, but 1 TV actually has a 120Hz refresh rate).

Sizes seem roughly comparable -- the monitor only a few inches narrower/shorter & at 15lbs still comes close to the TV weights.

But, I don't know, maybe they're not good quality TV sets, so they may not be good comparisons.

Sorry, didn't mean to choose this as the answer.
I am aware of the differences between monitors and TV's and once again I am going to re-iterate that he can't afford to have a widescreen monitor or a 4K TV, in addition to the fact that his hardware won't be able to support it.
Also- your link was broken for some reason.

 

[spdragoo]

That's what I was trying to point out. Just based on the specs for the TVs vs. the (cheapest) 40" monitor I could find, I didn't see any benefit to the monitor that would explain its higher price compared to the TV.