Confused about gaming monitors vs HDTV's. Help

So here is my confusion. Most computer monitors average between 2-8 ms response time whereas most hdtv's are in the high double digits. Yet I always hear people say that as long as a monitor is 8 ms or less there wont be hd lag but when talking about HDTV's as long as its 30 ms or less there wont be hd lag. How does that makes sense? If under 30 is good for tv's why does a monitor need to be under 8? Can someone explain this to me as I am looking to buy either a monitor or TV for gaming and wanna be properly informed.

30 ms response time is terrible if its on a monitor or a HDTV. From what I know about response times anything below 12 is ideal for gaming (obviously the lower the better), this applies for both monitors and TV's

@Tokeism: but then how come whenever I look up the best tv's for gaming most of their response times are 20+

you really shouldn't have trouble finding an HDTV with a 6-8ms response time these days if not faster. That should be plenty good for gaming.

As for people talking about the 30ms, I think that's a confusion of standards. When talking about monitors, people are pretty much talking about the rise and fall time - the time it takes a pixel to go from 10% on to 90% on back to 10% on, sometimes called black to black. But like with contrast ratio, manufactures decided to muddy the waters and start talking about undefined standards such as gray to gray. Gray to Gray can actually take 4 times as long, so your 8ms tv all the sudden becomes 24ms or so. But they're not the same standard. Some argue Gray to Gray is a better measure of TVs capabilities and that's why some will use it.

I suppose the other reason someone might quote 30ms or less is because typical TV content is so full of built in blur anyway, thanks to the aging 24 fps standard of film making, that people figure you won't notice the benefit of better response times.

@stackvibe: 5 ms is fine but go with a monitor as the resolution is going to be better. I am using a monitor that has built in speakers so its like a TV as far as I'm concerned.

Its kinda like what ish said with the tv's they are measuring the time between the button being pushed on the controller and the affect on screen. With monitors its the speed of the pixels changing not actual input lag.

If u can afford it I think a big tv (plasmas r my fave) is the way to go at least 50 in. Plasmas look a lot better in an actual house compared to at the store and of course set up properly. Unless there is a lot of sunlight hitting the plasmas screen they outperform lcd in picture quality, there are lcd's with low input lag but thats in game mode which ruins the picture imo. With a plasma you can usually get away without having to turn on game mode, I dont play mine on game mode and do not notice any lag and the picture just pops with contrast and color, also has better fidelity than some lcd's I have compared it to. I talked to a professional calibrator who was familiar with my plasma and he told me what to set the contrast and cell light to since this cannot be done with a setup disc.

All I know is my 60in LED TV at home is great, but my PC monitor for games is just 10 times sharper, you got to remember monitors are made for just producing hd images while a tv is focused on multiple things, your'll more times than not find that a pc monitor always has a better response rate.

I use a 22'' samsung smart TV myself and it's response time is just as good as my previous dell S2340L 21.5'' they both support 1080p/60Hz no ghosting on either.

@bezza2011: A monitor works just like a tv, its native resolution is displayed best but it can also scale different resolutions like a tv.

And if u want to play in bigger res like 4k, moitor will be much much cheaper

@juboner: I've just found monitors to be a bit more quicker and more dynamic than what TV's can do unless you buy higher quality which will cost more,

The 24" Dynex (Best Buy special) 1080p TV I use as a PC monitor has a 5ms response time. Using the VGA port minimizes whatever lag there is. I certainly can't tell the difference between it and the Samsung LCD monitor (dual monitor setup) next to it.

I like TVs better because it has a remote control which makes settings easier to adjust, not to mention I can toggle between PC and TV/DVD screens easily.

I wish it has picture in picture like my old 2003 720p HDTV.

How can you tell the response time on HDTV's and monitors? I never see that advertised in the product description.

@HipHopBeats: How can you tell the response time on HDTV's and monitors? I never see that advertised in the product description.

yeah, it's annoying. Some will and some won't. Safest bet is to just not buy it if you can't find the listing. The TV manufactures are starting to realize that it's a stat that matters to gamers and so you can find them on more and more TVs. But, particularly at the beginning of last gen, you rarely saw the stat being listed.

that's a good point. Plasmas and LEDs generally have a faster response time than LCD. LCD's have gotten a lot better over the years, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one under 5ms, whereas you can easily find LEDs at 1ms.

@bezza2011: Yeah with lcd tv's that is probably the case.

@Ish_basic: I dont think the led part of it has anything to do with response time, its just the light. And led's are lcd tv's just different light, now they are usually in the more expensive models so that might be the reason for better times.

@Ish_basic: Lol, figures. I honestly don't know what HDTV to get. I wish I could just convert a composite cable to HDMI output, lol! I don't have a ton of money to spend on one. I've been reading reviews and it seems Sony or Samsung is the best way to go. I was thinking about the new Sony KDL but reading about the brick power chord with a short length turned me off to it.

Use the VGA or DVI port (instead of HDMI) for PCs. That should minimize lag. I have a dual-display setup consisting of one 1080p TV (hooked up via VGA) and one PC monitor. I can't tell the difference between the two when it comes to lag.

Simple answer: There's nothing you will ever use on a TV that is as responsive as a mouse and keyboard. Furthermore, there are no console games as reliant on twitch gaming as PC gaming is. If you were playing on a monitor with high latency, you'd feel it a lot easier with a mouse than you would a controller. That's another reason with 30 FPS is more acceptable on consoles, despite being commonly considered detrimental to fluidity of gameplay. 30-FPS feels like crap when controlled with a mouse, but when using a controller, it's so similar feeling that it becomes more of a matter of detecting the FPS difference visually than through input.

Because of this, TV's have higher input lag on average - particularly Smart TVs. When people are shopping for TV's, input lag is very low on their list of consideration - it's something that's more important to gamers, and only well-informed gamers at that.

DVI and HDMI are the same thing - digital signals. Analog inputs are the fastest because there is no processing involved, thus VGA is a faster port if it's available - but it really depends.

Just about all HDTVs favor the VGA port over DVI. I always use the VGA port to hook up my gaming PCs to both HDTV and monitor. Quite frankly, I don't notice any difference between the two.