TV or Monitor?.

Hi. I have a PC and both X1 and PS4. I am thinking about getting a new monitor for my PC but still play console games too. I haven't got room for both Monitor or TV. At the moment I have a Asus VG27he monitor I do like the 144hz but the colours rubbish and been trying ages even looking at ICC profiles on TFT central which is one of the main web sites for colour calibration. But still the colour is rubbish.

I am still torn between a TV or Monitor as consoles on this monitor not as crisp as my old sony bravia TV. So which would you recommend getting to play both consoles and PC on PC been played on most.

depends on size. a tv will be 40" or more.....a monitor is about 25" or 30"

idk....input lag never bothered me. i play multiplayer pc games fine on a tv or monitor. i dont even notice the difference :P

i say...get a good tv.

Honestly, if you were going high refresh rate you should have gone with a BenQ, they've got excellent color, Asus has always had poor color levels.

Don't game on a TV for PC, you're going to regret it. Right now you have 144hz with 1ms of latency, you're going to sacrifice that for much higher latency, I'm talking 1ms to 35ms bad, and a 60hz refresh rate is going to make you want to off yourself, it's not worth it.

My advice, keep your PC and consoles separate, get a $350 TV, something decent, sell your monitor and buy a nice BenQ, you won't have to sacrifice color at the expense of a high refresh rate, I'm personally using the BenQ XL2730Z, I was using Asus before this, I wouldn't go back.

TV by miles. It's not even close. Especially if you have a big screen size.

Don't listen to this guy above, he is talking out of his ass as usual.

ASUS is 100x better than BenQ...in every single aspect - especially when it comes to color levels

Always get a monitor when it comes to PC gaming.

Um, that's not true at all and BenQ is the number one user adopted and sponsored monitor for essentially every PC based eSport, the competition has been weeded out by the community through years of trial and error. Also that's exactly why he's experiencing washed out colors, Asus panels are notorious for it and it's their single largest point of complaint.

They are good TN panels in every other respect but their color reproduction needs work, they're not bad, but you can do better.

Do you ever post anything other than complete bullshit in order to justify your purchases? Stop misleading people.

I've been in the competitive Counter-Strike community for the last 15 years, I've been through hundreds of different hardware configurations, dozens of monitors including multiple Asus displays and am still an integrated part of the community. As a community we've been up and down with weeding out displays for their ailing and deficiencies looking for the best replacements possible for CRT technology, as a community we've banded together to find the best mix of price, performance, features and color reproduction, BenQ sits at the top of the spectrum for TN technology and has for years. BenQ as a company has integrated themselves into every facet of competitive PC gaming there is to tailor their displays around community and professional player feedback from top to bottom, not to mention they sponsor multiple teams and countless events.

Not a word I have said is bullshit, they've established themselves as the premier line of gaming monitors with the best color gamut and reproduction in the high refresh rate TN market, their TN color delivery is so good that it directly rivals IPS panels and can be calibrated to a higher extent actually surpassing them.

http://techreport.com/review/28073/benq-xl2730z-freesync-monitor-reviewed/6

"Once calibrated (and with Black eQ disabled), the XL2730Z offers the most faithful color reproduction of the group. Reds are the largest source of error for this display, as they are for the PG278Q."

The PG278Q is Asus' $900 TN panel getting beat in color reproduction by a $270 cheaper display, compared to Asus' other TN panels, it obliterates them.. It even beats their IPS panel the PB278Q in color reproduction, an IPS panel...

Like I said before, you're new in the PC community and someone I don't consider a real PC gamer, you're so far out of your element of understanding, expertise, experience and longevity in the community that you do not possess the proper knowledge to equip yourself in an argument for something that requires you have those attributes, you're ignorant, extremely ignorant.

Like I said before, just because you can afford to buy PC hardware doesn't mean you know a god damn thing about it. I'm not here to validate my purchase, I'm here because I'm helping someone, I'm right and you're wrong, which was very easy to prove.

Um Asus PG278Q is a TN panel not IPS(I have one) and it's more expensive because G-sync, you can tank nvidia for that, PG278Q is also very old these days, bought mine in 2014

just to set some facts right

edit: There are three monitors, there's the PG278Q and the PB278Q, PG278Q is TN, PB278Q is IPS, it still beats both.

Also that doesn't change the fact that the PG278Q has an MSRP of $900 and the XL2730Z has an MSRP of $630.

@dynamitecop: Nah mate, you're here to flash your epenis. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it - I don't understand why since its pretty tiny but whatever...whatever helps you sleep better at night

but why are you comparing the the Benq Freesync to Asus Gsync in price and not to Asus Freesync one(MG278Q)? there is also MG279Q with IPS panel for freesync

Gsync is always more expensive than Freesync...

Cause this guy is a fucking idiot, he tried to argue 2xr9 290x were better than a single gtx1080...understanding, expertise, experience and longevity in the community MY ASS

Because there hasn't been updated comparisons made between the displays and the PG278Q was the XL2730Z's direct competitor at the time, also the MG278Q houses the same panel as the PG278Q which the XL2730Z still produces better color reproduction, but BenQ has yet to respond to the newer Asus models, likely soon.

Furthermore, the G-Sync module in the PG278Q only adds an additional $100 to the cost of the display, that doesn't account for the additional cost differential of $170 at the time.

I said that two 290X's have a higher compute ceiling than a GTX 1080, that is why they beat one in 3D Mark Timespy, it's an application fully optimized for high end hardware and multi-GPU applications, it draws out the full compute capabilities of your graphics cards.

Also, stop taking things off topic when you're getting shit on as a means of trying to introduce another argument you think you can win, you're deplorable.

Couch = TV

Chair = Monitor

What an argument.

I prefer monitors myself (for gaming, of course) due to the vastly lower input lag. I have my XB1 hooked up to it too.

Once pc hooked up to tv never looked back.

Monitors are nice in that they turn themselves on/off quite quickly when you power up your PC. TV's you have to manually power them, very minor for sure. I plan to get a 24" monitor so long as it has at least 2 hdmi's But my PC and consoles all sit inside an armoire type cabinet and I sit close enough that using an extendable arm on the wall to mount a 24 " would allow me to pull it up as close as I want.

So consider your space and how close you'll sit but you probably would want a large screen normally. However some TV's have rubbish colors too, either choice, you still have to buy a higher quality one.

As far as using a PC on a TV, I once used mine on a 55" Samsung and it was perfectly fine, I did not notice any lag..etc and it had a "game mode" option. But again you can't just buy any ol TV no more than you could any ol Monitor.

I've been using a cheap Dynex 24" 1080p TV as my primary PC monitor since 2010. I can hook it up to the PC via HDMI or VGA. But, I prefer good ol VGA so long as the VGA cable isn't mixed in with other cables that can cause signal interference.

Honestly, I haven't seen any noticeable lag with the VGA port whether hooked up to my gaming PC or gaming laptop. It's probably because it was a monitor first which just happens to have an ATSC TV tuner and TV functions added.

6.5 years old and not a problem. 3 HDMI, 1 VGA, 1 set progressive scan, composite...... Remote control.

I chose the TV because I eyeballed it first and Best Buy employees allowed me to hook up my laptop first. So I got a good idea of its performance.

With a monitor, I'm guaranteed to have good performance on the PC. But, I like the multifaceted uses of flat screen TVs, especially with its use of a remote. I'm more likely to stick with a PC-friendly TV.

I've been using a Sony HDTV since about 2009 or so and I haven't experienced any input lag.

The guy at Best Buy said HDTVs now though are not good for PC's. So I was looking at Newegg for 32inch monitors bc I game on a recliner...yes even with PC.

Anyway they are all 4,5,and 6 ms. The last time I had a monitor back in 2007-8....it was a Samsubg with 2ms.

Is it just bc I'm looking at larger sized monitors that the ms is so high...or is 6ms really not that bad?

Or are HDTV's actually not bad for PC gaming.

6ms(if that's actually tested) is considerably better than what you get out of 4k ones, that's what IPS monitors have more or less

So yes there are perfectly fine hdtv's for gaming

A normal consumer level TV that most people will buy will have latency of about 30-35ms, that's horrible and just to put that into perspective that's response time 30-35 times slower than my monitor, the best TV's you can possibly get only tread down to about 15ms.

If you're unfamiliar with what response time actually is, it's how long it takes for the display to update visual information it is receiving through its input, 35ms is latency of 35/1000th of a second, 1ms latency is 1/1000th of a second. That may not seem like a lot, but if you put these two displays side by side and mirror the identical output, you will actually see the slower display change its image after the faster display and the time in between will look drastic.

No they're not, they're technologically superior.

@dynamitecop: What do you think my current 2010 Sony HDTV has regarding ms? B/c if it's in the 30ms mark...then I really don't notice it enough to warrant buying a monitor. Then again....please see bottom of the post >>>>

6ms was for the 4K 32 inch monitors...not the HDTV's.

------

ms Aside...how good is the HDR and all those bells and whistles when it comes to comparing HDTV of now to current monitors?

I have a 55" 4k HDR ready Samsung.

I don't game on it though, I just use my BenQ monitor.

The input lag on my TV isn't so bad when it's in gaming mode, but the difference between it and my monitor is night and day.

So long as the VGA/DVI output are not subject to the HDTV's internal post processing (usually over HDMI), I'm fine with HDTVs. The problem is, there's no way to tell aside from actually hooking up a PC/laptop and trying it out.

I've tested my laptops on the 24" Dynex and a 32" Hisense HDTV. The Dynex VGA output is quite fine compared to the HDMI output (no VGA port) of the Hisense. I can actually sense a slight lag when playing games with the mouse on the Hisense.

I'd need to know what the display's model number is, also you don't notice because you haven't been directly exposed to it as a comparative. It's the same with refresh rate, people with 60hz monitors will tell you that the jump to 120hz is not a big deal, but once you're aware of the difference in a side to side, you'll never want to go back.

This is the truth huggles.

Not saying you need to rush out and spend more money if you're enjoying your current set up, but damn is it hard to back afterwards.

Monitor, all the way, for the high refresh rate. I own an Asus VG248QE monitor, and I have absolutely no regrets about my purchase.

Dont have a gaming PC now but if I did I would use my 50in TV, I like gaming on the big screen especially for longer periods. Once I got used to the bigger screen I found it hard to game again on small screens. The big screen is more immersive I find, like a theatrical experience almost

@dynamitecop: @ConanTheStoner: is 6ms good enough though?

It's tolerable, but I personally would never buy anything higher than 1ms ever again.

What is this for again?

Brilliant post,as usual

@dynamitecop: I've got a 4K system now, after 6 years with my last PC, my current HDTV is 1080p and great but if I have the ability I might as well use it when I can.

So I want something 4K but I haven't had a monitor since I got my HDTV which was in 2009 or so....and it was 2ms. Obviously I don't remember what it was like playing on it so I'm basically starting without being "spoiled".

On Newegg the only 32-40 inch monitors they had were 4-6ms.

Ill get the model number for my Sony in a few minutes.

So you've got a computer capable of 4K gaming, why the swing to 4K? Why not to go the 1440p route with almost non existent latency and drastically higher refresh rates? Also why do you want a display that large?

Just trying to get some talking points going so we could possibly line you up with something.

@mr_huggles_dog: Save yourself from some of the ignorant statements some are making in this thread and visit RTINGS

@dynamitecop: Uhhh no,

BenQ - Consumer monitors

Zowie (BenQ's eSports division) - eSports ONLY monitors

@dynamitecop: Bc it can do 4K so when I can run a game at that I'd like to do so.

Also I play while sitting in a recliner. Desks suck. I'm about 4ft away from the screen, 32inches is just right.

@Pedro: what site is that?

Its a pretty decent site that breaks down hdtvs into a variety of review categories and gives some decent info on what each can and cannot do.

Well I don't find the market as a whole especially in terms of hardware is developed enough to take 4K seriously at the moment. Also you're likely always going to face those latency issues with larger format displays, plus you're going to be limited to 60hz.

I can understand what you want, but frankly what you're actually looking for is something that is still a few years off, right now there are too many compromises at 4K. You're free to do as you please and get what you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Zowie didn't get integrated until just recently, also it's still BenQ, it's just a spinoff division and a previous competitive gaming peripheral company they purchased.

Zowie is to BenQ as SRT is to Chrysler, that's it.

So? Its still a different division, that's like calling an Aventador a VW or Lexus a Toyota, or AsRock an ASUS, they might be owned by one, but they are responsible for their own products and service.

No, you're confusing divisions and subsidiaries, a division is directly controlled and operated by the main company, a subsidiary is not. All BenQ has done is purchased Zowie for their name and peripherals, the monitors are all developed by BenQ directly just as they always have been but now have the Zowie name attached to them.

@dynamitecop: the model number of my current TV is Sony KDL-32S5100

This TV has an 8ms response time, not bad but it's likely relative to its size.

Ok so now that I'm in the mix of new tech again....what exactly is G-sync vs Free Sync.

G-Sync = Nvidia

FreeSync = AMD

G-Sync Monitors cost more because additional hardware and licensing is required.

FreeSync monitors are cheaper because the tech is open source.

Both technologies attempts to sync the rate of rendering with the with the refresh rate of the monitor to prevent screen tearing.

It's a pretty fantastic technology, one of the best innovations for displays in recent years.

I know this is semantics but it's the opposite of what you said, the monitor has an dynamic refresh rate to match the frame rate.

So do I need AMD hardware if I want to use Free Sync and same for Gsync monitors.

Yes, it's currently tied to the specific hardware you're running, while in time FreeSync has the possibility to open up to Nvidia, I don't see them supporting it because they can currently charge for it via G-Sync (Another reason I hate Nvidia).