Is now a bad time for buying a new / 4K TV on a budget?

[jpaul]

Prime day is soon so maybe there will be some bargains from them (but have not seen much data on tv servicing standard via amazon) , or , other mimickers (RS/JL/PCW)

My s912 is fast octo core ...

are there any tv 'boxes' with newer 6 core options yet (faster+slower cores aka Big/little) ? I can't see any yet, unlike, for car head units,
maybe the new raspberry pi will be a contender too.

 

[Vexr]

yeah but already explained for HDMI 2.1 to be useful you need to spend at least £1000 on a tv.

it doesn't matter if in 5 years you can get a £400 tv with 2.1 if the £400 tv can't do anything beneficial with it.

You said you need to spend £1k on a TV for HDR to be useful, not HDMI 2.1.

if you want HDR then to get one which does it any justice would be £1000 minimum at 49".

Just to clarify, I don't give a toss about HDR so it can happily be one of the features I'd sacrifice to keep costs down. Variable refresh rate and/or 120 hz @ 4K however I can see being useful in the future, and could be something I'd miss if I got a HDMI 2.0 TV now.

Personally leaning toward looking out for a bargain in the used market for a smart 1080p TV that's a lot more modern than mine - perhaps something like a Sony KDL-42W705B, then revisit the idea of 4K / HDMI 2.1 much later on.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You said you need to spend £1k on a TV for HDR to be useful, not HDMI 2.1.



Just to clarify, I don't give a toss about HDR so it can happily be one of the features I'd sacrifice to keep costs down. Variable refresh rate and/or 120 hz @ 4K however I can see being useful in the future, and could be something I'd miss if I got a HDMI 2.0 TV now.

Personally leaning toward looking out for a bargain in the used market for a smart 1080p TV that's a lot more modern than mine - perhaps something like a Sony KDL-42W705B, then revisit the idea of 4K / HDMI 2.1 much later on.

again your not going to get 120hz on any £400 tv

 

[Vexr]

again your not going to get 120hz on any £400 tv

Ever? I'm sure similar things were said of 100hz UWQHDs with their £1k price tags, and yet a few later it's been proven possible to get decent ones for less than £500 new despite the value of the pound.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Ever? I'm sure similar things were said of 100hz UWQHDs with their £1k price tags, and yet a few later it's been proven possible to get decent ones for less than £500 new despite the value of the pound.

yes ever.

£400 tv's are crap budget range stuff.

you have to remember - they have R&D costs. costs of electronics. costs to manufacture them. cost of staff. the manufacturer has to make a profit. they have to ship them here from the other side of the world. then middle man has to make a profit too.

so after all that £400 means the actual tv cost like £40.

which is why certain features will never flow through to the bottom end. you may get them in the mid end but never bottom end.

if all you can afford ever is £400 on a tv. buy second hand. simple as that. then you might get a decent tv. brand new. then no chance ever.

show me a £400 tv today (which is brand new) and I'll show you a £800 tv from 7 years ago which is better than it.

 

[5punk3monk3y]

Ever? I'm sure similar things were said of 100hz UWQHDs with their £1k price tags, and yet a few later it's been proven possible to get decent ones for less than £500 new despite the value of the pound.

Just ignore him he won't stop even if you do, as you said earlier stick with what you have until you come across a TV your happy to drop the coin on also keep an eye on local selling groups I've seen my TV in my sig going for 6-700 quid that's 100% worth the stretch (if your happy not having warranty and have home insurance for cover) for an Oled but make sure to view first. I believe the Oled also supports 120hz at 1440p too

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Just ignore him he won't stop even if you do, as you said earlier stick with what you have until you come across a TV your happy to drop the coin on also keep an eye on local selling groups I've seen my TV in my sig going for 6-700 quid that's 100% worth the stretch (if your happy not having warranty and have home insurance for cover) for an Oled but make sure to view first. I believe the Oled also supports 120hz at 1440p too

You seem to be great at reading and following.

His budget is £400 not £700.

£700 would get him a half decent tv with warranty and new.

 

[Vexr]

Just ignore him he won't stop even if you do

Good idea. He seems overly fixated on the £400 figure I threw out rather casually in this thread, with him going on to repeat it the better part of a dozen times in this own posts.

he just needs to go out and buy any tv that is within his pitiful £400 budget.

Thank you, but no thanks. Feel free to jog on.

 

[MrRockliffe]

He seems overly fixated on the £400 figure I threw out rather casually in this thread,

To be fair mate, he's trying to help. If someone says their budget, that is the amount of money you have available to spend, is £400, then why recommend stuff that's >600?

If you can spend more than 400, then it isn't your budget

A better way to word it is to say "In my head I was thinking circa £400, but if £600 gets me the specs I want, I can stretch to that, but no further"

 

[CAB]

You seem to be great at reading and following.

His budget is £400 not £700.

£700 would get him a half decent tv with warranty and new.

What TV would you say?

I'm in the market for a TV. Budget probably between £600 - £800ish (Will stretch more if the TV is the dog's bollux but as i'm moving out it would be better if I don't go over the £800 mark).

TV will be mainly for gaming on my Xbox so doubt massively high refresh rates are quite as important as PC gaming? Have a preference for 50 inch tv's as living room isn't very big.

TV's I've looked at are

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/panasonic-tvs/pana-tx49fx750b.html

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/panasonic-tvs/panasonic-tx50gx800b.html

https://www.richersounds.com/sony-kd55xf9005bu.html?refSrc=41851&nosto=nosto-page-product3 (this would have to be quite a lot better than the Panasonics to make me consider this)

Wildcard:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hisense-H55A6200UK-55-Inch-Ultra-Freeview/dp/B07QS44ZS8?th=1 (2019 model or 2018 model)

https://www.richersounds.com/philips-50pus6703.html (got quite good reviews for the price)

 

[Psycho Sonny]

What TV would you say?

I'm in the market for a TV. Budget probably between £600 - £800ish (Will stretch more if the TV is the dog's bollux but as i'm moving out it would be better if I don't go over the £800 mark).

TV will be mainly for gaming on my Xbox so doubt massively high refresh rates are quite as important as PC gaming? Have a preference for 50 inch tv's as living room isn't very big.

TV's I've looked at are

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/panasonic-tvs/pana-tx49fx750b.html

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/panasonic-tvs/panasonic-tx50gx800b.html

https://www.richersounds.com/sony-kd55xf9005bu.html?refSrc=41851&nosto=nosto-page-product3 (this would have to be quite a lot better than the Panasonics to make me consider this)

Wildcard:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hisense-H55A6200UK-55-Inch-Ultra-Freeview/dp/B07QS44ZS8?th=1 (2019 model or 2018 model)

https://www.richersounds.com/philips-50pus6703.html (got quite good reviews for the price)

if you are looking at the XF90 then this

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lg-oled55b8slc-55-inch-ultra-hd-4k-hdr-oled-tv-999-at-box-3257015

how much gaming usage though? if it's going to be greater than 40% gaming usage then I'd suggest the XF90

the OLED is a top tier tv as in a 9.9/10 so it's worth the extra £200 with the only issue being screen burn if you use too much static content.

the XF90 is again a top tier tv but at the lower end of top tier so maybe a 9.2/10 but it has no burn in issues.

the other tv's you have listed are all mid end or lower mid end.

so the extra £200 is worth it to go from mid end to top tier. especially since it comes with 5 or 6 years warranty and likely be kept for 5+ years so it's worth the additional outlay.

if i had to choose for £800 then i'd go for this

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8192855

or the RU8000 here

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/sa...4k-tv-749-with-code-at-reliant-direct-3257637

The Samsung NU8000 is a bit better than the Samsung RU8000. The NU8000 also has a local dimming feature that can improve dark room performance. The NU8000 has better SDR peak brightness and is more suitable if you have a bright room. The NU8000 can also get brighter in HDR and has a better color volume, which is great for HDR content. The RU8000, on the other hand, has a lower input lag, good for gaming, and a faster response time, great for watching sports.

personally i'd pick the NU8000 if a strict £800 budget.

but i'd honestly stretch the extra £200 for the OLED or the XF90 so long as you are aware of both's pro's and cons

 

[CAB]

if you are looking at the XF90 then this

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lg-oled55b8slc-55-inch-ultra-hd-4k-hdr-oled-tv-999-at-box-3257015

how much gaming usage though? if it's going to be greater than 40% gaming usage then I'd suggest the XF90

the OLED is a top tier tv as in a 9.9/10 so it's worth the extra £200 with the only issue being screen burn if you use too much static content.

the XF90 is again a top tier tv but at the lower end of top tier so maybe a 9.2/10 but it has no burn in issues.

the other tv's you have listed are all mid end or lower mid end.

so the extra £200 is worth it to go from mid end to top tier. especially since it comes with 5 or 6 years warranty and likely be kept for 5+ years so it's worth the additional outlay.

if i had to choose for £800 then i'd go for this

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8192855

or the RU8000 here

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/sa...4k-tv-749-with-code-at-reliant-direct-3257637

The Samsung NU8000 is a bit better than the Samsung RU8000. The NU8000 also has a local dimming feature that can improve dark room performance. The NU8000 has better SDR peak brightness and is more suitable if you have a bright room. The NU8000 can also get brighter in HDR and has a better color volume, which is great for HDR content. The RU8000, on the other hand, has a lower input lag, good for gaming, and a faster response time, great for watching sports.

personally i'd pick the NU8000 if a strict £800 budget.

but i'd honestly stretch the extra £200 for the OLED or the XF90 so long as you are aware of both's pro's and cons

Thanks for the detailed reply that is great. I do play A LOT of xbox. E.G. I could be playing for 3-4 hours quite easily at night so OLED puts me off somewhat with regards to the screen burn. I don't like the idea of having to look after my TV much.

I'm pretty torn right now then. No idea what i'll do. The Samsung's looked pretty good and the free soundbar is quite a good deal but maybe I might just go to XF90 then? I can spare the money if it's worth it. Only thing with the XF90 is the stand/legs look a little ugly/odd.

Are there any top tier or decent tvs which are 50 inch? That would be ideal. The Mrs doesn't want a big tv in the living room as we have a quite small room so don't want it to dominate the living room too much.

What abotu these TV's? 49-50 inch tv is definitely the preference.

https://www.richersounds.com/sony-bravia-kd49xg8305bu.html

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/all-tvs/samsung-qe49q60r.html

Nevermind noticed that the samsung's you reccomended also go down to the 49-50 inch range. So maybe the NU800...How much better is the NU800 compared to the RU800 then you reckon? As I'd rather get my TV from Richer Sounds if possible mainly for the 6 year garauntee they offer and i dont think they stocck the nu800

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Thanks for the detailed reply that is great. I do play A LOT of xbox. E.G. I could be playing for 3-4 hours quite easily at night so OLED puts me off somewhat with regards to the screen burn. I don't like the idea of having to look after my TV much.

I'm pretty torn right now then. No idea what i'll do. The Samsung's looked pretty good and the free soundbar is quite a good deal but maybe I might just go to XF90 then? I can spare the money if it's worth it. Only thing with the XF90 is the stand/legs look a little ugly/odd.

Are there any top tier or decent tvs which are 50 inch? That would be ideal. The Mrs doesn't want a big tv in the living room as we have a quite small room so don't want it to dominate the living room too much.

What abotu these TV's? 49-50 inch tv is definitely the preference.

https://www.richersounds.com/sony-bravia-kd49xg8305bu.html

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/all-tvs/samsung-qe49q60r.html

Nevermind noticed that the samsung's you reccomended also go down to the 49-50 inch range. So maybe the NU800...How much better is the NU800 compared to the RU800 then you reckon? As I'd rather get my TV from Richer Sounds if possible mainly for the 6 year garauntee they offer and i dont think they stocck the nu800

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-nu8000-vs-samsung-ru8000/586/784

side by side comparison.

beware though some 49 inch panels aren't the same as the 55 inch they are far inferior only supporting 60hz, etc. i can't be bothered to look into them all but if you are spending the best part of a grand then i suggets you see if the 49 versions of those tv's are vastly inferior. which is why 55inch is usually recommended. samsung have done this on a few tv's i believe sony is okay but the XG85 is inferior to the XF90, so again i'd go for the 55 XF90 over it.

so long as you vary usage OLED is okay. if it's going to be like i said more than 40% gaming then that is a lot of gaming time on an OLED. you will have people say it isn't an issue but you could fail in the panel lottery and get a duff one which has really bad retention / burn in issues. if it's less than 40% then definetely go OLED

 

[Psycho Sonny]

To be fair mate, he's trying to help. If someone says their budget, that is the amount of money you have available to spend, is £400, then why recommend stuff that's >600?

If you can spend more than 400, then it isn't your budget

A better way to word it is to say "In my head I was thinking circa £400, but if £600 gets me the specs I want, I can stretch to that, but no further"

exactly - if people say i only have £400 to spend then that will only get you a crap tv new. second hand it will get you anything from a crap tv to a very good one depending on the panel.

it's amazing how in other threads someone says I have £500 to spend on a 5.1 system and our resident troller hits out with they need to spend £2500 on a subwoofer alone, that just isn't realistic. the budget is the budget sure if something is within say 25% more it's okay to push it but £400 is peanuts and if it's been mentioned as the budget then that is what the advice will be based on. and therefore the budget will be given as the reason for the options being terrible and not really worth us wasting our time looking at.

as you can see above. i have given CAB 4 different options depending on his budget of £800 to £1000.

because that is a realistic budget for a decent tv and you have real choices to make. at £400 it's either hisense or hisense unless your after a small panel or a 1080p panel or after a no name brand. essentially junk. therefore based on a £400 budget just go and buy any tv they will all be junk at that level new.

 

[CAB]

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-nu8000-vs-samsung-ru8000/586/784

side by side comparison.

beware though some 49 inch panels aren't the same as the 55 inch they are far inferior only supporting 60hz, etc. i can't be bothered to look into them all but if you are spending the best part of a grand then i suggets you see if the 49 versions of those tv's are vastly inferior. which is why 55inch is usually recommended. samsung have done this on a few tv's i believe sony is okay but the XG85 is inferior to the XF90, so again i'd go for the 55 XF90 over it.

so long as you vary usage OLED is okay. if it's going to be like i said more than 40% gaming then that is a lot of gaming time on an OLED. you will have people say it isn't an issue but you could fail in the panel lottery and get a duff one which has really bad retention / burn in issues. if it's less than 40% then definetely go OLED

Ok that's really informative. Thanks for the taking the time to give such a detailed response.

I'd say when certain games come out i'm likely to be blasting the xbox at least 60-70% of the screen time so I think i'll leave the OLED away. Judging from your comments I think i'm just going to bite the bullet and go for the XF90 then. I kinda wish it had a better stand as the legs do make the tv look a bit ugly but that's a small price to pay if the panel is good. I can stretch to £1000 so may as well I guess!

Only other thing which puts me off is some of the comments say the input lag isn't the greatest for 1080p gaming.



https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/son...900f-review-is-this-the-best-mid-range-tv-yet

Mentions

"The XF90's input lag figures are consistent with what we've previously obtained on other Sony TVs equipped with the X1 Extreme chipset. We measured a competitive 25ms in 4K HDR mode, but that increases to 42ms for 1080p video signal due to the need to scale 1080P images to fit the 4K screen.

What does that mean for gamers? Well, those of you using PS4 Pro or Xbox One X consoles which send out 4K video by default don’t need to worry, as the Sony XF90 feels very responsive. If you’re thinking about hooking up the likes of the Nintendo Switch, however, which is 1080p only, then the Sony is liable to feel slightly more sluggish."

Unsure what kind of impact that would make as I only have an xbox one for now and probably won't buy a new xbox until the new one comes out.

 

[jpaul]

In the context of a £700 monitor, it was clear £400 was a ball-park figure; per my earlier comment I think £550 gets a mid range 55" tv, and the delta £250 for an xf90, not justified under my criteria (build quality/past-experiences, daylight viewing, merit of FullishArray, processing)

but the money everyone wants to consecrate to the purchase is different, so it's not necessary to deride everything at £400

this conversation is obviously not dissimlar to the current flaship phone thread

pocophone f1 was around £240 when launched and could do everything a top end phone could bar say slight differences in screen and camera quality and NFC.

where others disagree that f1 meets their acceptable trade-off criteria

 

[Psycho Sonny]

In the context of a £700 monitor, it was clear £400 was a ball-park figure; per my earlier comment I think £550 gets a mid range 55" tv, and the delta £250 for an xf90, not justified under my criteria (build quality/past-experiences, daylight viewing, merit of FullishArray, processing)

but the money everyone wants to consecrate to the purchase is different, so it's not necessary to deride everything at £400

this conversation is obviously not dissimlar to the current flaship phone thread

where others disagree that f1 meets their acceptable trade-off criteria

thing is tv's only really do 1 job. display a picture.

phones are used for all sorts of stuff (taking pictures, downloading, sending emails, messages, multitasking, streaming, etc) so its usage is varied wildly from person to person. whereas a tv is pretty much used for displaying a picture.

so everything is based on 1 criteria. how good is the picture quality. nothing else. so pretty much the same few tv's are the best ones to pick no matter the price range.

last year there was 3 tv's worth buying NU8000, XF90 and OLED's (from LG). nothing else was really worth looking at. so out of the 1000 different models and brands out there. i could pretty much say to anyone if your budget isn't enough for an OLED then get an XF90 if it's not enough for that then get the NU8000.

the samsung Q range was either overpriced or not as good as the XF90. yeah the overpriced ones were amazing but they weren't worth paying for IMO over an OLED.

no other tv was worth considering. couldn't afford the NU8000 then up your budget because everything below it wasn't worth spending money on and better off going second hand in that case.


with phones you can literally have a list as long as your arm and that list will change every 3 months too.

it's much easier to buy a tv IMO. there is usually only a max list of 5 tv's anyone should be considering every year. sure there is variations between sizing but you can pretty much say pick between these 5 and see which one fits into your budget.

 

[Bounce]

A monitor is more useful to me including for work. I didn't spend quite that much on it as I bought it on sale. I was also able to sell my old monitor for about £350. 100 hz native FreeSync @ 3440x1440 at much closer to the £500 mark rather than the £1k of the old overclockable ones was also something I'd been waiting quite a while for, and when NVidia announced they were opening up to FreeSync then that was the final checkbox ticked for me to take the plunge.

When it comes to a nice new TV, I'm having a harder time justifying any significant spend, especially if by the time I get a console / regular 4K content to watch then it may already be old hat compared with HDMI 2.1 models. As my current TV no doubt has 0 resale value, it'll also be a nastier blow to the wallet than my monitor upgrade was.

how come you've crossed out the 1070ti in your sig? don't tell me you downgraded it to a RX 550.

 

[Vexr]

how come you've crossed out the 1070ti in your sig? don't tell me you downgraded it to a RX 550.

Slightly OT Yes, I did. Borderless windowed GSync was broken like with these unfortunate souls + I originally bought the 1070 Ti for 60 hz UWQHD not 100 hz, and found it lacking for 100 hz. The RX 550 is acting as a placeholder.

 

[Moley]

My TV gave up the ghost last night - was an older Toshiba 40" 4k model. Managed to get a Samsung QE55Q67RATXXU 55" TV today with a Soundbar chucked in for £999. Really quite pleased with the bigger clearer picture, but was wondering if there is some kind of calibration that should be done for these screens?