Are TVs generally better than monitors now?

D3lirious

D3lirious

D3lirious

Associate
Joined
29 Apr 2004
Posts
802
I know the larger size of TVs are prohibitive for use with desktop gaming, but size aside are modern TVs better quality for games?

Looking around they all seem to be 4K, HDR with some having 120hz, etc.
 
You won't get 120Hz on a TV unless you downscale to 1080p and both TV and GPU have HDMI 2.0. There's also no adaptive sync tech (some are getting Freesync I believe, not sure which models though), so there is also that to consider. A Freesync TV would obviously only work with an AMD GPU also.

HDR... well, it depends to what extent you're talking. Some TV's say HDR but really don't qualify to meet the required standards to display it properly.

So it depends what you mean by "better quality for games" exactly? A TV can certainly do a decent job of making a game look good... but it all depends what's important to you. If it's ultimate smoothness, refresh rate and response time, then a monitor is going to win out. If it's image quality and big wow factor, then a juicy OLED will look pretty sweet. But you'll pay through the nose for one of those which when you then look at what you could get on a monitor for that price, it starts to make you wonder. I suspect ultimate use case is probably the deciding factor. If you have an HTPC and want PC gaming in the lounge/living room, then an OLED isn't a bad way to go.
 
Last edited:
Good eye, my friend. The writing's been on the wall for higher-end monitors for a while now, started noticing what a scam they are some 3-4 years ago but only a year or so made the plunge to a TV and oh how I wish I had made it sooner.

Check out rtings.com for some quasi in-depth reviews. What Legend is saying is mostly wrong. In fact, you can find 1440p 120hz Freesync TVs of extraordinary image quality (this year's Samsung QLEDs), but those are generally pricy (depending on how much you priorities HDR; lower models, e.g. Q6FN has worse HDR than Q9FN but way cheaper, otherwise close overall for the price difference). If you get a bit up to speed on TVs then you also have a chance to shop around and maybe find a deal on year's models, which are still superb (particularly the Sony XE930 & XE900) for a steal. Tbh unless you plan on becoming a pro gamer (on PC) then the input lag differences from a good TV to a monitor won't be very noticeable, especially if we exclude CS:GO. Otherwise 99.9% of games it feels great.
 
Poneros said:
Good eye, my friend. The writing's been on the wall for higher-end monitors for a while now, started noticing what a scam they are some 3-4 years ago but only a year or so made the plunge to a TV and oh how I wish I had made it sooner.

Check out rtings.com for some quasi in-depth reviews. What Legend is saying is mostly wrong. In fact, you can find 1440p 120hz Freesync TVs of extraordinary image quality (this year's Samsung QLEDs), but those are generally pricy (depending on how much you priorities HDR; lower models, e.g. Q6FN has worse HDR than Q9FN but way cheaper, otherwise close overall for the price difference). If you get a bit up to speed on TVs then you also have a chance to shop around and maybe find a deal on year's models, which are still superb (particularly the Sony XE930 & XE900) for a steal. Tbh unless you plan on becoming a pro gamer (on PC) then the input lag differences from a good TV to a monitor won't be very noticeable, especially if we exclude CS:GO. Otherwise 99.9% of games it feels great.
Click to expand...

The Samsung sets you are correct on, although I have read numerous issues from people trying to run them at 1440p, but firmware updates may have fixed this. Plus, these are the ONLY range of TV's that have Freesync, so I'm not "mostly wrong"... HDR is still a joke on the VAST majority of TV's, barely meeting the required standards, with many falling pathetically short, and for the most part all will be 60Hz... and those few that have 120Hz panels will only do so with HDMI 2.0 at 1080p. That's just the facts. Oh, and don't even get me started on LG's RGBW shenanigans! Many consumers are completely in the dark on that one.

Input lag can be VERY noticeable to some people, while not at all to others. It's a very subjective thing, so it's false to issue such a sweeping statement as it "won't be very noticeable". Also, generally speaking, you won't find many people who switch from 60Hz to 144Hz that don't notice and appreciate that difference either. Of course it's a bigger deal in competitive shooters, but it's not a completely non-existent one in every other game.

Also, although OP acknowledges size is prohibitive for desktop use, it is worth re-iterating in respect to your points that we're talking about two different markets here with different use cases. The smallest Samsung is 55"... that's just not going to be suitable in place of a monitor for the vast majority of PC users. Don't get me wrong, they're great TV's, but it's clearly optimal and a very solid choice for a lounge/living room environment with an HTPC set-up or where you would connect your main PC for a different gaming experience. I'd probably choose one myself if I had that intention. But as OP asks, "size aside, are modern TVs better quality for games?"... the answer is no and yes, it depends on specifics. For pure image quality, undoubtedly... no PC monitor is going to be able to get anywhere close to OLED, but this is not necessarily the be all and end all, obviously... although for some people it might be.

Perhaps most importantly though, OP never mentioned his budget (assuming he's shopping around), which is a key factor in all of this.

:)
 
Last edited:
Both have their pros an cons. I went the 40" 4k Samsung TV route as wanted something big and was put of by the high cost of premium gaming monitors which still seemed to have a lot of issues.

TV Pros and cons:
  • Great static 4k image
  • Big
  • It's also a smart TV (Handy for watching TV now and when it gets retired as main monitor in the future)
  • Only 60Hz at 4k
  • Prefer to stick with 16:9 ratio (ultra-wide is nice for games that support it but not so good for productivity and video)
  • On my Samsung input lag is negligible but AV panel results in slight blurring on fast moving high contrast images.
  • No G-Sync / freesync (think a few premium models do support 120hz / 1080p freesync)
  • HDR does work but is a bit flaky (4k@60 10 bit uses 422 sub sampling, poor windows support etc)
  • Way cheaper than 34" G-sync monitor (can still game in custom ultra-wide res: 3440x1440)
 
A bit of context for my original post; we recently moved house and I have commandeered a spare room downstairs as a gaming/movie room. I have thrown out my desk and chair and replaced with a sofa and TV cabinet, but now I need a bigger screen :)

I was initially interested in the upcoming big format gaming displays as it ticks a lot of boxes, and then some. But I heard these were delayed until next year so started researching TVs. I realise that none of them have gsync, which is a shame, but I can live without that.

I'm currently looking at either a Samsung Q9 or the upcoming Sony Z9F in either 65" or, if we see any decent price drops, 75". I'm also keeping an eye on the upcoming Samsung 8K, although 65" will be my limit with this one. I will probably get something on black Friday so I'm just reading around until then.
 
Samsung Q9's looks pretty sweet to me, freesync and 1440@120hz. Looks like gaming monitors still max out 34" so not much choice at that size. If you've not already found it Rtings.com is a good review site that covers using TV for PC's and gaming.

Hate the way Nvidia are sticking with their proprietary g-sync, looks like game consoles and TV's are going free-sync now anyhow. The upcoming display tech that i'm most interested in is HDMI 2.1, should bring VRR and True HDR @ 4K 60Hz+ to TV's. Not so sure about 8K, we are still a way off having any 8K sources and requires a massive screen to appreciate the difference.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Sony is going to beat Samsung this year as far as gaming goes, though I like Sony more tbh. The Z9F is more movie-watching oriented as well, and it's going to be balls to wall expensive, even compared to the already expensive Q9FN.
 
D3lirious said:
Are TVs generally better than monitors now?
Click to expand...
No, not even in the same league.

Want a second opinion? Let's ask Devastator:

giphy.gif
 
I can't look at anything that isn't non OLED now, especially basic old LCD monitors.

Even for motion etc. I find my OLED superior to LCD monitors, even 144HZ monitors (well maybe superior isn't the correct word to use but it seems to handle motion clarity a lot better in my experience)

No sync tech. is a bit meh but can't say I notice a huge difference when I tweak games to get a consistent FPS and use vsync or enhanced sync.
 
I think in certain scenarios a monitor just isn't an option. For living room/lounge gaming, an OLED is a fantastic choice, as at 55"+ you're just not going to get that kind of immersion from the biggest of monitors... and the picture quality of OLED hands down crushes any monitor on the market anyway. Sure adaptive sync would be nice, but in this scenario it's not the end of the world to not have it.
 
Monitors are generally better until we get HDMI 2.1 Televisions, TV's still have a fair amount of latency on their input which HDMI 2.1 helps to fix/bypass.

LG will also be releasing 4K OLED's with HFR (120hz broadcast and streamed content), HLG, HDR and HDMI 2.1 (120Hz HDR input) in their 2019 editions.
 
Something I don't get... HDR certification for monitors is VESA DisplayHDR, but on TVs there is HDR10 and HLG, with Samsung going with HDR10+ and others going with Dolby Vision. How do all these relate to each other? Confused:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom