Using a TV as a monitor on the desk- what's the difference?

[almoststew1990]

I can get a 1080p 32" TV (SAMSUNG UE32H6410) for £200, which is substatially cheaper than monitors of that size are. And this TV has FreeSat and all that built in. Why is there the price difference with monitors?

I'll compare it to my monitor. It is a £200 AOC 1080p 27" IPS screen; nothing special.

This TVs apparently has refresh rates of 400Hz... Why are normal monitors limited to 60 or 144Hz if a super cheap tv can update its image 400 times a second? I assume it is basically lying?

TVs also generally have vibrant colours compared to my monitor with nicer blacks compared to my monitor; If I go to a dark place in a game I usually can't see anything but on a TV I can because TVs can show many different blacks easier.

The only advantage of my monitor is the image seems "smoother", not sharp or over bright; I can only really describe it as the quality of the image but not in a contrast or colour kind of way...

I feel like I am missing something otherwise we'd all be using TVs instead of Monitors! What is the catch / why the price difference?

 

[ianh]

I use a TV too and input lag is one of the most quoted reasons I've seen at around 50ms with a TV and 1-2ms with a monitor and quicker is better for gaming. Additionally it's only fairly recent that TV's have been able to "easily" connect to a TV via HDMI for a good digital image such as 1080p etc (yes I know they've been able to before, I did it in the 90's).

I'm looking at either a 55in 4K TV or a 40in 4K Monitor to replace my current knackered TV and other than size I'm torn between them.

 

[Poneros]

There are multiple catches but I'll mention just the fatal two: One, the PPI of the TV is going to be abysmal for 1080p at 32''. Secondly, TVs have insane input lag so any sort of fast-paced gaming you can kiss goodbye unless you like playing with snail reaction-times.