should i buy a 4k-monitor or a 4k-tv?

[Guest]

should i buy a 4k-monitor or a 4k-tv to compliment the badass pc im planning on

building around the holiday season (juice the blackfriday/cybermonday/holiday sales) ?

 

ive been looking around newegg and 4k monitors costs just as much as a 4k tv at

walmart BUT! i know monitors have more Hertz (Hz) than tvs; the average tv has

60Hz and  same for monitors  but monitors can reach 120Hz or more, what do

hertz do exactly (im guessing performance)?

 

... Hz was the main difference from the two from what ive seen so far

and these days i treat my 1080 40" tv as if it were a monitor

(via HDMI from my laptop... yeah a laptop, i suck- for the moment)

[aim4it]

Hz is the maximum frame rate the display can handle, anymore then that are are ignored.  I've been using a HD tv as a monitor for years now, and hate it. The picture doesn't seem as clear as my 2nd monitor, and I hate the way TVs handle scaling.

 

If you play alot of FPS then you'll probably want the higher Hz as well.

[Demonwise]

Get a 4k monitor. First off how much content do you think is currently available for a 4K tv? Frankly not much. Now that being said if your thinking of gaming with 4K then you better be rockin at least 2 980's otherwise you won't get much fps. If you really want the most out of 4K right now a monitor is the way to go and if you get something like a 34 inch 4k monitor then its pretty much like getting a tv anyway. 

 

here is a helpful link:

http://www.howtogeek.com/206710/should-you-buy-a-4k-computer-monitor/

[Mister X]

For a PC setup? Definitely get a monitor. TV is not optimized for the tasks a computer monitor has to deal with.

First, PC monitors normally have more Hz, meaning they can produce more pictures per second. 30Hz means 30 pictures/s, 120 Hz are 120 pics/s and so on.

Second, they normally have a better reation time, so the monitor will react faster to the given signals. Though this is mainly important if you play many FPS games

Third, you normally sit at a closer range in front of a monitor compared to a TV screen, lighting and colors are optmized for this short range

 

So basically, buy a monitor for a PC setup. Now you have to think about what you'll mainly do with that setup:

- Office work: At least Full HD, maybe 4k, reaction time less important, color quality unimportant, 30 Hz should suffice

- RPGs / MMOs / Image Manipulation / ...: better 4k, reaction time I'd say max 5ms, color quality quite important, 60-120 Hz should be enough

- FPS / MOBAs / ... : Full HD could suffice, max 2ms reaction time, color quality less important, 120-144 Hz for any fast reaction game

 

So for an Allrounder, I'd suggest Full HD or 2560x1440, with 4ms reaction time and 120 Hz, for color quality you have to trust user experiences. Or you go full ham with something like the ASUS MG279Q, 27" (90LM0103-B01170)

[gregathit]

Pish Posh.  I bought a 4k tv for my main gaming rig's monitor and it is kicking ass and taking names.  

Sony Bravia 43"  XBR43X830C.

 

Fallout 4 in 4k is freaking awesome and Witcher 3 in 4k is fucking unreal!  Having that much screen real-estate is just awesome.  I have a 24" AOC gaming monitor for my modding computer sitting next to it and it just feels "tiny".  

 

I'd have gone bigger than 43", but unfortunately that was as big as I could fit with my current desk setup.  

 

 

However.......I would most certainly agree that your decision needs to depend on your usage and setup (distance from screen and so on).  

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

Well, sure.. but I wouldn't until after they've been out for a while. Prices tend to be more reasonable then, and also usually all or most of the bugs have been worked out by that point, if there are any in this case.

 

If I was going to go 4k, I would probably buy a large TV and use that as a monitor though. But that's just me.

[27X]

Never use a tv for a monitor unless you like getting coffee and doing the dishes in between button presses.

[gregathit]

That just isn't true anymore........unless you are buying a shit tv. 

[27X]

_{It's entirely true else everyone would have moved to tv's from monitors, and pretty much the opposite is happening. The input lag on the average 2K+TV is three times what it is on the same sized monitor, and then you have update lag after that from the screen itself, which is also usually three times higher.}

 

_{For Skyrim or anything else 1pp, you're only gimping yourself, so no harm no foul, in any type of MP or co-op you're not doing anyone any favors.}

 

_{Monitors are physically more complex and cost more for a reason, and that reason is physics, not marketing.}

[gregathit]

Guess someone forgot to tell sony about all that.  My 43" 4k HDTV looks better than my 24" gaming monitor.  Lag free on Witcher 3 and fallout 4 with the highest settings.  I did the research before buying it and it stacked up to all but the most expensive monitor out there.  Course I'm rocking a titan X that is powering it..........so.......

[27X]

Framerate and input lag shall nary the twain meet, again, which is why dedicated monitor panels exist at all.

 

4K (4096x2160) and HD (1920x1080) are also two completely different things, and hitting 60fps locked has nothing to do with input/screen update lag at all.

 

Entirely separate issues, and again playing sp games isn't going to penalize anyone but you, and if you're used to it, there's nothing really more to say.

[Comrade Isbariya]

Monitor > TV! 

Though I don't get the whole 4k thing at all but well I count that as personal taste.

 

Btw my monitor has 75Hz, although I haven't seen applications that let me choose more than 60Hz if they had settings like that anyway. And then... why would anybody want to play games with more than 60FPS anyway? Afaik the human eye wouldn't notice a difference anyway, but your bank account would, with all the stuff you'd need to run anything at 120FPS. (Plus you'd be capping your FPS down to 60 anyway, for several reasons.)

[prinyo]

I'm quite happy with 49inch TV as a monitor. And I'm usually less than a meter away from it. I find it quite immersive and cool. I can't imagine playing it on a monitor now.

If you want to play with 4K textures the biggest problem that seems impossible to solve is the long loading screens. There are tweaks that help fix the FPS and I was able to run Skyrim at 60FPS using GTX960 (there were drops the first few seconds after the loading screen but after that it was stable). 

[Mister X]

Another thing, that should be possible: If you already have a TV, just connect your PC to it and choose the output depending on what you want to do: Playing nice Skyrim or Fallout 4 on a huge screen, take a controller, choose the TV as output and sit on your sofa to enjoy nice gaming.

Wanting to do office work or fast gameplay? Choose a monitor as output and sit at your desk.

 

Like I said, it's not just the Hz or reaction delay, but also its lighting and colors, TVs normally have a more intense lighting as one sits more far away. Sensitive eyes even could be impaired by this lighting, if you sit too close in front of a TV screen for a long time. So don't put a TV screen half a meter in front of you, like you do when sitting at a desk.

[Guest]

Never use a tv for a monitor unless you like getting coffee and doing the dishes in between button presses.

 

what factors into that latency, is it Hertz?

[Guest]

I'm quite happy with 49inch TV as a monitor. And I'm usually less than a meter away from it. I find it quite immersive and cool. I can't imagine playing it on a monitor now.

If you want to play with 4K textures the biggest problem that seems impossible to solve is the long loading screens. There are tweaks that help fix the FPS and I was able to run Skyrim at 60FPS using GTX960 (there were drops the first few seconds after the loading screen but after that it was stable). 

 

wouldnt the load screen issue be fixed by storing steam (and the OS) in a SSD?

i saw a youtube vid that exemplifies HDD vs SSD. FO4 on average loads 3 to 4 times faster

on SSD. the latency from main menu to playing the game (and cell to cell) was 6 seconds.

on HDD it was around 22-32 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqoKUFGjFR0

[gregathit]

Framerate and input lag shall nary the twain meet, again, which is why dedicated monitor panels exist at all.

 

4K (4096x2160) and HD (1920x1080) are also two completely different things, and hitting 60fps locked has nothing to do with input/screen update lag at all.

 

Entirely separate issues, and again playing sp games isn't going to penalize anyone but you, and if you're used to it, there's nothing really more to say.

 

 

Input lag depends greatly on what you have your refresh rate set at.  Some monitors do well at 60, some are shit at 60.  Some can't do 120.  Some are 144.  There is such a glut of monitors out there you have a wide range crap to shift through.  On the whole, yes a monitor gives better performance, everyone knows this.  But DOES IT MATTER, which is the question the OP asks?  Again, depends.  I own both a monitor and a tv.  NOTHING I play, be it MP or SP has called out any difference that I have an issue with.  Maybe I'm just not that picky.  Maybe you are just too anal.  Maybe a bit of both.  My main gaming rig is staying with the 43" tv.  It is just too freaking gorgeous.  My gaming monitor...........well.....it will have to just content itself with modding computer and stick to making animations and playing music.  

 

Besides most of the time the lag you'll have real MP issues with is through internet connections depending on your ping time, the server you are connected to and how loaded it is. 

 

As for the HD vs 4k, yea, I clearly understand the difference in screen resolutions, I just cut and pasted the info from the best buy page, so take the labeling up with them or Sony and knock off the smartassness.

 

[Guest]

 

Whatever, you come off trying to sound smart and haven't said shit.  I own both, I play on both, there is no discernible difference that I have found for input or lag.  Hell, you'll have more lag through internet connections that the stinking monitor depending on your ping time, the server you are connected to and how loaded it is.  And no, I don't just play SP games.  As for the HD vs 4k, yea, I clearly understand the difference in screen resolutions, I just cut and pasted the info from the best buy page, so take the labeling up with them or Sony.

 

Whatever difference there may be, isn't big enough for me to notice.  Stick with your 24" if it makes you happy.  I'm sticking with my 43".  Nuff said.

 

 

holey moley, greg you speak with the passion of 1000 suns.

makes me feel more confident in just getting a tv rather than 

the orthodox monitor

[ousnius]

I can also not recommend buying a TV to use on a PC. It's not only about refresh rates, there's more delays involved in screens than that. Like the time the monitor needs to react to color changes. I'm on an ASUS 27" 1440p 144 Hz with G-Sync myself and it already almost feels too big (yes, screens can be too big, too).

[gregathit]

holey moley, greg you speak with the passion of 1000 suns.

makes me feel more confident in just getting a tv rather than 

the orthodox monitor

 

 

90% of people out there are never going to have an issue with it IMHO.  There are a few that will, and they can get a dedicated monitor high end monitor.  I'll admit, I was skeptical as shit myself before I started looking into it earlier this year and tried it out.  Now you can't go buy a shit tv, you need to look at a decent one.  Google can guide you through the glut of what is on the market.  Don't buy anything that isn't 2016.  The 2015 stuff doesn't have the latest hardware & firmware updates and some do suffer from things that would make it unpleasant as a monitor.  Also, distance from you to the monitor is important.  So don't go too big or you'll cause more problems than you solve.  As with any purchase, look at it from all angles and make the decision that is best for you depending on what you are going to do with the product.

 

One thing to consider is a mid grade 24" monitor in the US is absurdly cheap right now.  Where as a good 4k tv is double to triple the price.  It also depends on what is going to power that monitor or tv.  I'm sporting 2 titan x's in sli for both rigs.  Kinda overkill I know, but oh well.

 

Some further reading on the subject:  http://www.pcgamer.com/how-to-pick-and-tune-a-tv-to-use-as-a-pc-monitor/

[prinyo]

 

I'm quite happy with 49inch TV as a monitor. And I'm usually less than a meter away from it. I find it quite immersive and cool. I can't imagine playing it on a monitor now.

If you want to play with 4K textures the biggest problem that seems impossible to solve is the long loading screens. There are tweaks that help fix the FPS and I was able to run Skyrim at 60FPS using GTX960 (there were drops the first few seconds after the loading screen but after that it was stable). 

 

wouldnt the load screen issue be fixed by storing steam (and the OS) in a SSD?

i saw a youtube vid that exemplifies HDD vs SSD. FO4 on average loads 3 to 4 times faster

on SSD. the latency from main menu to playing the game (and cell to cell) was 6 seconds.

on HDD it was around 22-32 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqoKUFGjFR0

 

 

 

It is on SSD. Vanila Skyrim loading screens are 2-10 seconds. However I installed all 4K texture mods I could find and I ended up with loading screens that lasted more than a minute each.

The thing is - Skyrim at 4K resolution with 4K textures is really amazing (and worth trying on a big screen just to fell how good it is) but at some point the loading screens will drive you crazy. The solution is to be very selective of the 4K (and even HD) textures you install. The logic is - bigger objects need better textures, small objects do not. If you install 4K retexture of weapons and armor you will never notice the difference in the game but you will suffer the performance hit. So the retextures of landscape, roads, houses are fine, retextures of coins, weapons, clutter are not.

[27X]

 

Framerate and input lag shall nary the twain meet, again, which is why dedicated monitor panels exist at all.

 

4K (4096x2160) and HD (1920x1080) are also two completely different things, and hitting 60fps locked has nothing to do with input/screen update lag at all.

 

Entirely separate issues, and again playing sp games isn't going to penalize anyone but you, and if you're used to it, there's nothing really more to say.

 

 

Input lag depends greatly on what you have your refresh rate set at.  Some monitors do well at 60, some are shit at 60.  Some can't do 120.  Some are 144.  There is such a glut of monitors out there you have a wide range crap to shift through.  On the whole, yes a monitor gives better performance, everyone knows this.  But DOES IT MATTER, which is the question the OP asks?  Again, depends.  I own both a monitor and a tv.  NOTHING I play, be it MP or SP has called out any difference that I have an issue with.  Maybe I'm just not that picky.  Maybe you are just too anal.  Maybe a bit of both.  My main gaming rig is staying with the 43" tv.  It is just too freaking gorgeous.  My gaming monitor...........well.....it will have to just content itself with modding computer and stick to making animations and playing music.  

 

Besides most of the time the lag you'll have real MP issues with is through internet connections depending on your ping time, the server you are connected to and how loaded it is. 

 

As for the HD vs 4k, yea, I clearly understand the difference in screen resolutions, I just cut and pasted the info from the best buy page, so take the labeling up with them or Sony and knock off the smartassness.

 

 

Myth. I'm not even talking about the delay from "overdrive" tv that jacks up all the scan rates for "smoothness" which is just simple frame tweening. (which does add monster delay)

 

Response time has nothing to do with input lag, period

 

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2013/feb/16/display-lags-list-monitors-and-hdtvs-based-upon-least-and-most-input-lag/

 

Secondly my monitor is 40" and actual 4K, not QHD or whatever the hell 3840 is, so your extra 3 inches really ain't worth a 20ms input delay and 6 bit color dithering. As I said good enough is an entirely relative measure, and neither Skyrim nor Fallout rely on kind of strict timing for anything. Playing an action game from japan will be an entirely different matter, and I'm not even going to go into trying to play a fighting game on a TV, that's just an endless veil of tears complete with its own set of legends.

 

The entire flap about Street Fighter V "sucking" compared to IV is 8ms of lag difference that completely changes how the game is played, and formerly defensive counterhit fighters that were top 3 tier aren't even in the top 15 any more, so apparently lag does matter quite a bit, dependent on the context it occurs in, and also this: 

 

http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/145141/sub-1-frame-hdtvmonitor-input-lag-database

 

(If you're not a member you won't be able to see the list)

 

 

 

 

HZ

 

That's Vsync lag, and you'll be dealing with that with a TV no matter what, and if you use a low hertz monitor and enable vsync you'll be dealing with it there too, and getting a monitor designed specifically to avoid it will probably add a 200 dollar surcharge on top of whatever else.

 

Another huge issue with TVs that cell alluded is frame time and essentially if your tv isn't a Samsung or Sharp specifically designed to get around this, you're gonna lag, period. Said TVs cost more than 4 grand for a 40 inch model and are exclusive OLED, throw an AMD card on top of that and prepare for vaguely frustrating gameplay unless you play everything on easy or just don't know any better.

 

 

 

 

SSD

 

The entire thing you skipped here in your anecdotal analysis is bandwidth. You could have a Raptor mechanical drive that loads faster than an SSD, provided it was actually hooked up where it's supposed to be. If you're running an SSD on SATA1 or 2 cables to a standard MB connector, you're not going to be getting any speed benefits from it. If you have an SSD for speed reasons, then one would hope you have it connected to either an M2 or S3 connection, cause otherwise it probably isn't remotely loading at max bandwidth if you bought it in the last year. I have 4Kx4 everything + 4K parallax except for characters, which are 8Kx4 excluding humanoid males which are 4Kx4, and my loads are about 10 seconds max onto an exterior because the SSD Skyrim is loaded onto is in a M2 PCIE slot with 32Gigs/s of bandwidth available.

 

 

[Comrade Isbariya]

 

 

 

 

Framerate and input lag shall nary the twain meet, again, which is why dedicated monitor panels exist at all.

 

4K (4096x2160) and HD (1920x1080) are also two completely different things, and hitting 60fps locked has nothing to do with input/screen update lag at all.

 

Entirely separate issues, and again playing sp games isn't going to penalize anyone but you, and if you're used to it, there's nothing really more to say.

 

 

Input lag depends greatly on what you have your refresh rate set at.  Some monitors do well at 60, some are shit at 60.  Some can't do 120.  Some are 144.  There is such a glut of monitors out there you have a wide range crap to shift through.  On the whole, yes a monitor gives better performance, everyone knows this.  But DOES IT MATTER, which is the question the OP asks?  Again, depends.  I own both a monitor and a tv.  NOTHING I play, be it MP or SP has called out any difference that I have an issue with.  Maybe I'm just not that picky.  Maybe you are just too anal.  Maybe a bit of both.  My main gaming rig is staying with the 43" tv.  It is just too freaking gorgeous.  My gaming monitor...........well.....it will have to just content itself with modding computer and stick to making animations and playing music.  

 

Besides most of the time the lag you'll have real MP issues with is through internet connections depending on your ping time, the server you are connected to and how loaded it is. 

 

As for the HD vs 4k, yea, I clearly understand the difference in screen resolutions, I just cut and pasted the info from the best buy page, so take the labeling up with them or Sony and knock off the smartassness.

 

 

Myth. I'm not even talking about the delay from "overdrive" tv that jacks up all the scan rates for "smoothness" which is just simple frame tweening. (which does add monster delay)

 

Response time has nothing to with input lag, period

 

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2013/feb/16/display-lags-list-monitors-and-hdtvs-based-upon-least-and-most-input-lag/

 

Secondly my monitor is 40" and actual 4K, not QHD or whatever the hell 3840 is, so your extra 3 inches really ain't worth a 20ms input delay and 6 bit color dithering. As I said good enough is an entirely relative measure, and neither Skyrim nor Fallout rely on kind of strict timing for anything. Playing an action game from japan will be an entirely different matter, and I'm not even going to go into trying to play a fighting game on a TV, that's just an endless veil of tears complete with its own set of legends.

 

The entire flap about Street Fighter V "sucking" compared to IV is 8ms of lag difference that completely changes how the game is played, and formerly defensive counterhit fighters that were top 3 tier aren't even in the top 15 any more, so apparently lag does matter quite a bit, dependent on the context it occurs in, and also this: 

 

http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/145141/sub-1-frame-hdtvmonitor-input-lag-database

 

(If you're not a member you won't be able to see the list)

 

 

 

 

HZ

 

That's Vsync lag, and you'll be dealing with that with a TV no matter what, and if you use a low hertz monitor and enable vsync you'll be dealing with it there too, and getting a monitor designed specifically to avoid it will probably add a 200 dollar surcharge on top of whatever else.

 

Another huge issue with TVs that cell alluded is frame time and essentially if your tv isn't a Samsung or Sharp specifically designed to get around this, you're gonna lag, period. Said TVs cost more than 4 grand for a 40 inch model and are exclusive OLED, throw an AMD card on top of that and prepare for vaguely frustrating gameplay unless you play everything on easy or just don't know any better.

 

 

 

 

SSD

 

The entire thing you skipped here in your anecdotal analysis is bandwidth. You could have a Raptor mechanical drive that loads faster than an SSD, provided it was actually hooked up where it's supposed to be. If you're running an SSD on SATA1 or 2 cables to a standard MB connector, you're not going to be getting any speed benefits from it. If you have an SSD for speed reasons, then one would hope you have it connected to either an M2 or S3 connection, cause otherwise it probably isn't remotely loading at max bandwidth if you bought it in the last year. I have 4Kx4 everything + 4K parallax except for characters, which are 8Kx4 excluding humanoid males which are 4Kx4, and my loads are about 10 seconds max onto an exterior because the SSD Skyrim is loaded onto is in a M2 PCIE slot with 32Gigs/s of bandwidth available.

 

 

 

 

I'm totally on your side here, but no need to bash AMD at all!  

[27X]

It has nothing to do with bashing, for the last three gens AMD has had a very serious problem with inconsistent spiky frametimes, and they don't seem to be able to solve it.

[Comrade Isbariya]

It has nothing to do with bashing, for the last three gens AMD has had a very serious problem with inconsistent spiky frametimes, and they don't seem to be able to solve it.

 

Then I must have found an exception. Can't complain about my 4GB DDR5 R9 series card at all.

(I only bought the DDR3 version but for whatever reason they sent me the DDR5 card without charging me the extra money it would have cost. )

 

To be honest, I have to say that I don't know about other cards. I'm not really following development unless I'm about to get a new card anyway, or have to compare two or more cards for some reason. So yeah, chances are high that you're right.