30" monitors vs. 32" LCD TVs

[ojwk]

I've done a quick search but probably not thorough enough. Apologies if this has already been discussed at length.

Considering the pros/cons of a 30" computer monitor vs. a similarly spec'd LCD TV.

I'm looking to buy either to use exclusively as a computer monitor. I don't want it as a TV or for watching blu ray or for playing games consoles.

I want to use it with my Mac Pro and also a custom built gaming computer.

1080p is certainly a minimum, the obvious advantage of Dell/Apple 30" displays is that their resolution is 1600p. Aside from that, monitors are often more than double the price of a 1080p LCD TV.

My question is whether there are any problems I will face using an LCD TV as a computer display, I've noticed on some admittedly older plasmas (720p) that the image looks fairly awful.

Any advice?

 

[namuk]

Budget? as the higher res will be that .. also Bigger is better ..

 

[EndlessWaves]

1080p is certainly a minimum, the obvious advantage of Dell/Apple 30" displays is that their resolution is 1600p.

Their resolution is 2560x1600. Unlike the people in the TV industry computers are designed to handle all different shapes of screen so specifying just one length for a monitor is a bit silly.

My question is whether there are any problems I will face using an LCD TV as a computer display, I've noticed on some admittedly older plasmas (720p) that the image looks fairly awful.

Anyway, I see two potential problems.

1. Low DPI, Big pixels. A 32" TV running at 1920x1080 is 69dpi. That's similar to a 24" screen running at 1440x900, a 22" running at 1280x800 or a 17" display running at 1024x768. As well as everything appearing bigger than usual if you're sitting at the same distance as a monitor you may also find the individual pixels are a bit noticable.

2. Input lag. Some TVs can delay the picture by as much as 300ms while LCD monitors average around 20-30ms (and CRTs are 0ms). As you can imagine, this has a huge impact on any sort of fast paced game. I don't know what the minimum or average delay for TVs are.

I assume you've considered the extra graphics card grunt needed to drive a screen with twice the number of pixels.

p.s. Any reason why you're only considering the Dell and Apple 30" displays? There are several others (the NEC one is supposed to be particulaly good, but is a bit more expensive).

 

[namuk]

MS is not an issue now between LCD tv's and monitors for pc theses days .. in some case's 1080p/24 Lcd tv's are faster than pc monitors ..

one reason to get a 1080p/24 certified screen, only downfall is limitation of resolution .. i.e higher than 1920x1080

 

[ojwk]

Their resolution is 2560x1600. Unlike the people in the TV industry computers are designed to handle all different shapes of screen so specifying just one length for a monitor is a bit silly.



Anyway, I see two potential problems.

1. Low DPI, Big pixels. A 32" TV running at 1920x1080 is 69dpi. That's similar to a 24" screen running at 1440x900, a 22" running at 1280x800 or a 17" display running at 1024x768. As well as everything appearing bigger than usual if you're sitting at the same distance as a monitor you may also find the individual pixels are a bit noticable.

2. Input lag. Some TVs can delay the picture by as much as 300ms while LCD monitors average around 20-30ms (and CRTs are 0ms). As you can imagine, this has a huge impact on any sort of fast paced game. I don't know what the minimum or average delay for TVs are.

I assume you've considered the extra graphics card grunt needed to drive a screen with twice the number of pixels.

p.s. Any reason why you're only considering the Dell and Apple 30" displays? There are several others (the NEC one is supposed to be particulaly good, but is a bit more expensive).

With the majority of new computer displays in 16:10 aspect ratio I think using 1600p is acceptable nomenclature! Easier to illustrate the immediate difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 given they are both in the same ratio.

I'm currently using a 24" 1920x1080 display and the GTX 295 can handle it very nicely. I don't play Crisis and I assume frame rates will still be acceptable for the majority of games at 2560x1600 if I go down the monitor route.

I think the biggest advantage the extra resolution will provide is on the Mac, a bigger workspace would really be useful.

The overall trouble with 30" monitors is the price, and even taking price out of the equation it appears that on the whole LCD TVs have better contrast ratios, response times and refresh rates that would make a difference playing games.

It sort of seems like extremely high resolution vs. expense, contrast ratio, response times and refresh rates. Correct me if I'm wrong..

I only mentioned Apple and Dell as examples because I know they have been around for quite a while and to a certain extent the 30" Apple Cinema Display is synonymous with the type. I'll have a look at the NEC, I know Samsung and Gateway make some that have been critically acclaimed as well.

I think the 30" ACD is due for a update today (at Apple's WWDC 2009) so it might narrow down the choices a bit.

Thanks for all your replies and help!

 

[namuk]

With that card , get the biggest 1080p/24 tv you can afford .. i run my system on a 32" Panasonic 1080p/24 Hdmi 1.3 screen .. dam fine indeed and fast ..

also get Crisis on

 

[ojwk]

With that card , get the biggest 1080p/24 tv you can afford .. i run my system on a 32" Panasonic 1080p/24 Hdmi 1.3 screen .. dam fine indeed and fast ..

also get Crisis on

hehe Crisis does seem appealing..

How close do you sit to the panny?

 

[namuk]

hehe Crisis does seem appealing..

How close do you sit to the panny?

Gaming .. same as a monitor or further away Depends , you have the option

on Hdtv screens though you do need to drop the Contrast or just use a THX Optimizer on a dvd ect this works very well then Tweak in game as you do .

 

[EndlessWaves]

With the majority of new computer displays in 16:10 aspect ratio I think using 1600p is acceptable nomenclature! Easier to illustrate the immediate difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 given they are both in the same ratio.

Except that HD nomenclanture is from the TV/Movie industry where 16:9 is standard, not 16:10, so 1600p should refer to 2844x1600, not 2560x1600. (not that they'd use it, as 1600 doesn't divide by 9 nicely).

I'm currently using a 24" 1920x1080 display and the GTX 295 can handle it very nicely. I don't play Crisis and I assume frame rates will still be acceptable for the majority of games at 2560x1600 if I go down the monitor route.

Yes, that'll probably do

The overall trouble with 30" monitors is the price, and even taking price out of the equation it appears that on the whole LCD TVs have better contrast ratios, response times and refresh rates that would make a difference playing games.

I can't comment on the contrast ratios or response times since I'm still using a CRT TV (which is near perfect for both) and haven't investigated how accurate LCD TV figures are. For reference the best monitors are acheiving around about 1cd/m² black levels at 120cd/m² and ghosting is all but unnoticeable for most people.

I do know about the refresh rate since I researched that myself - it's fake. The monitors only accept 60fps and repeat frames/interpolate. As far as I know the only 100hz+ non-CRT screens on the market are a couple of 120Hz 22" monitors.

 

[k4p84]

I have run my pc on a 40" Sony Bravia for two years.

Yes most tv's dont have the best resolutions so dont go sitting too close to that screen.

Are you getting a large screen to use more as a multi media, movies etc or so you have more screen real estate for cad etc.

I was looking at getting a dell 30" but with the issues these large monitors have i am leaning towards getting a lcd tv instead

ED