Monitor vs Television, Help Me Decide

[1BRAVO9]

For about the last 10 years I have been gaming on a PC exclusively.

Prior to that it was about 70 -30 ratio console to PC.

The reason for the majority console play is that I played mostly BF and some racing games.

Then I found MMOs like WoTs and War Thunder and completely abandoned the console.

About a month ago I got the itch to play some racing games and decided I would get a PS5 so I could play GT7.

When I got the PS5 I decided I would get a "gaming" TV as well.

The only one I could find locally was a Samsung cu7000 43 inch at Best Buy. From what I could see it was considered a "gaming" TV, or one that was favorable for gaming.

Being that I've played a PC exclusively for so long I sit at my desk and play the PS5 just like I would my PC.

So when I play my PC I play on a Dell 32 inch 4k gaming monitor, G3223Q. And when I play my console I play on the TV which is also 4k.

I'm wondering if it would just be better to use one monitor/TV for both.

Right now about 70% of my gaming is DCS World and when using my HOTAS it moves me a little further from the viewing source. Therefore the TV and increased "real estate" would be nice.

But I know right out of the gate I would be sacrificing FPS. Would it be worth it?

What else should I consider? What would you do?

Any advice or opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Just FYI, here is my PC specs.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X​

32 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090
Windows 11

 

[Brian Boru]

Pending expert advice, this may help:

The best gaming TV in 2023

Grab the best gaming TV and immerse yourself in the big-screen PC experience.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[1BRAVO9]

Pending expert advice, this may help:

The best gaming TV in 2023

Grab the best gaming TV and immerse yourself in the big-screen PC experience.

www.pcgamer.com

Thanks, I appreciate the response.

 

[COLGeek]

Something often ignored/misunderstood in this decision is viewing distance. TVs are meant to be viewed from a greater distance than a monitor is. The can have impact on viewing angles and "sharpness".

For gaming, I would recommend a proper monitor.

 

[1BRAVO9]

Something often ignored/misunderstood in this decision is viewing distance. TVs are meant to be viewed from a greater distance than a monitor is. The can have impact on viewing angles and "sharpness".

For gaming, I would recommend a proper monitor.

Thanks for responding, and I value your advice but distance is one of my points.

Because of the distance from the monitor and the edge of the desk, along with the added distance that the HOTAS mounts add I'm further back than you would be ideally for a monitor. Especially compared to other types of gaming where I am not using a HOTAS.

 

[COLGeek]

Thanks for responding, and I value your advice but distance is one of my points.

Because of the distance from the monitor and the edge of the desk, along with the added distance that the HOTAS mounts add I'm further back than you would be ideally for a monitor. Especially compared to other types of gaming where I am not using a HOTAS.

Tracking. Go with what you prefer then. Really a personal preference anyway.

 

[1BRAVO9]

Tracking. Go with what you prefer then. Really a personal preference anyway.

Don't think I wasn't valuing your input because I do, very much so.

I just wanted to make sure you know that the viewing distance being a little more than usual was a consideration.

 

[COLGeek]

I have a couple friends that tried the TV route and it was okay until they tried to use for general purpose use (word processing). Then the fuzziness of the TV, up close and personal, was literally headache inducing.

Sounds like you have a reasonable plan for how you'll use.

 

[1BRAVO9]

I have a couple friends that tried the TV route and it was okay until they tried to use for general purpose use (word processing). Then the fuzziness of the TV, up close and personal, was literally headache inducing.

Sounds like you have a reasonable plan for how you'll use.

What do you think about the difference in FPS?

On my monitor I'm getting 100+ with the RTX 4090

On the TV I'm limited to 60.

I would hate to have that 4090 and what it cost and not take full advantage of it.

 

[COLGeek]

What do you think about the difference in FPS?

On my monitor I'm getting 100+ with the RTX 4090

On the TV I'm limited to 60.

I would hate to have that 4090 and what it cost and not take full advantage of it.

Yep, that is certainly a factor. There are TVs with a higher refresh rate and they cost more.

While FPS is a metric for performance, there comes a point in most uses where more FPS becomes meaningless. I know that sounds odd, but at what point does FPS impact gaming performance and when does it really not?

What is your budget? With that, we can look at options and go from there.

 

[Brian Boru]

friends that tried the TV route and it was okay until they tried to use for general purpose use (word processing). Then the fuzziness of the TV, up close and personal, was literally headache inducing

That experience is not universal

I've used TVs as monitors for ~20 years, far more for work than for play, and I'll fight a 2"x4" duel with anyone who tries to replace them with smaller monitors—currently 2 x 42" sitting about 30" away. Same for my GF and biz partner, after she experienced my setup—with word processing one of the major components of our work.

That said, if I got 2 monitors same size for same money, I'd consider the monitor route. Some old notes from ~4 years ago—prob out-of-date now, as TVs have been improving a lot lately:
Monitor +

Speed​

Color Accuracy​

Aspect ratios​

TV +

Price​

Size​

Contrast​

Cinematic Look​

Ports + AirPlay​

Multiple Inputs​

OTA Tuner​

there comes a point in most uses where more FPS becomes meaningless

That's the thing. A lot depends on how sensitive your eyes are—I've never heard of anyone tested to see over 100 FPS, with most considerably lower. I strongly suspect higher FPS is a marketing scam to encourage new and expensive purchases.

This article, well worth reading…

How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

30 fps? 60 fps? If you've ever debated framerates, the cognitive researchers we spoke to have some complex answers for you.

www.pcgamer.com

…says:
"you can most definitely perceive the difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz"

"he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz"

"It’s clear from the literature that you cannot see anything more than 20 Hz"

“When you want to do visual search, or multiple visual tracking or just interpret motion direction, your brain will take only 13 images out of a second of continuous flow, so you will average the other images that are in between into one image.”

"Just because you can see the difference, it doesn’t mean you can be better in the game"

So it's not a straightforward 'X is better' situation

 

[COLGeek]

That experience is not universal

I've used TVs as monitors for ~20 years, far more for work than for play, and I'll fight a 2"x4" duel with anyone who tries to replace them with smaller monitors—currently 2 x 42" sitting about 30" away. Same for my GF and biz partner, after she experienced my setup—with word processing one of the major components of our work.

That said, if I got 2 monitors same size for same money, I'd consider the monitor route. Some old notes from ~4 years ago—prob out-of-date now, as TVs have been improving a lot lately:
Monitor +

Speed​

Color Accuracy​

Aspect ratios​

TV +

Price​

Size​

Contrast​

Cinematic Look​

Ports + AirPlay​

Multiple Inputs​

OTA Tuner​

Agreed. Details and preferences certainly matter.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

What do you think about the difference in FPS?

On my monitor I'm getting 100+ with the RTX 4090

On the TV I'm limited to 60.

I would hate to have that 4090 and what it cost and not take full advantage of it.

Going to muddy the waters with my experience, having gone from 60hz without VRR to 144 hz with VRR about 4 years ago (VRR being the key) I would never go back to Vsynced 60hz for gaming. It might not bother me so much of I'd never seen it, but the difference in smoothness is huge at over 60 FPS when youre moving fast, and you dont get any input lag or stuttery feeling you get when your GPU is outputting over 60 with Vsync on. Especially when using a screen with fast pixel response times, so you dont get any smearing and blurring added in to the equation.

144, 500hz whatever. To me the main thing is that the GPUs framerate output is matched to the screen referesh rate using Gsync or Freesync, and the monitor refresh rate is high enough that you arent hitting it, or at least not way over it all the time.

Talking single player action games here, I couldnt tell you if CSGO pros really can tell the difference in responsiveness at over 200hz or not, and in a turn based or strategy game it doesnt matter much, although it is noticeable to me when the frame rate slows down under 60.