Hey i currently play on a 52" samsung smart t.v. When i played halo 3 i moved it from my big screen to my bedroom on a much smaller t.v. and i instantly became 2x better at the game. What are your thoughts on screen size and do you guys think a gaming monitor would be better?
I still use a T.V. just because my accommodations don’t lend them self to a monitor set up at the moment, however I have a friend who claims his play-style improved when he switched to a monitor but he also says he’s become reliant on the advantages of it and does worse when he plays on anything else.
I use a TV. The difference probably had more to do with size than what you’re playing on. At 52 inches there’s no way you’re seeing everything like you would on something say 30 and under.
Sometimes I use the projector gets the side of the garage so I can get a movie gaming going experience , and sometimes I just use the Smart TV.
I have a wide screen Ultra Sharp flat screen monitor on my desk which I use for my computer. And I’ve tried running my XBone on it as well as on a 55 in. Samsung Smart TV about 2 1/2 times further away from me, and a 35 in. Emerson TV just slightly further away from my eyes then my monitor. Both TV’s are flat screen HDMI High Res LCD/LED systems set to game mode for my testing. The results surprised me as the larger screen was the worst no matter the Res and distance set. The monitor was also not as good as expected, except for use with computer-based PC games where it was better than the other two, and the winner for use with my XBone was the smaller TV. With the distance from my eyes and its Resolution set correctly, not only was its color and contrast better, but using it gave less eye strain under long use, and required much less eye movement as I followed players from one side of the screen to the other!
Everyone’s eyes are different however, so in order to find the best combination of screen, Res, and other settings, each individual will have to test each possibility next to every other one at their disposal!
> 2533274802574490;3:
> I use a TV. The difference probably had more to do with size than what you’re playing on. At 52 inches there’s no way you’re seeing everything like you would on something say 30 and under.
The “you’re not seeing everything” doesn’t depend on the absolute size of the display, but how much it fills of your vision. You’re seeing everything as well as necessary unless you’re sitting at a distance less than the display’s vertical height. OP is more likely sitting at the average TV viewing distance of somewhere in the neighborhood of three meters. Moving to a monitor would mean they’d have a smaller display, but they’d likely also be sitting closer. The combined effect is that the new monitor would possibly fill as much, if not more, of their vision.
The reason that somebody performs worse on their big TV could be anything. One possible reason is that Smart TVs are often optimized for image quality rather than speed, and have more or less horrible input lag, which definitely has an effect on performance. It’s also possible OP sat very far from the small TV in their bedroom, and they are just more comfortable with the display filling a very small part of their vision.
Whatever it is, if you really feel like you play better on a smaller screen after extended playing, you should definitely get something smaller. If nothing more, computer monitors generally have less input lag than TVs. Mind you, on the whole “gaming monitor” thing: it’s largely irrelevant for console gamers. The effect of “gaming” branding on products varies from bogus to somewhat meaningful. When it comes to monitors “gaming” these days refers to features such as TN panel with 1 ms response time (not the same as input lag), 75-144Hz refresh rate, G-Sync or Freesync. As far as console gaming is concerned, the two latter features are entirely meaningless because consoles can’t take advantage of them, and response times hardly matter these days, not the least because manufacturers tend to take the lowest measured, rather than the average. TN panels, while their response time is lower, also have worse color reproduction than VA and IPS, which may or may not be relevant. In fact, the low importance of response times is shown by the fact that as it has become possible to manufacture VA and IPS panels with refresh rates higher than 60Hz, the high end “gaming” monitors have moved away from TN.
What all that amounts to is that if you really think you’d like a smaller display: get a computer monitor. However, if you solely plan on using it for console gaming, don’t get fooled by “gaming” branding, which offers little value to you over regular monitors. Just find a reasonably priced 1080p, 60Hz monitor of your preferred size that has HDMI input. If input lag is a worry, make sure that you find a monitor that has been rated at least “Great” on this list. Most monitors have at least decent input lag.
Everyone who says TV hasn’t used a gaming monitor so they are wasting their time by voting in the first place.
But anyway its all down to personal preference although i do find being closer to the screen i have a far easier time seeing my radar in the corner of my eye without having to look at it, which increases awareness a lot, as well as seeing enemies far away, but that may be just me.
Just give both a try for a while and decide then.
Nothing anyone else says matters in this case.
Monitor IPS is the best if you really care about winning and doing better. Just take a look at the difference between the two. http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
Monitor without a doubt
Samsung 65 inch, smart, 3D, 4K ultra curved TV
Monitors are way better when it comes to gaming, not just size but the actual performance of it. I’ve always played on a monitor since the competitive Halo 3 days. Still do with H5 on a BenQ. You would be amazed how different it is in both picture and performance. Plus, you feel like you have more control.
I use a 32" TV I have had for like 4 years now. Because it is what I have. I had to save a lot of money to get that TV back then. It was the first TV I ever bought.
> 2533274820541653;11:
> Monitors are way better when it comes to gaming, not just size but the actual performance of it. I’ve always played on a monitor since the competitive Halo 3 days. Still do with H5 on a BenQ. You would be amazed how different it is in both picture and performance. Plus, you feel like you have more control.
That doesn’t really make sense. Monitors are not different from TVs. For example this little 40" 4K display is always marketed as a monitor, whereas this 24" 1080p beast is a TV. In terms of technology, there is nothing that differentiates a TV from a monitor. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if LG was using the exact panel from that 24" TV in their low-end monitors.
With the same panel technologies being used, there are no inherent performance differences between TVs and monitors. Some monitors have good color reproduction, some TVs have bad color reproduction. Some TVs have good color reproduction, some monitors have bad color reproduction. Some TVs use 120Hz panels, some use 60Hz panels. Some monitors use 60Hz panels, and some 120Hz. You can really just take any panel: 720p/1080p/1440p/4K, 60/75/100/120/144Hz, TN/VA/IPS, 24/32/50/65", and brand it as either a TV or a monitor, and that will decide whether it’s a TV or a monitor.
The moral of the story: the difference between “TV” and “monitor” is completely arbitrary. Buy what you need, not based on what it’s branded as (and this goes for “gaming” branding, too).
I haven’t got to use a gaming monitor yet but is their a big diff
I use a gaming a gaming moniter, great setup for having a trip moniter setup for recording and gaming and being able to surf the web and forums while in the search engines for MM.
> 2533274825830455;13:
> > 2533274820541653;11:
> > Monitors are way better when it comes to gaming, not just size but the actual performance of it. I’ve always played on a monitor since the competitive Halo 3 days. Still do with H5 on a BenQ. You would be amazed how different it is in both picture and performance. Plus, you feel like you have more control.
>
>
> That doesn’t really make sense. Monitors are not different from TVs. For example this little 40" 4K display is always marketed as a monitor, whereas this 24" 1080p beast is a TV. In terms of technology, there is nothing that differentiates a TV from a monitor. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if LG was using the exact panel from that 24" TV in their low-end monitors.
>
> With the same panel technologies being used, there are no inherent performance differences between TVs and monitors. Some monitors have good color reproduction, some TVs have bad color reproduction. Some TVs have good color reproduction, some monitors have bad color reproduction. Some TVs use 120Hz panels, some use 60Hz panels. Some monitors use 60Hz panels, and some 120Hz. You can really just take any panel: 720p/1080p/1440p/4K, 60/75/100/120/144Hz, TN/VA/IPS, 24/32/50/65", and brand it as either a TV or a monitor, and that will decide whether it’s a TV or a monitor.
>
> The moral of the story: the difference between “TV” and “monitor” is completely arbitrary. Buy what you need, not based on what it’s branded as (and this goes for “gaming” branding, too).
As correct as you are i’m pretty sure you just commented for the sake of commenting, when referencing monitor vs tv most people would assume and obviously this guy did, that you are talking about size of screen, response time and input lag, of which this guy is right that monitors due (usually) out perform TVs in all those aspects and more.
Now in relation to the poll it is utterly pointless as its a fact that gaming monitors are better than almost all TVs in almost every way, having a poll would be implying that things like response time, clarity, refresh rate, input lag are subjective which is not true, the poll should say what’s better large screens or small screens, to that, it’s entirely up to the person playing, and there are probably an equal amount of arguments for either.
> 2533274852715856;16:
> As correct as you are i’m pretty sure you just commented for the sake of commenting, when referencing monitor vs tv most people would assume and obviously this guy did, that you are talking about size of screen, response time and input lag, of which this guy is right that monitors due (usually) out perform TVs in all those aspects and more.
>
> Now in relation to the poll it is utterly pointless as its a fact that gaming monitors are better than almost all TVs in almost every way, having a poll would be implying that things like response time, clarity, refresh rate, input lag are subjective which is not true, the poll should say what’s better large screens or small screens, to that, it’s entirely up to the person playing, and there are probably an equal amount of arguments for either.
The point I’m really trying to make is that you really need to look at what features you need. That you shouldn’t just look for a “gaming monitor”, but a display with whatever features you need. In particular, although you may be right, I don’t really find it so clear that people are talking about size when they make the distinction between TV and monitor. The reason being that my current display is a 32" monitor, which is as big as my TV was some ten years ago. I wouldn’t have what I needed had I been clueless to restrict myself to TVs because I thought 32" is a TV size.
Also, monitors aren’t better than TVs in “almost every way”. They are often better in regards to what gamers care about, i.e., input lag and refresh rates, because the metrics are largely irrelevant for the normal TV use. (As an aside, response time isn’t necessarily that big of a problem on TVs due to the sports crowd that cares about low motion blur, and so the manufacturers have an incentive to eliminate ghosting artifacts.) In terms of color reproduction, contrast, and viewing angles you likely won’t find great differences between TVs and monitors because the panel technologies are the exact same with plasma having been discontinued, save for the bad TN panels in some low-end and gaming monitors. Then there’s of course OLED which hasn’t made its way to monitors yet, but is superior to LCD literally in almost every way. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to say “TVs are superior”, just because OLED TVs are. Which is precisely the point: TVs and monitors vary so much that it doesn’t make sense to say one category of displays is better than the other.
I started using a computer monitor when I realized graphic latency decreased and I perform way better because of it.
I use a TV…much more easier than using a monitor.
> 2535408099137588;1:
> Hey i currently play on a 52" samsung smart t.v. When i played halo 3 i moved it from my big screen to my bedroom on a much smaller t.v. and i instantly became 2x better at the game. What are your thoughts on screen size and do you guys think a gaming monitor would be better?
Anyone who tells you a tv is better has no idea what input lag is. Go to twitch.TV and ask any of the pros who stream what they use.