Would this tv be any good as a monitor for my desktop pc?

Eric_Pisch

ih8stress wrote: »

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

sammys are fine units

for a tv / pc monitor you want full hd which is 1920*1080 resolution

QUOTE]


I don't really need it as a tv (it's just that the original posting was of a tv),
just as a pc monitor - so does it still need to be 1920*1080 resolution?

yes, resolution is far more important for a pc imo otherwise you will get a very small desktop and you could start to have issues with websites displaying properly

aliEnRIK

ih8stress wrote: »

I don't really need it as a tv (it's just that the original posting was of a tv),
just as a pc monitor - so does it still need to be 1920*1080 resolution?

Unless your planning on watching blurays or playing games at 1080 then youd be better off with a monitor due to how small everything would look if scaled to 1080 (And thats even if the graphics card would allow it)
My monitor is 22" widescreen and measures 1680*1050
If it was any higher id struggle to read text etc

Eric_Pisch

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Again, your confusing response time with lag

Response time is the time taken for a pixel to turn from black to white and back to black again (usually)
Anything under 10ms is fine
LAG is the time taken from when the unit receives the signal to when it actually displays it and can EASILY be over 50ms (Average is 30 on flatscreens)
Its why hardcore gamers still use CRT tvs as they have near zero lag

not seen any gamers using a CRT for over 5 years now, unless they had a very low powered rig and needed the low rez to compensate for the lack of power

I had a del 24" and a BenQ 24" at 8ms 6ms and both had visable lag when panning side to side in MW2, went to 2 LG 24" with 2ms and the "lag" vanished, smooth as a babys bum.

Still cant hold a candle to my plasma of course

Eric_Pisch

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Unless your planning on watching blurays or playing games at 1080 then youd be better off with a monitor due to how small everything would look if scaled to 1080 (And thats even if the graphics card would allow it)
My monitor is 22" widescreen and measures 1680*1050
If it was any higher id struggle to read text etc

I should have said I made the assumption the pc supports 1920*1080 rez and the TV allows native dot by dot mapping (ie no scaling) which my main TV and PC do

as for the size of the text, size of the screen, distance, and how good your eyes are all affect what you can read, its extremely simple to increase text size as well in windows

aliEnRIK

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

not seen any gamers using a CRT for over 5 years now, unless they had a very low powered rig and needed the low rez to compensate for the lack of power

I had a del 24" and a BenQ 24" at 8ms 6ms and both had visable lag when panning side to side in MW2, went to 2 LG 24" with 2ms and the "lag" vanished, smooth as a babys bum.

Still cant hold a candle to my plasma of course

(sighs)

Take a look at this (Scroll down)
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-ue40b8000-20091211161.htm

quote "Reflex-dependent first-person shooters like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (online multiplayer mode) felt sluggish and “heavy” on the Samsung UE40B8000 HDTV because high-ish input lag. In most picture modes, we measured the input lag on the UE40B8000 to be around 70ms to 80ms slower than our resident Samsung F96 LED-backlit LCD TV (which had [Game Mode] enabled)."

ih8stress

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Unless your planning on watching blurays or playing games at 1080 then youd be better off with a monitor due to how small everything would look if scaled to 1080 (And thats even if the graphics card would allow it)


I'm not planning on watching blurays or doing any intensive gaming. Mainly just surfing, photo editing, word processing etc. The video card is: Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X4500 Graphics
My monitor is 22" widescreen and measures 1680*1050
If it was any higher id struggle to read text etc

So are you saying I should be looking for a 1680*1050 monitor then?

Eric_Pisch

aliEnRIK wrote: »

(sighs)

Take a look at this (Scroll down)
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-ue40b8000-20091211161.htm

quote "Reflex-dependent first-person shooters like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (online multiplayer mode) felt sluggish and “heavy” on the Samsung UE40B8000 HDTV because high-ish input lag. In most picture modes, we measured the input lag on the UE40B8000 to be around 70ms to 80ms slower than our resident Samsung F96 LED-backlit LCD TV (which had [Game Mode] enabled)."

slightly cheating there using a LED tech which are generally slower for gaming rigs against back light units, especially when lower costing units are back light

as a side note thou I do agree with you about going for a dedicated monitor as they are more geared for gaming etc

Eric_Pisch

ih8stress wrote: »

So are you saying I should be looking for a 1680*1050 monitor then?

this is a very personal thing depending on how good your eyes are, i personal dislike the loss of resolution on a 1680 rez screen but have no problem with fine detail, but this is purely a personal thing (i actually really hate going from a 1920*1200 to 1920*1080 monitor)

aliEnRIK

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

slightly cheating using there using a LED tech which are generally slower for gaming rigs against back light units, especially when lower costing units are back light

as a side note thou I do agree with you about going for a dedicated monitor as they are more geared for gaming etc

My point was simple, response times and LAG are 2 entirely different things

aliEnRIK

ih8stress wrote: »

So are you saying I should be looking for a 1680*1050 monitor then?

I would personally yes