Hardware & Technical Monitor or TV - 4K

Early in the new year I'm thinking of upgrading from my 28" monitor to something a bit more exotic.

I'm after 4K resolution but looking at screens and prices, would it not make more sense to buy a TV instead of a monitor?

Current rig is running i7 @ 4.4 and GTX 780Ti.

I've also toyed with the idea of a HD projector. Any thoughts, anyone?
 
Just my opinion of course, but I think we are at least 1-2 generations of (single) GPUs away from 4K to really becoming feasible as a gaming resolution. Your 780Ti might even do ok in Elite at 4K, since it is not a very GPU intensive game (you're mostly seeing empty space, after all), but I'm not so sure the same can be said for other games. If I were in your shoes I would probably go for the HD projector.
 

MACMAN86

Banned
I got Samsung Curved H8000 series TV (2xHD 2160) which upscale. I liked the curved look as it brings immersion rather than a flat wall. Not tried PC on that as its so big at 46". So I found Samsung Curved 27" Monitor, fixed at 60hz so no 3D, and like this. To spend 4k TV prices you are best waiting for Oculus Rift release.
 
I got Samsung Curved H8000 series TV (2xHD 2160) which upscale. I liked the curved look as it brings immersion rather than a flat wall. Not tried PC on that as its so big at 46". So I found Samsung Curved 27" Monitor, fixed at 60hz so no 3D, and like this. To spend 4k TV prices you are best waiting for Oculus Rift release.

I will be looking at the rift when it goes to commercial release, but I need something to watch streamed media on too.
 
Just remember that monitors have finer dot pitch (dots are closer together) and TV have coarser pitch. This is because monitors are designed to be viewed from a close distance while TVs, especially the bigger ones, are really designed to be viewed from across the room. If you used to watch an old 20" TV from 4 feet away, you wouldn't do the same if you bought a 50" widescreen TV.

In any case, this will be dependent on your needs and current setup. Projectors may be cool but would be a pain to mount and re-locate. I'd only use it if I had a dedicated man-cave. With wide walls. If I were gaming in my living room, then I'd go for a TV, plus find a way so I can play while sat in my favorite recliner. I have a flight sim cockpit so monitors are a better option for me.

Having said that, have you considered wide-screen triple-monitor gaming? More peripheral view = better situation awareness.
 
If you get a quality TV with a high refresh rate, either would work. I use a 32" 1080P TV as my main monitor and love it. Any bigger with 1080 and it wouldn't work though, as it would be too fuzzy for text and stuff up-close. A 4k one wouldn't have that, but still wouldn't go too big if you are wanting to use it up fairly close as a monitor. Monitor would have a little better performance generally, but also tend to be much more expansive for the size. Also, as others have said, you will need good cards in SLI or Crossfire to get decent performance gaming at 4k. A single high-end card still really doesn't cut it. Maybe in a year or two one will.

What I would like to know is why people are letting them get by with calling them 4k, they aren't. Resolutions have traditionally gone by the vertical pixel count. A 16x9 widescreen at 1080p has a resolution of 1080x1920. A 4k widescreen tv or monitor is 2160x3840. We should be calling these things 2.2k, not 4k. Bah, marketers.
 
Last edited:
Also consider that a monitor is designed to display static images at close viewing and a TV dynamic/moving images from afar. This means they will often use a much lower quality panel on a TV screen. It's fine for games but might get a bit tiring for normal use.

I'm waiting on 4k OLED sets for my next tv purchase but there's only one LG model at $12k at the moment so I might have a bit of a wait! My next monitor will probably be a 4k 30" 60Hz native IPS panel and I'm hopeful there should be some good offerings for these in 2015
 
Back
Top Bottom