Plasma vs LCD gaming and pc use

[radeon747]

Just wondering which of the two would be better of for me. I was thinking on going the Samsun plasma 50" 100hz 1080p looks like a 7 series, because of its size and affordability since it only cost $1496 AUD and the other a Samsung 42" LCD 1080p 100hz 6 series which cost the same help me make a decision thank you. Gaming for xbox 360

[shevanel]

If i had to chose between those 2 I would get the samsung. 100hz is wierd

plus that plasma at that low res will be bad on the eyes with everyday pc use non-gaming stuff.. imo

I would get soemthing like this if i had $1300 HP LP3065 Black-Silver 30" 12ms DVI Widescreen LCD... but I wouldnt use it for gaming.

[radeon747]

Originally Posted by shevanel

If i had to chose between those 2 I would get the samsung. 100hz is wierd

plus that plasma at that low res will be bad on the eyes imo..

There both samsung its ethier a 50 inch plasma or a lcd 42 inch for the same price i was asking which would be better for xbox 360 gaming and pc use a plasma or lcd and they both cost the same

What about led lcds do they make a big differnce for the extra chash just wondering because i have catalog in front of me its a 40 inch for $1900 AUD

[FordGT90Concept]

I would not use a plasma screen for computers. There is a lot of static imagery on the screen (like the taskbar, some desktop icons, and if you never change your wallpaper, that too) that will quickly get burned into the display. They don't make plasma computer screens for a reason.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by shevanel

If i had to chose between those 2 I would get the samsung. 100hz is wierd

plus that plasma at that low res will be bad on the eyes with everyday pc use non-gaming stuff.. imo

I would get soemthing like this if i had $1300 HP LP3065 Black-Silver 30" 12ms DVI Widescreen LCD... but I wouldnt use it for gaming.

100Hz is because aussies use PAL for the TV signals, which runs at 50Hz. so 100Hz is a doubling of that, just like you guys get 120Hz for doubling your 60Hz NTSC signals.


i would get the 42" LCD because its going to be thinner, lighter, and use a ton less power - i also hear of nothing but problems with plasmas overheating in aussie summers and dying early deaths.

There was also a big deal a while back about ghosting and burn in on plasmas, but that may well be fixed by now.

[radeon747]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I would not use a plasma screen for computers. There is a lot of static imagery on the screen (like the taskbar, some desktop icons, and if you never change your wallpaper, that too) that will quickly get burned into the display.

Thanks mate exactly wat i wanted to hear.

[radeon747]

Originally Posted by Mussels

100Hz is because aussies use PAL for the TV signals, which runs at 50Hz. so 100Hz is a doubling of that, just like you guys get 120Hz for doubling your 60Hz NTSC signals.


i would get the 42" LCD because its going to be thinner, lighter, and use a ton less power - i also hear of nothing but problems with plasmas overheating in aussie summers and dying early deaths.

There was also a big deal a while back about ghosting and burn in on plasmas, but that may well be fixed by now.

Are led lcd worth it theres a 40" led lcd series 8 for $1800 wat you think

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by radeon747

Are led lcd worth it theres a 40" led lcd series 8 for $1800 wat you think

i'm a big fan of LED, they do look quite a bit better - and they futher enhance the advantages of LCD (thinner, lighter, lower power usage - thus less heat)